Sh. Parmanand Prasad vs Staff Selection Commission And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1026 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Hindi Translator, the essential qualification wherefor was:

"Master's Degree in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as a compulsory and Elective subject at Degree level.

OR

Bachelor's Degree with Hindi and English as Main subjects (which included the term compulsory and Elective).

OR

BA (Hons.) in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as subsidiary/Mil subjects.

2. The petitioner is MA in English. He is his three-year Bachelor of Arts examination studied Hindi for one hundred marks. He, however, did not study Hindi in all the three years but merely in the first and second years. His candidature for appointment to the said post was rejected, as he was not found eligible therefore. It was communicated to him by a Memorandum dated 18th January 2002 which reads as under:

"It is noted and observed that Shri Parmanand Prasad has studied Hindi subject only in his B.A. Degree i.e. 1st year and 2nd year only of 100 marks and not in all the three years, Degree course consists of all the 3 years and part study of any subject would not serve the requirement. It is further noted that Hindi subject is not his main subject. His main subjects are English, History and Economics which are of 300 marks each. In B.A. 3rd years, he has studied English (Hons.) subject although he is M.A. in English but in B.A. he has not studied Hindi subject as Main subject in all the 3 years."

3. The said Memorandum dated 18th January 2002 was the subject mater of the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was marked as OA No. 367/2000. The learned Tribunal relying on its earlier decisions in Ram Chandra Mahto v. Union of India, OA NO. 184/2001 decided on 28th August 2001 and Amrendra Kumar Pandey v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr., OA No. 1350/2001 decided on 18th September 2001 as also the judgment of this court dated 26th September 2001 in CW No. 6567/2000 held that the petitioner does not fulfill the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Hindi Translator.

4. The Original Application having been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner approached this court.

5. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned counsel would contend that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was having the qualification of MA in English with Hindi as a compulsory/elective subject at the Degree level, he was qualified for appointment to the post of Junior Hindi Translator. According to the learned counsel, having regard to the fact that as he was having Hindi as a compulsory/elective subject, fulfillled the eligibility criteria. In this connection, the petitioner in his writ petition has contended:

"In the University in which the petitioner did his B.A. (P) course, the rules provided that a student while studying in the Pass Course required to opt for one Modern Indian Language (MIL) which was compulsory apart from the other subjects being studied by the candidate and the marks stipulated for the Modern Indian Language was 100."

6. The petitioner in the writ petition further contended;

"The rules framed by the University specified that candidates were to choose the optional subject, in which they wanted to pursue their post graduation education and a candidate having English as the optional subject was left with the only option of keeping Hindi as the main and compulsory subject of 100 marks only. Furthermore it was the qualification of M.A. (Eng.) possessed by the petitioner which made him eligible for the post of Junior Hindi Translator as per the stipulations in the advertisement.... Even the syllabus published by the Delhi University stipulates the same Rules i.e. an English (Honors) student can study Hindi one paper consisting of 100 marks only as MIL (Modern Indian Language) only during the first two years of degree course and in the third year only English is taught."

7. Our attention had further been drawn to the fact that allegedly in a similar situation, other persons in the earlier years had been appointed as Junior Hindi Translator.

8. Mr. Maninder Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to the several orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal as also the judgments of this court for the purpose of establishing that the petitioner's case is also covered thereby.

9. The contention of the petitioner to the effect that compulsorily he was required to undergo study of Hindi for the total marks of hundred in the first year and the second year, does not appear to be correct.

10. From the mark-sheet which has been appended with the writ petition and marked as Annexure 2, it appears that Modern Language Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Nepali, Maihali Samtha etc. containing 300 marks was available. The petitioner did not choose to undergo study in Modern Language carrying 300 marks but opted for only Modern Indian Language Hindi.

11. In a similar situation, the Central Administrative Tribunal in Ram Chandra Mahto v. Union of India (supra), held:

"6. We have carefully considered the matter. The post of Jr. Hindi Translator is a post in which, under normal circumstances, proficiency in both English and Hindi is called for because correct translation from one language to another and vice versa would be possible only then. Hence the following qualification enumerated in the advertisement. Educational qualifications: "Master Degree in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as a compulsory and elective subject at Degree level or Bachelors Degree with Hindi & English as main subject (which includes the terms compulsory and elective).

Note 1. Those candidates who have passed BA (Hons.) in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as a subsidiary/MIL subject are eligible for the post of Jr. Hindi Translators".

Evidently, therefore, what is required is the study of Hindi or English as the main subject either at the graduate level and/or the post graduate level, with English or Hindi being the subsidiary subject. The prescribed qualification does not permit of any one from any other stream, who has studied any other subject, as the main subject with English and Hindi being subsidiary subjects, as the applicant had done. Note 1 above makes the position clearer still. Neither the fact that he had studied his subjects, even up to graduate level in Hindi or that he had scored fairly good marks in Hindi and/or English at graduate level when he studied them as subjects subsidiary to Geography, his main subject, does not bring him within the parameters of the educational qualification shown in the advertisement. Permitting such an interpretation would defeat the job requirement of "translating Govt. documents from Hindi to English and vice-versa". The same cannot be endorsed. Even the fact that another candidate similarly placed has been appointed as Jr. Translator though selection in the same examination also would not help the cause of the applicant, as one mistake does not create law and justify another. In this connection, we also note that the respondents have undertaken to rectify the mistake, if found to be true."

12. In another case namely Amendra Kumar Pandey v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr. (supra), the Tribunal noted the contention of the petitioner that:

"...the applicant has done Hindi for two years in his course from 1987-1989, although this examination itself was held by Bhagalpur University, State of Bihar in the third year i.e. in 1989. Admittedly, the marks for Hindi examination of two years was out of 100 marks and the applicant obtained 44 marks in the subject. In paragraph 5.10 of the O.A., the applicant has contended, inter-alia, that the respondents ought to have sought applications from candidates who had passed Degree examination on three years basis and they ought to reduce the age eligibility as no such course as the respondents are looking for is available in any University in the State of Bihar including, Bhagalpur University from where the applicant obtained his B.A. (Hons.) Degree in English in 1990. He has also submitted that the applicant is fully qualified as per Note 1 annexed to the Educational qualifications prescribed by the respondents in their Notification calling for applications from eligible candidates who would like to be considered for recruitment to the post of JHT."

13. Upon noticing the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal held that "on a perusal of the Degree obtained by the applicant from Bhagalpur University read with the marks sheet relied upon by him, we are satisfied that the applicant has not done Hindi for all the three years in his BA (Hons) course in English" and on that basis dismissed the Original Application.

14. In Binay Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., CW No. 6567/2000, this court upon taking into consideration the qualifications required for the post, observed:

"There was a note appended thereto as Note- 1, which stated that those candidates who have passed B.A. (Hons.) in English/Hindi with Hindi/English as subsidiary/MIL subject, are eligible for the post of Junior Hindi Translator pursuant to the said application and the eligibility criteria in terms of the advertisement and as he had succeeded in the examination, he is required to be appointed to the aforesaid post. He also submits that cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner, after he was declared successful in the examination, is barred by the principles of waiver and estoppels."

15. This court held that the said plea was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed the petition.

16. The matter stands concluded by a recent decision of this Bench in Amrendra Kumar Pandey v. Staff Selection Commission and Anr., CWP 580/2002 decided on 11th April 2002 wherein this court held:

"It is not in dispute that the petitioner had obtained BA Degree with Hindi, English, History and LSW subjects. He has studied Hindi only of 100 marks. However English, History and LSW subjects carried 300 marks each. In the third year, he had studied BA (Hons) in English. He thus had not studied Hindi language in all the three years in a degree course as his main subjects were English, History and LSW which were of 300 marks each whereas Hindi was only of 100 marks.

The Central Government in its letter of June 1998 inter alia stated:

"3. Regarding Staff Selection Commission's query in para (2) of their reference No. 3/6/97-P&P-I dated 21.4.98 a candidates who has studied Hindi/English or English & Hindi during a part of the Degree course is not considered to be eligible for the post of Junior Hindi Translators.

4. It is requested that on the basis of the above indicated vacancies Junior Hindi Translator's Examination for the year 1997 may be arranged to be conducted at the earliest."

As the afore-mentioned letter had already been issued prior to the said advertisement, there cannot be any doubt that the respondents must have the same in their mind while laying down the qualifications.

The educational qualification, as stated in the advertisement, inter alia, was a Bachelor's degree with Hindi and English as main subjects which includes "compulsory" and "elective" subjects. The note appended to the Rule afore-mentioned could not have carried a different meaning nor the said note could have been construed to be an exception or proviso to the main provision.

In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors., 2nd (2001) AP 1, a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has noticed thus:

"24. The meaning of "note" as per P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, 1997 Edition is 'a brief statement of particulars of some fact', a passage or explanation. 'Explanation' has various functions. In S. Sundaram v. R. Pattabhiraman (AIR 1985 582) at para 52 it has been held:

"Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is-

(a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself

(b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve,

(c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful,

(d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevent for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and

(e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same."

25. It is, therefore, evident that the note (2) appended to G.O.Ms. No. 179 dated 28.6.1990 that the scheme shall not affect the existing town services operating on the notified routes is merely clarificatory in nature which was appended so as to obviate the difficulties that may be faced by the existing town services operating on the notified rutes but the same cannot by itself take away the statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed nor it can interfere with or change the enactment or any part of the statute."

The note, therefore, was merely an explanatory in nature and thereby the rigor of main provision was not diluted.

Furthermore, the dictionary meaning of the word "subsidiary" may cannot different meaning in different contexts. The said word as defined in Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, Unbridged would mean:

"Subsidiary, a. 1. Acting as a supplement; giving aid, support, service, etc.; auxiliary, especially in a secondary or subordinate capacity.

2. Relating or pertaining to a subsidy; founded on or connected with a subsidy or subsidies; as, a subsidiary treaty."

Thus, it may mean 'acting as a supplement'.

As noticed hereinbefore, the essential educational qualification, inter alia, was a Bachelor's degree with Hindi and English as the main subjects. When the subject of Hindi carrying 300 marks was available, if the petitioner on his own choice had opted for a subject carrying 100 marks, the same, in our opinion, would not fulfill the eligibility criteria."

17. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the instant case is covered by the afore-mentioned decision. The submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner had obtained MA Degree in English does not make any difference in view of the fact that the petitioner does not fulfill the essential qualification so far as the subject of Hindi is concerned.

18. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without any orders as to costs.