Allahabad High Court Confirms English Version of Rules Prevails Over Hindi Translation in Dispute

Allahabad High Court Confirms English Version of Rules Prevails Over Hindi Translation in Dispute

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has delivered a significant ruling concerning the interpretation of recruitment rules when a conflict arises between their Hindi and English versions. Presiding over the case, Justice Manish Mathur reaffirmed that the English version of state rules serves as the authoritative text in accordance with the Constitution of India.

Case Background

The petitioner, Maya Shukla, had sought a directive from the court to be included in the merit list for the "cutting swing" instructor post, following an advertisement issued in November 2015. Her claim was rooted in the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014 (the 2014 Service Rules). The petitioner argued that the Hindi version of the rules allowed for a specific calculation of marks based on her academic credentials, which would have rendered her eligible for selection.

The respondents, representing the Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission, contested this, asserting that the candidate’s merit calculation was based on the English version of the rules. They maintained that the English text, which differed from the Hindi translation, was the binding version for the recruitment process.

The Core Legal Conflict

The primary question before the court was whether the vernacular (Hindi) version of the state rules should prevail over the English version when they present a clear dichotomy. Counsel for the petitioner relied on past rulings to suggest that the Hindi text should be given priority, while the respondents cited Article 348 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that in the event of a discrepancy, the English text is the authoritative source.

Judicial Analysis

Justice Mathur’s analysis focused on the constitutional mandate provided under Article 348(3). The Court emphasized that while states may pass laws in regional languages, a translation in English, published under the authority of the Governor, must be deemed the authoritative text.

The Court noted that the precedent established in Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. Union Public Service Commission and the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj Jehwa firmly established this hierarchy. The bench observed that the petitioner’s reliance on alternative rulings was misplaced as they failed to account for the specific stipulations of Article 348(3), which mandates the supremacy of the English text.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the interpretation of law:

• "Clause 3 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes an aspect that in case of any dichotomy between the vernacular language and English language, it is the English language which will be considered to be authoritative."
• "The authoritative text of any Bill, Act or Ordinance of a State Legislature cannot be in a language other than the English language unless the Parliament by law otherwise provides."
• "When there is a conflict between the English version of a statute of a State Legislature and its Version in a local language, the version in English language will prevail over the version in the local language."

The Final Verdict

Finding that the petitioner's claim lacked legal basis due to the supremacy of the English text, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage. This ruling clarifies that in all matters of administrative or legal conflict involving state regulations, the English-language version will dictate the interpretation, reinforcing established constitutional norms regarding the authoritative nature of legal texts in India.