Allahabad High Court Rules English Statutory Text Prevails Over Hindi Version In Service Regulations

Allahabad High Court Rules English Statutory Text Prevails Over Hindi Version In Service Regulations

In a significant ruling regarding the interpretation of state service rules, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has affirmed that in cases of conflict between the Hindi and English versions of statutory texts, the English version must be considered authoritative. Justice Manish Mathur delivered the judgment in the matter of Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra vs. Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. And Others , effectively dismissing a petition that sought to rely on a vernacular translation to claim recruitment benefits.

The Conflict of Interpretation

The petitioner, Maya Shukla, had approached the court seeking to be included in the merit list for the position of "cutting swing," scheduled for selection in July 2025. Her claim was rooted in the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014 (the 2014 Service Rules). She argued that, according to the Hindi version of Rule 16(3)(ka), she was entitled to specific marks for her academic qualifications.

Conversely, the respondent authorities maintained that the petitioner’s candidature did not meet the criteria outlined in the English version of the same rules. They argued that the English text, which dictates the methodology for calculating merit, should take precedence over the Hindi translation.

Constitutional Principles at Play

The core legal question before the court was the determination of which linguistic version of the rules carries legal weight. The court directed its attention to Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India, which addresses the language of authoritative texts for state-level laws, rules, and regulations.

The court observed that Article 348(3) serves as a critical mechanism to resolve linguistic ambiguities. It establishes that when a state legislature enacts laws in a language other than English, an authoritative English translation published in the Official Gazette serves as the definitive text.

Precedents and Judicial Reasoning

During the proceedings, both parties relied on past judicial pronouncements. The respondents effectively cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. Union Public Service Commission and the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Ram Rati vs. Gram Samaj Jehwa . These rulings consistently upheld the principle that the English translation acts as the authoritative version.

Justice Mathur noted that the petitioner’s reliance on contradictory rulings failed to address the specific mandates of Article 348(3). The court clarified that earlier decisions cited by the petitioner either lacked reference to the specific constitutional clause or failed to account for the established precedent regarding the supremacy of the English text in statutory conflicts.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted the necessity for clarity in legal administration, stating:

• "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 Verdict and Its Impact

Finding that the English version of Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) was the governing text, the Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage. This judgment reinforces the supremacy of English as the authoritative language for legal instruments in India, providing a clear precedent for future litigation where discrepancies arise between original state laws and their vernacular translations. By emphasizing the constitutional mandate, the Court has provided much-needed certainty for the administration of selection processes across government commissions.