Ashok Bhushan, J.
1. Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
This is an application seeking review/ recall of the judgement and order dated 13.11.2007 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. By the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for quashing the order dated 18.10.2007, passed by the Joint Director of Education returning the proposal of the petitioner's promotion as Lecturer Hindi on the ground that the petitioner having not passed B.A. with Sanskrit was not eligible for promotion on the post of Lecturer Hindi. The petitioner is postgraduate in Hindi and has passed two years course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed taking the view that two years course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan cannot be said to be equivalent to B.A. with Sanskrit.
3. The grounds taken in the review application is that the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not cite an earlier judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Purushottam Das Agarwal v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Anr. reported in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1609 by which it was held that person possessing Sahitya Ratna degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and not having B.A. with Sanskrit is eligible for promotion as Lecturer in Hindi. It has been stated in paragraph 15 of the affidavit that due to inadvertent mistake the said judgment could not be cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed in support of the review application. Learned Single Judge of this Court in the said judgment has taken the view that the person having Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan and not possessing B.A. with Sanskrit is eligible for promotion on the post of Lecturer in Hindi. The said judgment supports the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has prima-facie made out a case for review/recall of the order dated 13.11.2007. The order dated 13.11.2007 deserves to be and is hereby recalled.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner applicant as well as learned Standing Counsel have been heard on the issue which has arisen for consideration in the writ petition.
5. Chapter II Regulation 1 Appendix A of the Regulations framed under the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provides qualifications for appointment on the post of Lecturer Hindi to teach classes XI and XII and for the post of Assistant Teacher to teach classes IX and X. Following are the qualifications prescribed in Appendix A:
6. A perusal of the above qualifications indicate that for appointment of Lecturer Hindi (to teach class XI &XII), the qualifications prescribed is M.A. in Hindi and B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastri examination of Rajkiya Sanskrit College Varanasi (now Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya Varanasi). The qualification thus is post graduation in Hindi together with Sanskrit in B.A. or qualification of Shastri. The said item in Appendix A also provides qualifications for teaching High school classes of Hindi. There are two alternate qualifications prescribed for Hindi teacher in High school classes i.e. B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit and L.T. B.T. or B.Ed, or an equivalent qualification of degree or diploma in teaching. The alternate qualification provides Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag with Sanskrit as an ancient language with refresher course training. The judgment which has been relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken the view that Sahitya Ratna has been treated as equivalent to B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit therefore, the qualification of B.A. with Sanskrit as provided for intermediate classes can be very will be fulfilled by reason of the qualification of High school teacher. Following has been laid down in paragraph 6 of the judgment:
6. A plain reading of the said Appendix shows that in order to be a Lecturer in Hindi in an Intermediate College, a teacher should be M.A. in Hindi and B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastri from the Government Sanskrit College, Varanasi, now Sampoornand University, Varanasi. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have Sanskrit in B.A. nor is a Shastri from Sampoornand University. For a High School teacher the qualification is B.A. in Hindi with Sanskrit or " Sahitya Ratna" in Hindi with Sanskrit. Therefore, the petitioner was qualified even as " Sahitya Ratna" for being appointed as a High School teacher even without being B.A. and M.A. in Hindi. The petitioner is M.A. in Hindi and had passed B.A. with Hindi but without Sanskrit The qualification " Sahitya Ratna" which is stated to be equivalent to B.A. in Hindi and Sanskrit as provided in Clause 2 of the qualification for High School teacher suffice the qualification. " Sahitya Ratna" has been treated in the Appendix itself as equivalent to B.A. in Hindi with Sanskrit. Therefore, the qualification B.A. with Sanskrit as provided for a teacher in Intermediate Classes can very well be fulfilled by reason of the qualification of a High School Teacher. If he had been appointed before 5^th April, 1974 by reason of his being appointed as a High School teacher, he would have been eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer by reason of Notification dated 16^th March, 1978, then there cannot be any earthly reason to deny him such promotion on the ground of his being appointed after 5^th April, 1974 when he fulfils the qualification of a High School teacher as observed earlier. When the degree of " Sahitya Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been equated with B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit, the qualification B.A. with Sanskrit or Hindi teacher in intermediate College has to be reconciled. If such a stand is not taken, in that event the question of promotion would become discriminatory. Inasmuch as a person though qualified to be a teacher in the High School in Hindi with " Sahitya Ratna" Degree, he could not be eligible for promotion though M.A. in Hindi and B.A. in Hindi only because he did not have Sanskrit in B.A. The purpose was to satisfy the qualification that a teacher should been Sanskrit upto the standard of Graduation level. When the degree of" Sahitya Ratna" has been equated to with graduation level by virtue of the inclusion of the qualification in the Appendix itself, there cannot be any other interpretation of B.A. with Sanskrit for being appointed as a Hindi Lecturer as provided in serial No. 2 of the Appendix imputing a different meaning.
7. The basis of the judgment in Purushottam Das Agarwal case (supra) is that Sahitya Ratna two years course has been treated equivalent to B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit. The above observation is not supportable from the plain reading of the item No. 2 of Appendix A as quoted above. The qualification to teach intermediate classes i.e. Lecturer Hindi provides B.A. with Sanskrit or Shastri Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit College, Varanasi (now Sampurnanand Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi). Thus, while prescribing an equivalent qualification of B.A. with Sanskrit, the rule making authority has mentioned only Shastri Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit College, Varanasi. Had the Rule making authority intended to include the Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, the said qualification ought to have also been mentioned in qualifications prescribed for the intermediate classes, wherein the same column No. 2 Appendix A while equating B.A. with Sanskrit for intermediate classes they have mentioned only one i.e. Shastri Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit College, Varanasi and they have used another course i.e. Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan for High School classes. Non-mentioning of Sahitya Ratna two years course as equivalent to B.A. with Sanskrit for intermediate classes has relevance and cannot be treated to be an omission or without any purpose. It is settled rule of interpretation that words in a statute are to be given plain and grammatical meaning and no words can be added or subtracted. The Apex Court in the case of Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P. has laid down that where the language of the Statute is clear and unambiguous, court cannot make any addition or substitution of words, unless otherwise the provision stands meaningless or of doubtful meaning. Following was laid down in paragraphs 15 and 16 by the Apex Court:
15. Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a law-maker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by "an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so". (See Frankfurter " Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes in 'Essays on
Jurisprudence'". Columbia Law Review, p. 51.)
16. Words and phrases are symbols that stimulate mental references to referents. The object of interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature enacting it. (See Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse.) The intention of the legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means the attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. As a consequence, a construction which requires for its support, addition or substitution of words or which results in rejection of words as meaningless has to be avoided. As observed in Crawford v. Spooner, Courts cannot aid the legislatures' defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot add or mend, and by construction make up deficiencies which are left there. (See State of Gujrat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai Patel.) It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into an Act unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. (See Stock v. Frank Joines (Tipton) Ltd.) Rules of interpretation do not permit courts to do so, unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself. (Per Lord Lorebum, L.C. in Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans quoted in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah.)
8. The mere fact that Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has been treated to be an alternate qualification with B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit for High School classes, cannot be said that same qualification can also be read in the qualification for Lecturer Hindi. Non-mentioning of Sahitya Ratna two years course, while prescribing qualifications for Lecturer Hindi, cannot be said to be without any purpose or intendment when the Legislature is well aware of both the qualifications i.e. Shastri Pariksha of Rajkiya Sanskrit College, Varanasi as well as Sahitya Ratna and treats the former as an alternate qualification for B.A. with Sanskrit for the purpose of qualification of Lecturer Hindi and did not include Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan as equivalent to B.A. with Sanskrit. To hold that Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is equivalent to B.A. with Sanskrit is to add words to Statute or to read a word in qualifications which is not present. The Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Tulasi Ram Patel reported in 1985 (2) SLR 576 has laid down that where there is an express mention of certain things in the Act or Rules, then anything not mentioned is excluded. Learned Single Judge in Purushottam Das Agrawal's case (supra) proceeded on the premise that Appendix A has treated Sahitya Ratna as equivalent to B.A. with Hindi and Sanskrit, which is not born out from the Appendix A. Learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case has also observed that if, B.A. with Sanskrit or Hindi cannot be treated equivalent to Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, a person though may be qualified to teach-'High School classes but he may not be qualified for promotion as Lecturer Hindi. It is not necessary that every teacher who is eligible to teach High School classes is entitled to be promoted as Lecturer Hindi. The possessing of qualification for promotion is a necessary condition. This can very well be illustrated by a simple example. A person who is not a post graduate can be appointed to teach High School classes in Hindi. Can it be said that he not being eligible for promotion causes discrimination? The answer obviously is No. Learned Single Judge has also observed that not treating Sahitya Ratna two years course from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan equivalent to B.A. with Hindi or Sanskrit has discriminatory effect with regard to right of promotion who is teaching High School Classes. The above reason is also unfounded. It is not necessary that every teacher who is teaching High School classes should be promoted as Lecturer irrespective of the fact whether he possess the specific qualification mentioned for Lecturer Hindi. In view of the above, specially the principles of interpretation as laid down by the Apex Court, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Purushottam Das Agarwal's case (supra) requires reconsideration by a Division Bench.
9. Issue notice to the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition.
10. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notices on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4.
11. The selection on the post of Lecturer Hindi may take place which shall however be subject to the result of the writ petition.
12. Let record of this writ petition be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for considering the constitution of larger Bench for consideration of the following questions.
(i) Whether the judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Purushottam Das Agarwal v. District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad and Anr. reported in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 1609 holding that a candidate not possessing B.A. with Sanskrit but possessing two years course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is eligible for promotion as Lecturer, Hindi, lays down the correct law ?
(ii) Whether the qualification of two years course of Sahitya Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan can be treated a qualification for promotion as Lecturer, Hindi for the candidates who do not possess the qualification of B.A. with Sanskrit.
