Holding

The amendment is valid only insofar as it gives preference to directly recruited Assistants over non‑graduate promotee Assistants; it does not apply to promotee Assistants who are graduates or post‑graduates.

Summary

The case concerned an amendment to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules that gave directly recruited Assistants preferential seniority over promotee Assistants for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar after five years of service. The petitioners, promotee Assistants, argued that the rule violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of recruitment mode and educational qualification. The Supreme Court examined whether the classification based on graduation status was a reasonable basis for promotion and whether the rule could be saved by a narrowed interpretation. It held that the rule could be read down so that it applies only to non‑graduate promotee Assistants, as there is no rational basis to discriminate against graduate promotees. Consequently, the amendment was upheld only to the extent it favours directly recruited Assistants over non‑graduate promotees, and struck down for graduate promotees.

Issues considered

The amendment to the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules giving preferential treatment to directly recruited Assistants violates Articles 14 and 16.
Whether the rule can be saved by a restricted or extended interpretation (read down).
Whether educational qualification (graduation) is a valid classification for promotion to Deputy Tehsildar.
Whether the rule is arbitrary or unreasonable in discriminating between promotee Assistants who are graduates and those who are not.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16

Subjects

PromotionService RulesEqualityArticles 14 and 16ClassificationRead downTamil NaduDeputy TehsildarGraduateAdministrative law

Judgment

[2009] 5 S.C.R. 629
-j.

t
-I
!- M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 2251 of 2009)
APRIL 8, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules -
Promotion - Post of Deputy Tehsildars - Preferential
treatment to directly recruited Assistants over the promotee c
Assistants under the Rule - Direct recruits to be placed above
senior promotee Assistants on completion of five years of
service - Validity of - Held: Both directly recruited Assistants
and promotee Assistants are integrated into one cadre of
-!-
Assistants - Many promotee Assistants were graduates or D
post graduates - They have received same kind of training
in the cadre of Assistant for a longer duration - Hence,
impugned rule is to be read down - Validity of the Rules to
the extent that it gives preference to directly recruited
Assistants over promoted Assistants who are non-graduates E
is upheld - However, it is not applicable to promotees who
are graduates - Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles 14 and
16 - Interpretation of Statutes.
~ J_
The question which arose for consideration in this
appeal was with regard to the validity of the amended F
Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules by which
directly recruited Assistants were given preferential
treatment by placing them above the senior promotee
Assistants and making them eligible for promotion as
Deputy Tehsildars on completion of five years of service G
, _> as Assistants.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

629 H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

*
A HELD: 1. The validity of Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service Rules to the extent that it gives
preference to the directly recruited Assistants over the
promoted Assistants who are non graduates is upheld
but is inapplicable to promotees who are graduates.
B [Para 31] [644-D]

2.1. To save a statutory provision from the vice of
unconstitutionality sometimes a restricted or extended
interpretation of the statute has to be given. This is
because it is a well-settled principle of interpretation that
c the Court should make every effort to save a statute from
becoming unconstitutional. If on giving one interpretation
the statute becomes unconstitutional and on another
interpretation it will be constitutional, then the Court
should prefer the latter on the ground that the Legislature
D is presumed not to have intended to have exceeded its
jurisdiction. Sometimes to uphold the constitutional
validity the statutory provision has to be read down.
[Para 28 and 29) [643-C, D; 643-E]

E 2.2. As regards the training, it is satisfied that the
promotees also have undergone the same experience as
those of direct recruits, and in fact the former have
usually longer experience than the direct recruits. Hence
this cannot be a valid basis for discrimination against the
F promotees. [Para 18] [639-C) A -

2.3. Many of the promotees in fact were graduates or
post graduates even when they joined as Junior
Assistants, and some became graduates or post
graduates after joining as Junior Assistants, hence there
G was no rational basis for denying equality of treatment
to these graduates/post graduates vis-a-vis the direct
recruits. If a promotee Assistant is also a graduate then
there is no valid basis for discrimination against him, and
• .~

he must be treated at par with the directly recruited
H
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 631
...1 ORS.
Assistant because he has also got a degree. Hence the A
impugned amendment is to be read down in order to save
it from becoming violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution and interpret it as inapplicable to those
promotee Assistants who are also graduates/post
graduates. The impugned amendment will only enable the B
direct recruits to be placed above those promotee
Assistants who are non-graduates for the purpose of
promotion as Deputy Tehsildar. [Paras 19, 21, 22 and 27]
[639-D, E; 643-B; 640-C]

- 2.4. Both the directly recruited Assistants and C
promoted Assistants have been integrated into one cadre
of Assistants. Even after this integration for further
classification for promotion higher educational
qualifications can possibly be a rational basis, but there
+- can certainly be no further classification between direct D
'
'. recruits and those promotee Assistants who have
acquired the graduation qualification whether before
joining as Junior Assistant or thereafter. Once a
promotee becomes a graduate there cannot be any
rational basis for discrimination against him vis-a-vis direct E
recruits. [Para 25] [641-H; 642-A, BJ

2.5. There may, conceivably, be cases where the
differences in the educational qualifications may not be
_J sufficient to give any preferential treatment to one class F
of candidates as against another, and whether the
classification is reasonable or not must, therefore,
necessarily depend upon the facts of each case and the
circumstances obtaining at the relevant time. However,
the question whether the difference in the educational G
qualifications is sufficient to give preferential treatment to
one class of candidates against another, should be
> ) ordinarily left to the executive authorities to decide. The
executive authorities have expertise in administrative
matters, and it is ordinarily not proper for this Court to sit H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
L
-t

A in appeal over their decisions unless it is something
totally arbitrary or shocking. Whether graduate degree is
a sufficient basis for classification for promotion vis-a-vis
non-graduates, and whether such classification has
rational relation to the nature of duties of a Deputy
B Tehsildar, is, for the State Government to decide, and not ,A- ~
the Court. [Para 26] [642-D-G]

Roop Chand Adlakha and Ors. vs. Delhi Development
Authority and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 307, relied on.
c State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and
Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1; Mohammad Shujat Ali and Ors. vs.
Union of India and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1631; In re, Hindu
-...
Women's Right to Property Act AIR 1945 FC 28 and
Kedemath vs. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955, referred to.
D t
Interpretation of Statutes by Justice G.P. Singh 7th Edn ,___
1999 pp 414-417, referred to.

Case Law Reference:

E AIR 1974 SC 1 Referred to. Para 23

AIR 1974 SC 1631 Referred to. Para 23

AIR 1989 SC 307 Relied on. Para 24
AIR 1945 FC 28 Referred to. Para 29
F A ·-
AIR 1962 SC 955 Referred to. Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2251 of 2009.

G From the Judgment & Order dated 10.9.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 27173 of
2003. ~ ,..
WITH

H Civil Appeal No. 2252 of 2009.
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 633
ORS.

P.P. Rao, Nalini Chidambaram, V. Balachandran, Sunita A
Ojha and Vikas Mehta for the Appellants.

M.N. Rao, A Mariarputham, A.V. Rangam, Buddy A.
Ranganadhan, A. Subhashini, R. Nedumaran, P.
Somasundaram and L.K. Pandey for the Respondents.
8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave have been filed against C
the impugned judgments dated 10.9.2005 and 27.02.2008 in
Writ Petition No.27173 of 2003 and 5022 of 2008 respectively,
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

3. Since common questions of law and fact are involved
+ in both these appeals they are being disposed off by a D
common judgment.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

5. The appellants are promotee Assistants governed by E
the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules having been promoted
from the post of Junior Assistants in the Revenue Department
in the State of Tamil Nadu. They were appointed as Junior
Assistants after having passed the competitive examination
conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission F
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). Though the
minimum educational qualification for Junior Assistant was
S.S.L.C., it is alleged that even at the time of their selection to
the post of Junior Assistants, most of the appellants were
graduates or post graduates, and many completed their G
graduation subsequently while in service.

6. For appointment to the post of Assistant there can be
promotions from amongst the Junior Assistants, and there can
also be direct recruitment through the competitive examination H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

A held by the Commission. The minimum qualification for directly
"'
recruited Assistant is graduation.

7. The promotion for Assistants is to the post of Deputy
Tehsildar, which is governed by the Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service Rules. On being promoted as Deputy ,.__,
B
Tehsildars an Assistant is transferred from the Ministerial
Service to the Revenue Subordinate Service.

8. The promotee Assistants, i.e. Assistants who were
promoted from the post of Junior Assistants and were not direct
c recruits, filed O.A. No.5710 of 1992 and connected petitions •
before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai praying
for quashing G.O.Ms. No.884, Revenue Department, Tamil
Nadu Government dated 12.8.1992 and the consequential
G.O.Ms. No.133, Revenue Department dated 7.2.1995. In the ...
D G.O. of 1992 it was stated inter a/ia that qualified direct recruit
.,,
Assistants could be considered for inclusion in the list for
promotion as Deputy Tehsildar after completion of five years
of service and placed in the top of the list, below the carried
over vacancies, and above the promotee Assistants. By the
E G.O. of 1995 necessary amendment was made to the Tamil
Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service Rules.

9. The impugned G.O. 133 Revenue dated 7.2.1995 was
passed amending Annexure Ill item (ii) of the Tamil Nadu
Revenue Subordinate Service Rules and introducing two ,( -
F provisos by which directly recruited Assistants were given
preferential treatment by making them eligible for promotion as
Deputy Tehsildars on completion of five years of service as
Assistants by placing them above the senior promotee
Assistants.
G
10. Annexure Ill item (ii) in Tamil Nadu Revenue
Subordinate Service Rules, prior and after amendment reads ~
....

as under:

H
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 635
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
i
Prior to amendment by After amendment by A
'4 G.O. dated 7.2.1995 G.O. dated 7.2.1995
'
'
Provided also that an Provided also that an
Assistant appointed by Direct Assistant appointed
Recruitment in the Office of the by Direct Recruitment
-...i.. B
Board of Revenue shall be in the Office of the
eligible for inclusion of his erstwhile Board of
name in the approved list of ·Revenue, who has
Deputy Tehsildars for Madras completed a total
City on competitive basis, after service of five years,
completion of a total service of passed all the tests c
five years, if he has passed prescribed and
all the prescribed tests and undergone training
undergone training as Firka as Firka Revenue
Revenue Inspector for two years Inspector for a period
. + successfully and is otherwise of two years D
qualified. successfully shall be
eligible for inclusion of
his name in the
approved list of Deputy
Tehsildars for Madras E
City above his seniors
appointed other than
by direct recruitment or
for re-fixation of his
-) seniority over such F
seniors, if his name
has already been
included in the list of
Deputy Tehsildars. The
consideration of his G
claim shall be against
.~
the first vacancy that
Jo
,. follows the carried
over vacancies.
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A A similar proviso has
"
also been added in
respect of an Assistant
appointed by Direct
Recruitment in the
B District Revenue Unit. ,J-1

11. It was submitted by Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned
counsel for the appellant, thalt the impugned amendment
adversely affected the vested rig1ht of the promotee Assistants
for promotion as Deputy Tehsilda1rs. Some illustrations given by
c learned counsel are as follows:

In Coimbatore District, the following Assistants
belonging to the list of promotee Assistants for year
1991 are still working as Assistants for no fault of
D theirs. -; <

1) R. Saraswathy (2) V. Parvatham (3) C.
Manoharan (4) R. Subramaniam (5) T. Sivajothi (6)
V. Prema Sundari (7) S. Subramanian (8) V.
Narasimhan (9) D. Dhanapal (10) K. Thangavelu
E
(11) S. Rathina (12) S. Rathinaswami (13) D. Lieon
Peter.

On the other hand, a directly recruited Assistant, by
name Sivasubrarnaniam, whose name was
F included in the list of Assistants for the year 2004 "'~- ~
of Coimbatore District, has been included in the list
of Deputy Tehsildars of the District for the year 2008
and he is working as Deputy Tehsildar.

G
In Madurai Districlt, one of the petitioners M.
Kalimuthu belonging to the list of promotee
Assistants for the year 1984, was included in the
i,
..
list of Deputy Tehsildars for the year 2004 at '
Sl.No.5.
H He was waiting for the panel of Deputy Tehsildars
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 637
.y
-j-
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

over twenty years, but four directly recruited A
Assistants in the list of Assistants for the year 1997,
have been included in the list of Deputy Tehsildars
for the year 2004 itself.

A comparison of promotee M. Kalimuthu with the
---\ 8
direct recruits is given below:

1. V. Baskaran - Directly recruited Assistant in the
year 1997

2. R. Mangala Rama Subramaniam - Directly c
recruited Assistant in the year 1997

3. N. Noorjahan Begam -Directly recruited
Assistant in the year 1997

4. M. Parameswari - Directly recruited Assistant in D
the year 1997

5. M. Kalimuthu - Promotee Assistant in the year
1984.
E
Similar situation also prevails in the remaining
Districts of Tamil Nadu.

12. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal quashed the
impugned Rule by its order dated 26.2.1997, but that judgment
-~) was reversed by the High Court by the impugned judgment F
dated 10.9.2005 and hence this appeal by special leave.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that once
the directly recruited Assistants and the promotee Assistants
are integrated into one cadre of Assistants further classification
G
for the purpose of further promotion as Deputy Tehsildar is not
permissible. She further submitted that among the promotee
)' !<.
Assistants there are many who have the qualification of
graduation and even post graduation and they have received
the same kind of training in the cadre of Assistants for a longer
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A duration than the directly recruit~:ld Assistants. Hence, she
submitted that all graduate Assistants should be treated equally
irrespective of whether they are promotees or direct recruits for
considering them for promotion as Deputy Tehsildar. We are
inclined to agree with this submission.
B
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the preferential treatment to the directly recruited
Assistants was justified because the erstwhile Probationary
Revenue Inspectors who have now been replaced by directly
recruited Assistants (Upper Division Clerks) enjoyed such
C preferential treatment. This contention has been disputed by the
learned counsel for the appellant, who submitted that it is not
correct to state that Probationary Revenue Inspectors enjoyed
preferential treatment since the r,elevant Rule SA which dealt
with the Probationary Revenue Inspectors in the erstwhile
D Annexure VIII to the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services only stated
that the seniority of the persons recruited as Probationary
Revenue Inspectors in any year shall be fixed first in the list of
Assistants appointed in the Revenue Department during the
year. Hence she contended that the Probationary Revenue
E Inspectors were given seniority over other Assistants of the
same year alone i.e. in the list of Assistants alone and not in
the list of Deputy Tehsildars.

15. In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide this
F controversy because it will make no difference for deciding this
case.

16. By the amendment dated 7.2.1995, the direct recruit
Assistants who complete 5 years service and fulfill some other
criteria are placed in the approved list for promotion as Deputy
G Tehsildar above his seniors who are promotee Assistants. It
is contended that this is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.

17. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
H respondents, it has been stated that the rationale for giving
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 639
~

~
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
preference to the directly recruited Assistants was that their A
-· minimum educational qualification was graduation while that of
the promotees was Senior School Learning Certificate
(S.S.L.C.) when they joined as Junior Assistants. Hence it was
alleged that that the average directly recruited Assistants with
a degree are superior intellectually to the average Junior B
Assistants with S.S.L.C. It was also contended that direct
recruits are given a special training for five years.

18. As regards the training, we are satisfied that the
promotees also have undergone the same experience as those
of direct recruits, and in fact the former have usually longer
c
experience than the direct recruits. Hence this cannot be a valid
basis for discrimination against the promotees.
..... 19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that many
_,...
of the promotees in fact were graduates or post graduates D
even when they joined as Junior Assistants, and some became
graduates or post graduates after joining as Junior Assistants.
Hence she submitted that there was no rational basis for
denying equality of treatment to these graduates/post graduates
vis-a-vis the direct recruits. We agree with this contention. If a E
promotee Assistant is also a graduate then there is no valid
basis for discrimination against him, and he must be treated
at par with the directly recruited Assistant.
'-

. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention
to Rule S(f) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service
F
Rules which is as follows :

"While preparing the list, the selecting authority shall
arrange the names of the persons selected by it for
appointment as Tehsildar or Deputy Tehsildar as the case G
may be, in the order of the preference decided by it, which
)< shall be based on merit, ability and seniority."
She submitted that the impugned amendment practically nullifies
the above rule, without expressly repealing it.
H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 5 S.C.R.

A 21. The High Court in the impugned judgment has
~
-
observed (vide para 22) that a graduate cannot be said to be
equal to a non graduate, and on that reasoning the High Court ·-
has upheld the validity of impugned rule.

22. In our opinion, by the very same logic given by the
B ~,
respondent and the High Court, a promotee Assistant who is
also a graduate has to be placed at par with the direct recruits
because he has also got a degree. In our opinion, we have to
hence read down the impugned amendment and interpret it as
inapplicable to those promotee Assistants who are also
c graduates/post graduates. In other words, the impugned
amendment will only enable the direct recruits to be placed
above those promotee Assistants who are non graduates for
the purpose of promotion as Deputy Tehsildar.

D 23. It is true that in State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki ~

Nath Khosa & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1 a Constitution Bench of
this Court observed that though the persons appointed directly
and by promotion were integrated into a common class of
Assistant Engineers, they could, for the purpose of promotion
E to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis
of educational qualifications. However, in Mohammad Shujat
Ali & others vs. Union of/ndia & others, AIR 1974 SC 1631, "
another Constitution Bench of this Court qualified the rule laid
down in Triloki Nath Khosa's case (supra) and observed that
F for promotion to a higher post, discrimination based on
educational qualifications not obligated by the nature of duties
...
or responsibilities of the higher post would be violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
24. In Roop Chand Adlakha & others vs. Delhi
G Development Authority & others, AIR 1989 SC 307, this Court
while taking note of T.N. Khosa's case (supra) and Mohd.
Shujat Ali's case (supra) observed in para 7 as under: i\

" 7....... If the differences in the qualification has a
H reasonable relation to the nature of duties and
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 641
~
ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
responsibilities, that go with and are attendant upon the A
promotional-post, the more advantageous treatment of
those who possess higher technical qualifications can be
legitimized on the doctrine of classification. There may,
conceivably, be cases where the differences in the
educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any B
preferential treatment to one class of candidates as
against another. Whether the classification is reasonable
or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon facts of
each case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant
time. When the state makes a classification between two c
sources, unless the vice of the classification is writ large
on the face of it, the person assailing the classification
must show that it is unreasonable and violative of Article
14. A wooden equality as between all classes of
.r employees irrespective of all distinctions or qualifications,
D
or job-requirements is neither constitutionally compelled
nor practically meaningful. This Court in General Manager,
South Central Railway vs. A. V.R. Siddhanti, (1974) 3 SC
207 at p. 214: (AIR 1974 SC 1755 at p. 1760 observed:
".... A wooden equality as between all classes of E
employees regardless of qualifications, kind of
jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of
the employees is not intended, nor is it practicable
if the administration is to run. Indeed, the
, ,. .J maintenance of such a 'classless' and undiscerning F
'equality' where, in reality, glaring inequalities and
intelligible differentia exist, will deprive the
guarantee of its practical content. Broad
classification based on reason, executive
pragmatism and experience having a direct relation G
with the achievement of efficiency in administration,
f. " is permissible .... "
25. In the present case, both the directly recruited
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.

A Assistants and promoted Assistants have been integrated into
one cadre of Assistants. No doubt, even after this integration ..
for further classification for promotion higher educational
qualifications can possibly be a rational basis, but in our
opinion there can certainly be no further classification between
B direct recruits and those promotE~e Assistants who have
acquired the graduation qualification whether before joining as
Junior Assistant or thereafter. Onc1~ a promotee becomes a
graduate we cannot see any rational basis for discrimination
against him vis-a-vis direct recruits.
c 26. As regards the non graduatE~ promotee Assistants, we
are of the opinion that ordinarily it is for the State Government
to decide whether their qualification has a reasonable relation
to the nature of duties and responsibilities that go with and are
attendant on the promotional post of Deputy Tehsildar. It is true
D that as observed in Roop Chand Adlakha's case (supra) there
may, conceivably, be cases where the differences in the
educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any
preferential treatment to one class of candidates as against
another, and whether the classification is reasonable or not
E must, therefore, necessarily depend upon the facts of each case
and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time. However,
the question whether the difference in the educational
qualifications is sufficient to give preferential treatment to one
class of candidates against another, should in our opinion be
F ordinarily left to the executive authorities to decide. The
executive authorities have expertise in administrative matters,
and it is ordinarily not proper for this Court to sit in appeal over
their decisions unless it is something totally arbitrary or
shocking. Whether graduate degree is a sufficient basis for
G classification for promotion vis-a-vis non-graduates, and
whether such classification has rational relation to the nature
of duties of a Deputy Tehsildar, is, in our opinion for the State
Government to decide, and not the Court. Hence, we uphold
the validity of impugned rule to the extent that it gives preference
H to the directly recruited Assistants over the promoted Assistants
M. RATHINASWAMI & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & 643
,; ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
who are non graduates. A

27. However, we cannot find any rational basis for giving
preference to the direct recruits over those promotee Assistants
who are graduates, since the very basis for the distinction
sought to be drawn by the respondents is that the direct recruits B
are graduates and hence intellectually superior to non
graduates. Hence we have to read down the impugned rule in
order to save it from becoming violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution.

28. It is well settled that to save a statutory provision from c
the vice of unconstitutionality sometimes a restricted or
extended interpretation of the statute has to be given. This is
because it is a well-settled principle of interpretation that the
Court should make every effort to save a statute from becoming
....t- unconstitutional. If on giving one interpretation the statute D
becomes unconstitutional and on another interpretation it will
be constitutional, then the Court should prefer the latter on the
ground that the Legislature is presumed not to have intended
to have exceeded its jurisdiction.
E
29. Sometimes to uphold the constitutional validity the
statutory provision has to be read down. Thus, In re, Hindu
Women's Right to Property Act, AIR 1945 FC 28, the Federal
Court was considering the validity of the Hindu Women's Right
rJ to Property Act, 1937. In order to uphold the constitutional
validity of the-Act;-the Federal Court held the Act intra vires by F
construing the word 'Property'-asmeaning 'property other than
agricultural land'. This restricted interpretation of the word
'Property' had to be given otherwise the Act would have
become unconstitutional. Similarly, in Kedemath vs. State of
Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955, this Court had to construe Section G
~ , 124-A of the Indian Penal Code which relates to the offence of
sedition which makes a person punishable who 'by words,
either spoken or written or by sign or visible representations,
or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt,
H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 5 S.C.R.

A or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the
Government established by law'. This Court gave a restricted
interpretation to the aforesaid words so that they apply only to
acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or
disturbance of law and order or incitement to violence. This was
B done to avoid the provisions becoming violative of Articles
19(1)(a) of the Constitution which provides for freedom of
speech and expression.

30. Several other decisions on the point have been given
C in Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (7th
Edn 1999 pp 414-417).

31. For the reason given above these appeals are partly
allowed and the impugned judgment is partly set aside; and it
is held that the impugned rule s-.o far as it places directly
D recruited Assistants above the promotees for promotion as -.,.,
Deputy Tehsildar shall only apply to those promotees who.are
non graduates, but it is inapplicable to those promotees who
are graduates.

32. The appeals are disposed of. No order as to costs.
E

N.J. Appeals disposed o.f.