2010 Supreme(SC) 232

2010 (3) Supreme 369
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
H.S. Vankani and Ors. — Appellants
versus
State of Gujarat and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2439 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.17251 of 2006)
Decided on : 16-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the Rule making authority. Rule making authority also expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd results.

Headnote:Service Law- Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service) Recruitment Rules, 1969-Ranger (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination) Rules 1974- Rangers (Subordinate Forest Service Recruitment Examination (Amendment Rules) 1979 - Inter-se seniority between two batches of direct recruits Range Forest Officers ,1979-81 batch (non-graduates) and 1980-81 batch (graduates) of Subordinate Forest Services of the State of Gujarat and their further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests-Held 1969, 1974, and 1979 Rules clearly stipulated how the seniority had to be reckoned- Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and 22 of 1974 Rules were in pari materia which states that seniority of the Rangers shall be governed by their respective ranks in the final examination at the Rangers College irrespective of their joining the service and on successful completion of the training course the candidates shall be appointed as Rangers if they pass with higher standard certificate- Both groups were governed by these rules in the matter of their intra seniority and the government had rightly settled the seniority vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 05.03.1987 and the gradation lists were also rightly published- The Government committed a grave error in unsettling the settled seniority vide its proceedings dated 29.9.1993-Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable,inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the Rule making authority- Rule making authority also expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd results- The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both batches had been rightly settled vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 and the government had committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29.9.1993-Hence no illegality found in the judgment of High Court in quashing the order dated 29.9.1993 and upholding seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch-Appeal having no merits, dismissed. (Paras 22 to, 27, 32, 33)

       Words and Phrases-Seniority—Seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in one’s service career- Future promotion of a Government servant depends either on strict seniority or on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority etc.- Seniority once settled is decisive in the upward march in one’s chosen work or calling and gives certainty and assurance and boosts the morale to do quality work- It instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration- If the settled seniority at the instance of one’s junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the Government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost- Such a situation may drive the parties to approach administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation,which may consume lot of time and energy- The decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and Government, driving the parties to acute penury- (Para 25)

       Interpretation of statues-It is a well known Rule of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed so as to give them a sensible meaning-The legislature expects the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void)- Principle also means that if the obvious intention of statute gives rise to obstacles in implementation, the court must do its best to find ways of overcoming those obstacles, so as to avoid absurd results- It is a well settled principle of interpretation of statutes that a construction should not be put on a statutory provision which would lead to manifest absurdity, futility, palpable injustice and absurd inconvenience or anomaly. (Para 27)

       Facts of the Case :

       The controversy in present case was with regard to the inter-se seniority between two batches of direct recruits Range Forest Officers viz., 1979-81 batch (non-graduates) and 1980-81 batch (graduates) of the Subordinate Forest Services of the State of Gujarat and their further promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests.

       Findings of the Court :

       Held 1969, 1974, and 1979 Rules clearly stipulated how the seniority had to be reckoned. Rule 14 of 1969 Rules and 22 of 1974 Rules were in pari materia which states that seniority of the Rangers shall be governed by their respective ranks in the final examination at the Rangers College irrespective of their joining the service and on successful completion of the training course the candidates shall be appointed as Rangers if they pass with higher standard certificate. Both groups were governed by these rules in the matter of their intra seniority and the government had rightly settled the seniority vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 05.03.1987 and the gradation lists were also rightly published.The Government committed a grave error in unsettling the settled seniority vide its proceedings dated 29.9.1993-Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that leads to an unworkable,inconsistent or impracticable results, since such a situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the Rule making authority. Rule making authority also expects rule framed by it to be made workable and never visualises absurd results. The decision taken by the government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-81 batch) to a two year training course and graduates (1980-81 batch) to a one year training is in due compliance with Rule 10 of 1969 Rules and Rule 18 of 1974 Rules and the seniority of the both batches had been rightly settled vide orders dated 12.10.1982 and 5.3.1987 and the government had committed an error in unsettling the seniority under its proceedings dated 29.9.1993.Hence no illegality was found in the judgment of High court in quashing the order dated 29.9.1993 and upholding seniority of the candidates of 1980-81 batch over the candidates of 1979-81 batch.Appeal having no merits was dismissed.