Numerals Inserted With Abundant Caution Can’t Add, Modify Or Override Provision Itself: Madras HC Validates Candidate’s MLIS Degree In Recruitment Case
The Madras High Court held that the numerals that are inserted by way of abundant caution cannot add, modify, or override the provision itself.
The Court held thus in a writ petition preferred by a candidate who was not considered as possessing a Post-Graduate Degree and hence, was not selected for the post of Typist by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC).
A Single Bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed, “… the contention of respondent TNPSC is that the petitioner’s qualification of M.L.I.S is not valid as per Clause 25 (Explanation-I) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 … If one reads the said clause, it would be clear that except for the indication in numerals (10+2+3+2 or 3), the petitioner’s qualification is a valid Post-Graduate degree. To be more precise the relevant statute, when it describes the valid Post-Graduate degree in words, does not lay down two years or three years period. However, the numbers 10+2+3+2 or 3 are also given in brackets to provide illustrative clarity. The numerals that are inserted by way of abundant caution cannot add, modify or override the provision itself.”
The Bench added that on a plain reading of the words contained in the statute, it can be seen that the candidate’s M.L.I.S (Master of Library and Information Science) degree is valid.
Senior Advocate G. Sankaran appeared for the petitioner while Standing Counsel G. Hema and Additional Government Pleader Stalin Abhimanyu appeared for the respondents.
In this case, there existed a post of Typist in the various services under the Government of Tamil Nadu namely, Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service, Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service etc. The said post was to be filled via direct recruitment from candidates possessing minimum general educational qualification. While so, by a notification, the respondent/TNPSC advertised for the said recruitment and the petitioner candidate who was fully qualified for the post of Typist under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste, duly applied for the same. He possessed Undergraduate Degree of B.A. (Tamil) and Post-Graduate Degrees of M.L.I.S and M.B.A.
However, while filling up the application form, there was only one option to upload a PG degree and hence, the petitioner uploaded M.L.I.S degree only. His application was found to be in order and he was issued a Hall ticket. He participated in written examination and obtained 201 marks. He was eligible to considered under SC quota and as having the higher qualification of PF degree. He was issued with a call letter to attend the certificate verification/counselling and the respondent concluded that his PG degree which is only for a one-year duration, cannot be considered as a valid one. As a result, he was not selected and therefore, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “A useful reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Reserve Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., wherein while construing Section 45 (K3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, after finding the inclusive phrase has been added by way of abundant caution, it is held that such phrase cannot restrict the provision and the words in the provision have to be given their natural meaning”
The Court said that the entire purpose of the clause 25 of 2016 Act is to implement the dictum of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University v. Secretary to Government and Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 590, whereby, it was held that any qualification of Higher Secondary or its equivalent, cannot be valid unless it is preceded by the valid 10th Standard or its equal qualification.
“Similarly, an Undergraduate course should be preceded by a Higher Secondary or Pre-University course. A Post-Graduate degree should be preceded by an Undergraduate degree. The purpose of the entire Clause 25 quoted above is only the same. While using numerals, the draftsman has thought about an Undergraduate course of three years duration and a Post-Graduate duration of two years or three years duration. However, a Post-Graduate degree can be 10+2+3+2, 10+2+4+1, 10+2+5+1, 10+2+3+3 etc.”, it observed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that there are also one-year Post-Graduate courses such as Master of Law and Master of Library Science which are valid degrees as per the UGC norms and therefore, just because the numerals which were mainly intended to clarify S.S.L.C (minimum 10 years of study) + Higher Secondary (minimum two years of study) + Undergraduate + Post Graduate, the petitioner’s M.L.I.S cannot be rejected as an invalid degree for Government Service and such an approach would be a pedantic approach.
“Therefore, a proper reading of the said clause would be that the Post Graduate degree holder should have undergone a minimum of 12 years of school education consisting of S.S.L.C equal to 10th Standard or Matriculation etc., + Higher Secondary of two years equal to Pre-University course etc., and thereafter undergone a valid undergraduate degree before joining the Post-Graduate degree. The purpose of the rule is to eliminate the candidates possessing a direct Post-Graduate without even these basic qualifications and it is not concerned with the duration of the Post-Graduate course. Therefore, the approach adopted by the respondent TNPSC is an incorrect reading of the rule and the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this score also”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that in the post of Typist where there are vacancies at any given time, the petitioner can be accommodated in any subsequent vacancy without the challenge being made to the selection and appointment of the next candidate and without dislodging the candidate who is selected in the place of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned communication, and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner.
Cause Title- K. Paranthaman v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:2309)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate G. Sankaran and Advocate S. Nedunchezhiyan.
Respondents: Standing Counsel G. Hema and AGP Stalin Abhimanyu.
