1. Petition seeking direction to permit participation and inclusion in list for post of cutting swing. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(All) 3740
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Manish Mathur, J.
Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 8383 of 2025
Decided On : 11-08-2025
Important Points
Where there is a dichotomy between the vernacular and English versions of a State Act, rule, or regulation, the English translation published in the Official Gazette under the authority of the Governor is the authoritative text and prevails over the vernacular version.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Interpretation of Statutes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 348(3) - Authoritative text of Bills, Acts, orders, rules, and regulations - Conflict between English and vernacular versions - English translation published in the Official Gazette under the authority of the Governor to be deemed the authoritative text and shall prevail. (Paras 8, 11, 16)
(B) Official Languages Act, 1963 - English continues to remain the authoritative text in respect of Acts of Parliament and rules issued thereunder. (Pars 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction to be included in a list for a specific post, claiming eligibility based on the Hindi version of service rules pertaining to the weighting of marks for the selection process. The respondents contended that the petitioner's candidature was not considered as the provisions claimed by the petitioner were absent in the recruitment advertisement and the English version of the rules.
Findings of Court:
The court observed a clear dichotomy between the Hindi version and the English version of the relevant rule. It was found that the English version of the rules prescribed a different weighting for marks compared to the Hindi version.
Issues: Whether the Hindi version or the English version of the service rules would prevail in the event of a contradiction between the two.
Ratio Decidendi: Based on Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India, the English translation of any Bill, Act, order, rule, or regulation of a State Legislature, published in the Official Gazette under the authority of the Governor, is deemed the authoritative text. Consequently, in any case of conflict between the vernacular and English versions, the English version must prevail. (Paras 11, 16)
Result: Petition fails and is dismissed.
(B) Official Languages Act, 1963 - English continues to remain the authoritative text in respect of Acts of Parliament and rules issued thereunder. (Pars 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a direction to be included in a list for a specific post, claiming eligibility based on the Hindi version of service rules pertaining to the weighting of marks for the selection process. The respondents contended that the petitioner's candidature was not considered as the provisions claimed by the petitioner were absent in the recruitment advertisement and the English version of the rules.
Findings of Court:
The court observed a clear dichotomy between the Hindi version and the English version of the relevant rule. It was found that the English version of the rules prescribed a different weighting for marks compared to the Hindi version.
Issues: Whether the Hindi version or the English version of the service rules would prevail in the event of a contradiction between the two.
Ratio Decidendi: Based on Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India, the English translation of any Bill, Act, order, rule, or regulation of a State Legislature, published in the Official Gazette under the authority of the Governor, is deemed the authoritative text. Consequently, in any case of conflict between the vernacular and English versions, the English version must prevail. (Paras 11, 16)
Result: Petition fails and is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ petition
- dismissal at admission (Para 17)
-
writ petition
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Ankit Pandey
For the Respondent: Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra
For the Petitioner: Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Ankit Pandey
For the Respondent: Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued Hindi version rules apply; respondent argued English version prevails under Article 348(3). (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Dichotomy exists between Hindi and English service rules regarding marks calculation; English version deemed authoritative. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 )
4. Under Article 348(3), English translation of State rules prevails over Hindi version when conflict arises. (Para 11 , 16 )
5. Petition dismissed at admission stage; parties to bear own costs. (Para 17 )
6. Which language version of State rules prevails under Article 348 of the Constitution in case of conflict?
Under Article 348(3), the English translation published under Governor's authority is deemed the authoritative text and prevails. (Para 8 , 11 , 16 )
7. Does the Official Languages Act, 1963 alter the authoritative text rule under Article 348 for State rules?
No, the Act does not change Article 348; English remains the authoritative text for Central and State enactments under the Constitution. (Para 12 , 14 )
8. How should marks be calculated for recruitment under the UP Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014?
The English version applies: twenty percent of marks secured in National Trade Certificate Test or National Apprenticeship Certificate Test. (Para 4 , 16 )
JUDGMENT :
Manish Mathur, J.
1. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar, whose power filed today is taken on record, and Mr. Jitendra Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, and learned State Counsel for opposite party No. 3.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority to permit petitioner to participate and include her name in the impugned list for the post of "cutting swing" scheduled on July 29th, July 2025.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014 the petitioner would be entitled for consideration in terms of paragraph 16(3) (ka) thereof since marks in the high school and I.T. I. certificate examinations are required to be taken into consideration in the following manner:-
4. Learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 and 2 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with submission that the petitioner's candidature has not been considered since there was no such provision in the advertisement issued in November 2015 for the said post, which is in accordance with the English version of the rules known as UP Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, which is in the following manner:-
" 16. (1) Direct recruitment shall be made by a Selection Committee comprising:
(1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(2) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
(3) In making selection for direct recruitment, the merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared in the following manner:-
(a) For academic qualifications prescribed for the post, the marks shall be awarded to each candidate in the following manner:
(i) Fifty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the High School Examination shall be given to each candidate."
(ii) Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the National Trade Certificate Test/ National Apprenticeship Certificate Test shall be given to each candidate,
Or
Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in Diploma or Degree Examination shall be given to cach candidate.
(iii) Fifteen percent of the percentage of the marks secured in CUS/POT test shall be given to each candidate.
(b) (1) After the results of the evaluations under clause (a) have been received and tabulated, the Selection Committee shall hold an interview. If the applications received are large in numbers, then in such situation the number of candidates to be called for interview shall be four times the number of vacancies. For this purpose the merit list of candidates shall be prepared separately on the basis of aggregate of marks obtained by them under clause (a).
(ii) The interview shall carry one hundred marks. Fifteen percent of the marks obtained at the interview shall be given to each candidate."
5. It is also submitted that in case of any contradiction in the Hindi and English versions, it is the English version which would prevail in terms of Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India.
6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material on record, particularly the Hindi version of rule 16(3) and the English version thereof, a clear dichotomy is evident between Rule 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version and Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English version in the following manner:-
Rule 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version
Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English version
"(ii) Twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the National Trade Certificate Test/ National Apprenticeship Certificate Test shall be given to each candidate "
7. In such circumstances, the question arising for consideration is whether the Hindi or English version of the rules would prevail.
8. The aforesaid aspect is delineated delineated in Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India in the following manner:-
"Notwithstanding anything in sub-clause (b) of clause (1), where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the E
