2015 (9) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to promotion list - Promotion on the basis of seniority list - Held that - The rules of administrative interpretation/executive construction, may be applied, either where a representation is made by the maker of a legislation, at the time of the introduction of the Bill itself, or if construction thereupon, is provided for by the executive, upon its coming into force, then also, the same carries great weightage. - one may reach the conclusion that administrative interpretation may often provide the guidelines for interpreting a particular Rule or executive instruction, and the same may be accepted unless, of course, it is found to be in violation of the Rule itself. - The Statute is not to be construed in light of certain notions that the legislature might have had in mind, or what the legislature is expected to have said, or what the legislature might have done, or what the duty of the legislature to have said or done was. The Courts have to administer the law as they find it, and it is not permissible for the Court to twist the clear language of the enactment, in order to avoid any real, or imaginary hardship which such literal interpretation may cause. It becomes crystal clear that, under the garb of interpreting the provision, the Court does not have the power to add or subtract even a single word, as it would not amount to interpretation, but legislation. - If the contention of the appellants is accepted, it would amount to fixing their seniority from a date prior, to their birth in the cadre. Admittedly, the appellants (17th batch), joined training on 2.7.1993 and their claim is to fix their seniority from the Ist of February, 1993 i.e. the date on which, the 16th batch joined training. Such a course is not permissible in law. - Decision in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. UOI & Ors. distinguished - Decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Seniority determination of Assistant Commandants in BSF.
2. Interpretation of Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion, and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978.
3. Application of the rule of contemporanea expositio.
4. Interpretation and application of proviso to Rule 3.
5. Hardship and inconvenience caused by statutory provisions.
6. Addition and subtraction of words in statutory interpretation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority determination of Assistant Commandants in BSF:

The appellants and respondent nos. 4 and 5 are direct recruits, while respondent no.1 was promoted against the quota for Ministerial Cadre posts. The Union of India issued a seniority list placing respondent no.1 below all officers of Batch No.17. Respondent no.1 challenged this seniority list, arguing that he should be ranked above officers of Batch No.17. The High Court ruled in favor of respondent no.1, placing him above Batch No.17 officers. The Union of India's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants, not initially parties in the High Court, were granted permission to file special leave petitions.

2. Interpretation of Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion, and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978:

Rule 3 outlines the criteria for determining the seniority of officers. The relevant parts are:
- Seniority of officers promoted on the same day is determined by their selection order.
- Seniority of direct entrants is determined by aggregate marks obtained before the Selection Board and at the passing out examination.
- Seniority of temporary officers is based on the order of merit at the time of selection.
- Seniority of officers is determined by the date of their continuous appointment in that rank, with the proviso that for direct entrants, the date of appointment is the commencement date of their training course.

3. Application of the rule of contemporanea expositio:

The Court applied the rule of contemporanea expositio, which suggests that the interpretation given by contemporary authorities is a useful guide for statutory interpretation. However, this rule must give way if the statute's language is plain and unambiguous. The Court cited several cases supporting this principle, emphasizing that long-standing administrative practices should not be disturbed unless manifestly wrong.

4. Interpretation and application of proviso to Rule 3:

The proviso to Rule 3 states that for direct entrants, the date of appointment shall be the date of commencement of their training course. The Court held that the proviso should be interpreted as an exception to the general rule and should not be expanded to alter the main provision's clear language. The Court found the language of Rule 3 clear and unambiguous, and thus, it should be applied as written without adding or subtracting words.

5. Hardship and inconvenience caused by statutory provisions:

The Court acknowledged that statutory provisions might cause hardship or inconvenience, but such factors cannot alter the statutory language's clear meaning. The Court emphasized that it is not within its power to amend the law to mitigate hardship; such changes are the legislature's responsibility.

6. Addition and subtraction of words in statutory interpretation:

The Court reiterated that it cannot add or subtract words from a statute under the guise of interpretation. The legal maxim "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum" means "From the words of law, there must be no departure." The Court must interpret the statute as it is written, even if the language is imperfect or causes hardship.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that the language of Rule 3 is clear and unambiguous, and the proviso applies only in specific cases where officers selected through the same process are split into separate batches. The Court found no basis to interpret the rule otherwise or to add words to the proviso. Accepting the appellants' contention would improperly fix their seniority from a date before their entry into the cadre. The appeals were dismissed as they lacked merit.