2010 Supreme(SC) 194

2010 (2) Supreme 165
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences & others — Appellants
versus
Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2050 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.15458 of 2007)
Decided on : 25-02-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Like all other linguistic canons of construction, the ejusdem generis principle applies only when a contrary intention does not appear.

Headnote:Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998- Section 53-Order passed by High Court holding that Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of Act, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they were not approved teachers of respondent college-Appeal-Held a combined reading of Section 2(35) with Section 53 of said Act, shows that in respect of unapproved teachers also Grievance Committee has the jurisdiction to entertain complaint and undertake the statutory exercise conferred on it under Section 53 of said Act- The definition of teachers under Section 2(35) is wide enough to include even unapproved teacher- In fact said definition has two parts, first part deals with full time approved Demonstrators, Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers etc. and the second part deals with other persons teaching or giving instructions on full time basis in affiliated colleges or approved institutions in the University- Even though approved teachers and those ‘other persons’ who are teaching and giving instructions fall in two different classes both are encompassed with the definition of teacher under Section 2(35) of the Act, the word ‘and’ before ‘other persons’ is disjunctive and indicate a different class of people-Like all other linguistic canons of construction, ejusdem generis principle applies only when a contrary intention does not appear- In instant case, a contrary intention was clearly indicated -Therefore, where there is statutory indication to the contrary the definition of teacher under Section 2(35) cannot be read on the basis of ejusdem generis nor can the definition be confined to only approved teachers- The purpose of setting up Grievance Committee under Section 53 of the Act was to provide an effective grievance redressal forum to teachers and other employees- Any interpretation of ‘teachers’ under Section 2(35) of the Act which denied the persons covered under Section 2(35) an access to the said forum completely nullified dominant purpose of creating such a forum- High Court erred in holding that Grievance Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they were not approved teachers-Impugned order of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 20 to 25, 36 to 42)

        Words and Phrases-”Ejusdem generis” -The Latin expression “ejusdem generis” which means “of the same kind or nature” is a principle of construction, meaning thereby when general words in a statutory text are flanked by restricted words, the meaning of general words are taken to be restricted by implication with meaning of restricted words- This is a principle which arises “from the linguistic implication by which words having literally a wide meaning (when taken in isolation) are treated as reduced in scope by the verbal context.” - It may be regarded as an instance of ellipsis, or reliance on implication- This principle is presumed to apply unless there is some contrary indication. (Para 26)

       Facts of the Case :

        An Order was passed by High Court herein in the instant case holding that Grievance Committee constituted under Section 53 of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any complaint filed by the 5th and 6th respondent, as they were not approved teachers of respondent college. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held a combined reading of Section 2(35) with Section 53 of said Act, shows that in respect of unapproved teachers also Grievance Committee has the jurisdiction to entertain complaint and undertake the statutory exercise conferred on it under Section 53 of said Act. The definition of teachers under Section 2(35) is wide enough to include even unapproved teacher. In fact said definition has two parts, first part deals with full time approved Demonstrators, Tutors, Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers etc. and the second part deals with other persons teaching or giving instructions on full time basis in affiliated colleges or approved institutions in the University. Even though approved teachers and those ‘other persons’ who are teaching and giving instructions fall in two different classes both are encompassed with the definition of teacher under Section 2(35) of the Act, the word ‘and’ before ‘other persons’ is disjunctive and indicate a different class of people.Like all other linguistic canons of construction, ejusdem generis principle applies only when a contrary intention does not appear. In instant case, a contrary intention was clearly indicated .Therefore, where there is statutory indication to the contrary the definition of teacher under Section 2(35) cannot be read on the basis of ejusdem generis nor can the definition be confined to only approved teachers. The purpose of setting up Grievance Committee under Section 53 of the Act was to provide an effective grievance redressal forum to teachers and other employees. Any interpretation of ‘teachers’ under Section 2(35) of the Act which denied the persons covered under Section 2(35) an access to the said forum completely nullified dominant purpose of creating such a forum. High Court erred in holding that Grievance Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints made by 5th and 6th respondent since they were not approved teachers. Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.