Supreme Court of India
RICHA MISHRAversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 147
- Decided
- 8 February 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- A K SIKRI
Holding
The appellant is entitled to a ten‑year age relaxation under Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 read with the State Services Examination Rules, 2003, and must be appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Summary
Richa Mishra, an Excise Sub‑Inspector, applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and cleared all stages of the competitive examination, but was omitted from the final list because she exceeded the upper age limit of 25 years prescribed in the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000. She claimed age relaxation as a woman under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 and also as a government servant under Rule 8 of the 2000 Rules. The High Court dismissed both claims, holding that the recruitment was governed by the 2000 Rules, which contain no provision for women’s relaxation, and that she was not a government servant on the cut‑off date. The Supreme Court held that the recruitment was indeed conducted under the 2000 Rules because the requisitions were issued before the 2005 Rules came into force, but the 1997 Rules, read with the State Services Examination Rules, 2003, provide a specific ten‑year relaxation for women candidates. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the relaxation, was eligible for the post, and the respondents were directed to appoint her as Dy SP with appropriate seniority. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the recruitment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was governed by the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 or the earlier Rules, 2000.
- Whether, if the recruitment was under Rules, 2000, a woman candidate could claim age relaxation under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997.
- Whether the State Services Examination Rules, 2003 make the 1997 Rules applicable to the examination in question.
- Whether the appellant qualified as a government servant for the purpose of age‑relaxation under Rule 8 of the 2000 Rules.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 15(3), s. Article 16, s. Article 309
Subjects
age relaxationwomen reservationrecruitment rulespublic serviceconstitutional lawArticle 15(3)purposive interpretationsubordinate legislationeligibilityDeputy Superintendent of Police
Judgment
(2016J 1S.C.R.316
A RICHA MISHRA
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 274 of2016)
B FEBRUARY 08, 2016
[A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
.._')ervice latt•:
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for
c Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 - r. 4 - Chhallisgarh Police
Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000
- 1: 8 - Conditions of eligibility for direct recruitme/1f - Chhattisgarh
Police Executive (Gaze/led) Service Recruitment and Promotion
Rules, 2005 - State Services Examination Rules. 2003 - r. 5 -
D Appointment - Post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.J -
Appellant-Excise Sub Inspector participated in the selection process
and qualified at each stage of the examination process - However,
name not included in the list of successjiil .candidates as she had
already crossed the age limit of 25 years - Writ petition by the
appellant on the ground that she was entitled to the benefit of age
E relaxdtion as per r. 8 of the 2000 Rules, on account of being'·
Government Servant - Dismissal of writ petition holding that she
entered the Government job after the cut-off date and as such was
not a government employee on the relevant date - Thereafter, writ
appeal claiming benefit of age relaxation ulr. 4 of the 1997 Rules
wherein relaxation of ten years is available to women candidates in
F
addition to other relaxation in age - Writ appeal also dismissed
holding that r. 8 of 2000 Rules would prevail upon 1997 Rules - On
appeal, held: Recruitment was rightly undertaken under Rules, 2000
-Appellant entitled to age relaxation in upper age limit by JO years
as provided to women candidates in r. 4 of 1997 Rules read with
G Examination Rules, 2003, notwithstanding the fact that Rules, 2000
do not contain any provision for relaxation qua women candidates
- Rules 1997 are specific Rules, and r. 4 are specially meant to give
benefit of age relaxation to women in public service and post in
connection with the affairs of the State - Examination Rules, 2003
which specifically contain a provision for applicability of Rules,
H
316
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 317
1997 would be applicable for the examination - Thus, appellant A
eligible to be considered for the post of Dy.S.P -Jssuonce of direction
to respondents to appoint appellant as Dy.S.P w.e.f the date her
iuniors in the merit lis_t were appointed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court.
HELD: 1.1 The process of selection started before B
Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment
and Promotion Rules, 2005 were promulgated with the
requisitions dated September 27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 sent
by the State Government to the CPSE. At that time, Rules, 2000
were in vogue. For this reason, even in the requisition it was c
mentioned that appointments are to be made under Chhattisgarh
Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion
Rules, 2000. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the vacancies
in-question which were to be .filled were for the period prior to
2005. Such vacancies needed to be filled in as per those Rules,
i.e. Rules, 2000. [Para 19][331-C-E] D
1.2 The State sent the requisition specifically mentioning
that the recruitment has to be under Rules, 2000. This was so
provided even in the advertisement. The appellant never
challenged the advertisement and contended that after the
promulgation of Rules, 2005 the recruitment should have been E
under Rules, 2005 and not Rules, 2000. Therefore, the appellant
is even precluded from arguing that recruitment should have
been made under Rules, 2005. Thus, the recruitment was rightly
made as per Rules, 2002. [Paras 22, 23] [332-G; 333-A-B]
1.3 Rule 8 of Rules, 2000, which, inter alia, lays down the F
provision pertaining to upper and lower age of the candidates,
does not make any specific provision for relaxation of age in
respect of women candidates. Note (2) appended to Rule 8
provides that in no other case, age limit will be relaxed. Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of
G
Women) Rules, 1997 read with State Services Examination Rules,
2003 would get attracted and as these Rules make a specific
provision for providing of age relaxation upto ten years that is to
be given to women candidates. Rules, 1997 are specific Rules,
specially meant to give benefit of age relaxation to women in
public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State. H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A These Rules are statutory iu nature framed under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a special provision
is made in favour of females in consonance with the Constitutional
spirit contained in Article 15(3). The salutary purpose and
objective behind promulgating ·Rules, 1997 is manifest and can
be clearly discerned. It is to encourage women, hitherto known
B
as weaker section, to become working women, by taking up
different vocations, including public employment. It would
naturally lead to empowerment of w11men, which is the need of
the hour. Empowerment of women is perceived as equipping them
to be economically independent, self-reliant, with positive esteem
c to enable them to face any situation and they should be able to
participate in the development activities. [Para 25, 26][333-G-
H)[334-A-D; 335-E]
1.4 When such affirmative actions are taken by lawmaker,
in the form of subordinate legislation, they need to be enforced
D appropriately so that the purpose that is intended is suitably
achieved. Seen in this context, Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 is to be
interpreted to have universal application when it comes to women
candidates seeking appointment in public service and post in
connection with the affairs of the State of Chhattisgarh. After all,
that is th.e primary purpose behind enacting the said Rule having
E statutory character. [Para 27) [335-F-G] .
1.5 The competitive examination for recruitment to the post
of Dy.S.P. was conducted under the State Services Examination
Rules, 2003. Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with eligibility
conditions. Apart from prescribing nationality, minimum
F educational qualification etc., it specifically lays down provision
relating to age of the candidates. After prescribing minimum and
maximum age limits as eligibility condition for appearing in the
examinations, proviso to this provision of age empowers the State
Government to vary the lower and upper age limits for any of the
services included in these Rules looking to the exigencies of
G services. This Rule also makes provision for relaxation in the
upper age limit in certain cases. For women candidates, a
provision is specifically made providing that as per Rules, 1997,
10 years age relaxation would be given to women candidates. It
can, therefore, be clearly inferred that incorporation in the manner
H aforesaid Rules, 1997 were made applicable for the examination
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 319
in question and in this way the lacuna in Rules, 2000 also got A
filled up. It would not be too much presumptuous to say that
omission of Rules, 1997 in Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 was merely
accident.al and it was not a case of casus omissus. Because of this
reason, said omission was also rectified while enacting Rules,
2UU5 by making a specific provision in Rule 8(1) of Rules, 2005.
B
[Pa ·a 29, 30] [337-A-F]
1.6 On interpretation of subordinate legislation salutary aim
whereof is to achieve social purpose and consequently social
justice. When all the said Rules are seen in juxtaposition and in
conjunctiqn with each other, intention of rule making authority
becomes apparent and is clearly ascertained. The intention of c
the rule making authorities had always been to give benefit of
relaxatio~ in age to women candidates. That, represents the true
intention. Otherwise the very purpose of such Rules is defeated.
The. rule making authority has manifest its iutention by removing
the ambiguity and providing a specific provision even in Rules, D
2005 which is by way of abundant caution so that such kinds of
disputes 9r situations are eliminated. [Para 30, 31] [337-G;
341-F-G]
1.7 Appellant was entitled to age relaxation as per Rule 4
of Rules, 1997 read with Examination Rules, 2003. She was, '
therefore, eligible to be considered for the post of Dy.S.P. The E
direction is issued to the respondents to appoint the appellant as
Dy,S.P. w.e.f. the d~te her juniors in the merit list were appointed.
Her seniority and pay would be fixed on that basis. [Para 32]
[341-H; 342-B].
Y. V. Rangaiah and Others v. J Shreenivasa Rao (1983) F
3 SCC 284; B.L. Gupta and Another v.· MC.D. (1998)
9 SCC 223; P. Ganeshll'ar Rao and Others v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and Others 1988 (Supp) SCC
740:1988 Suppl. SCR 805; Rajasthan Public Service
Commission v. Keil/a Kumar Palliwal and another
G
(2007) 10 SCC 260: 2007 (5) SCR 1131; State of
Plmjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal (2007) 10 SCC
402: 2007 (6) SCR·8; Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan
Balkrishna. Lu/la 2015 (11) SCALE 684; Badshah v.
Sou. Urmila Badshah God.fr and Anr. (2014) 1 SCC
188:2013 (10) SCR 259 - Referred to. H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
(1983) 3 sec 284 Referred to. Para 19
(1998) 9 sec 223 Referred to. Para 19
1988 Suppl. SCR 805 Referred to. Para 19
B 2007 (5) SCR 1131 Referred to. Para 20
2007 (6) SCR 8 Referred to. Para 21
2015 (II) SCALE 684 Referred to. Para 28
2013 (10) SCR 259 Referred to. Para 30
c Per S11ere J: (S11ppfeme11ti11g):
HELD: 1.1 The appellant is entitled to claim age relaxation
·as provided to women candidat~s in Ruic 4 of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of women)
Rules, 1997 read with proviso to clause (xiv) of Ruic 5 of the
D States Services Examination Rules, which has application to the
case of the appellant while considering her case for the post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police. !Para 3) )342-E)
1.2 The very object of promulgating the Rules of 1997 and
especially Ruic 4 is to encourage women's participation in various
E State services. Denial of such benefit to a woman candidate while
considering her case for the post in State services would make
the Rule wholly nugatory. Such can never be the inteution of the
Legislature being against the spirit of Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. )Para 4) (3.t2-F-G)
F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 274
of2016
From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.03.20 I0 of the High Court
ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 358 of2009
Ajit Kumar Sinha, T. G. Narayanan Nair, K.N. Madhusoodhanan
G
for the Appellant.
Apoorv Kurup, Aniruddha I'. Mayee, A. C. Boxipatro, Dr. Harsh
Pathak, Farrukh Rashec, Siddhartha Shukla, Mohit Choubey for the
Respondents.
11 The two Judgments of the Court were delivered by
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 321
A.K. SIKRI, J. I. The issue which arises for consideration in A
the present appeal pertains to the appointment for the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dy.S.P.').
Though, the appellant herein had participated in the selection process
and she not only qualified at each stage of the examination process. her
name was still not included in the list of successfol candidates for the
B
. said post. The reason given was that as per the Chhattisgarh Police
Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2000), upper age limit for appointment
to the post of Dy.S.P. was 25 years and she had already crossed the said
age limit, and therefore, she was rendered ineligible for the post in
question. c
2.This decision of the respondents in not appointing the appellant
as Dy. S.P. was challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition in
the High Court of Chhattisgarh on the ground that she was entitled to
the benefit of age relaxation on account of being Government Servant.
It may be noted at this juncture that she was appointed as Excise Sub [)
Inspector, Bilaspur after clearing the CG combined Competitive
Examination, 2003 (which is also called State Services Examination,
2003). She, thus, claimed that she was a Government Servant.and on
that ground she claimed age relaxation as per Ruic 8 of the Ru lcs, 2000.
However, her writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge
holding.that she entered the Government job vide appointment order E
dated 21.04.2006 which was alter the cut-off date as 0 I .0 I .2006 for the
post of Dy.S.P. and. therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of age
relaxation. The appellant filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench
and claimed benefit of age relaxation under Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Special Provision for appointment of women) Rules. 1997 F
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1997'). However, even on this
ground she has not succeeded as the High Court vidc impugned judgment
dated March I0, 20 I0 has dismissed the writ appeal.
3. We would like to point out at this stage that number of writ
petitions were filed in the I ligh Court which were taken up by the learned G
single Judge analogously and decided by the common judgment dated
November 16, 2009. Whereas some writ petitions including that of the
appellant herein was dismissed and some other writ petitions were allowed
by the learned single Judge holding that in their cases they were entitled
to age relaxation and, therefore, select list should have been prepared on
II
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A the basis of merit treating those persons to be within age limit. The
Government had filed writ appeals challenging outcome of such writ
petitions in favour of those candidates. These appeals were also taken
up by the Division Bench along with the appeal of the appellant herein.
The High Court has allowed those appeals holding that even such persons
were not entitled fo the benefit of age relaxation. We make it clear that
B
we shall be eschewing the discussion in respect of those cases which
obviously is not necessary.
4. Coming to the case of the appellant herein, seminal facts which
need to be recorded for deciding the controversy are recapitulated below:
c As mentioned above, the appellant herein was appointed as Excise
Sub Inspector, Bilaspur vide appointment order dated 24.01.2006 and
she joined the said post on 07.02.2006. On 27.09.2004, the State
Government sent requisition to Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as the 'CPSC') for filling up of various vacancies
which included vacancies to the post ofDy.S.P. as well. This was
D followed by fresh requisition dated 22.03.2005. In this requisition, the
State Government also mentioned that the vacancies shall be filled up in
accordance with Rules, 2000. Acting on this requisition, CPSC issued
Advertisement dated 26.08.2005. Relevant to state that after the
requisition by the State Government sent on 22.03 .2005 and before the
E issuance of Advertisement on 26.08.2005, Chhattisgarh Police Executive
(Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules, 2005') came into force which were published
in the Official Gazette on 28.06.2005. The effect of these Rules would
be discussed at the relevant stage.
F S. Appellant herein had applied for the post of Dy.S.P. and
appeared in the preliminary examination which she duly qualified. On
that basis, the appellant filled the form for appearing In main examination.
In this form, she stated that she was entitled to relaxation often years in
upper age limit being a woman. Such a relaxation was claimed on the
basis of the Rules, 1997 which were brought into force w.e.f. 07.02.1997.
G The Rule 4 thereof provides for such age relaxation. For our purposes,
Rule 2 and Rule 4 are relevant and are reproduced below:
"2. Scope and application- Without prejudice to the generality
of the provisions contained in any service Rules, these rules shall
apply to all persons to public service and posts in connection with
H the affairs of the State.
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 323
[A.K.SIKRI, J.]
4. Ai:e Relaxation. - There shall be age relaxation of ten years A
for women candidates for direct appointment in all posts in the
services under the State in addition to the upper age limit prescribed
in any service rules or executive instructions."
6. The appellant was allowed to participate in the main examination
and she qualified that as well. Accordingly, she was called for interview B
on 12.04.2007. Final results were declared thereafter. She obtained
54'h position in the merit list. Thereafter, CPSC prepared the list of
selected candidates and sent that list to the Government for effecting
appointments as per that list. However, name of appellant was not
recommended for Dy.S.P. though two persons who were below in merit,
namely, Tarkeshwar Patel and Ranu Sahu were recommended. They c
had obtained 59th and 60th position respectively, in the merit list.
Appellant felt aggrieved thereby and made a representation to this effect.
However, her representation did not elicit any positive response even
when it was followed by a reminder dated 20.05.2007. This apathy of
the respondent forced the appellant to approach the High Court in the D
form of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Her plea was that she had not been given the benefit of age relaxation
even when she was an existing government servant as she was working
in the Excise Departmeni of the State of Chhattisgarh and being a
Government Servant, she was entitled to age relaxation for eight years.
This plea was rejected by the learned single Judge recording that she E
has joined the government service after the cut-off date and, therefore,
she was not a government employee on the relevant date.
7. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the learned
single Judge by filing the writ appeal. In this writ appeal,.she did not
pursue her case for age relaxation upto eight years on the ground that F
she was a Government S'ervant. Instead she relied upon Rule 4 of
Rules 1997 wherein relaxation of ten years is available to women
candidates in addition to other relaxation in age. The Division Bench
has held that benefit of Rule 4 of Rules 1997 shall not enure to her
benefit and the entire discussion in support ofthis conclusion is contained G
.. in paras 52 and 53 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced
hereunder in entirety:
"'?2. We are unable to accept this argument. The advertisement
clearly mentions that for the post of Dy.S.P., minimum and
maximum age limit would be 20 and 25 years clearly spelling out
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.
A the terms and conditions for relaxation of age criteria.
53. From bare reading of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2000, it is clear that
age relaxation under the Rules, 1997 is not applicable for
recruitment on the post ofDy.S.P. From advertisement also, it is
evident that no relaxation in age for recruitment for. the post of
B Dy.S.P. was available to the woman candidates whereas age
relaxation under the aforesaid rules have been made applicable in
other categories. Since there was no challenge by the appellant
to the applicability of the Rules, 2000, she cannot be permitted to
assail the impugned judgment on the ground that she was entitled
for age relaxation as provided under Rule 4 of the· Rules, 1997."
c
8. As is clear from the aforesaid reasoning given by the High
Court, Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 would prevail upon Rules, 1997 and,
therefore, Rules, 1997 are not applicable for recruitment to the post of
Dy.S.P. The High Court has also been persuaded by the stipulation
contained in the advertisement as per which outer age limit for the post
D of Dy.S.P. was 25 years. The whole controversy, therefore, revolves
around interplay of Rules, 1997 and Rules 2000 as well as other rules.
That was precisely the focus of arguments of the learned counsel for
the parties.
9. We have already reproduced provisions of Rules 2 and 4 of
E Rules, 1997. As can be discerned from bare reading of Rule 4 thereof, it
provides for relaxation of 10 years for women candidates for direct
appointment 'in all posts' in the services under the State and this relaxation
is 'in addition' to the upper age limit prescribed in any service Rules or
adjective instructions. Rule 2 of these rules makes it clear that Rules,
F 1997 shall apply to all persons to public service and post in connection
with the affairs of the State, without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions contained in any service rules.
10. Insofar as Rules, 2000 are concerned, these are the Rules
which pertain to recruitment and promotion to various categories of post
G
in State Police Executive (Gazetted) Services. The post of Dy. S.P. is
admittedly covered by these Rules and, therefore, eligibility conditions
for the aforesaid post and the method ofrecniitment etc. as contained in
these Rules which govern the post of Dy. S.P. as well. Since, we are
concerned herewith the conditiGns of eligibility for direct recruitment, it
is Rule 8 of the said Rules which is relevant. This Rule provides for
H lower and upper age limit as well. The relevant portion of the provision
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 325
[A.K.SIKRI, J.]
relating to age, as contained in the said Rule, is reproduced below, thereby A
omitting the provisions pertaining to other conditions of eligibility with
which are are not concerned:-
"8. Conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment.- In order to be
eligible for competing in the examination a candidate shall have to
be satisfy following conditions, namely:- B
(I) Age.--(a) He must have attained the age as specified in column
4 of Schedule Ill and not attained the age specified in column 5 of
the said schedule, on the first day of January next following the
date of commencement of the examination.
(b) The upperage limit shall be relaxable upto a maximum of five c
years if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe
or Other Backward Class.
(c) The upper age limit shall also be relaxable in respect of
candidates who are or have been employees of the Madhya
Pradesh Government, to the extend and subject to the conditions D
specified below:-
(i) A candidate who is a permanent Government Servant should
not be more than 33 years of age.
(ii) A candidate holding a posttemporarily and applying for another
E
post should not be qr more than 33 years ofage. This concession
shall also l:ie-adinissible to the contingency paid employees, work-
charged employees and employees working in the P1'oject
Implementation Committee.
(iii) A ~andidate who is a retrenched Government Servant shall
F
. be allowed to deduct from his age the period of all temporary
service previously rendered by him upto a maximum of 7 years
even if it represents more than one spell provided that the resultant
age does not exceed the upper age limit by three years.
Expla11atio11.- The term ·retrenched Government Servant'
denotes a person who was in Government Servant of this State or · G
of any of the constituent units for a continuous period of 11ot less '
than six months and who was discharged because of reduction in
the number of employees not more than three years prior to the
date of his registration in the Employment Exchange or of
application made otherwise for employment in the Government H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] I S.C.R.
A Service.
(d)A candidate who is an ex-serviceman shall be allowed to deduct
from his age the period of all defense services previously rendered
by him provided that the resultant age does not exceed the upper
age limit by more than three years.
B .Explanation.- The terms ·ex-serviceman• denotes a person who
belongs to any of the following categories and who was employed
under the Government of India for a continuous period of not less
than six months and who was retrenched or declared surplus as
a result of the recommendation of Economy Unit or due to normal
c reduction in the number of employees not more than three years
from the date of his registration and any employment exchange
orof application made other wise for employment in Government
Service:-
(i) Ex-serviceman released under mustering out concession;
D (ii) Ex-serviceman recruited for the second time and discharge
on-
(a) completion of short term engagement;
(b) fulfilling the conditions of enrollment;
E (iii) Officers (Military and Civil) discharged on completion of their
contract (including Short Service regular commissioned officers);
(iv) Officers discharged after working for more than six months
continuously against leave vacancies ..
(e) General upper age limit shall be relaxable upto five years in
F respect of widow, destitute or divorced woman candidates.
(f) Upper age limit shall also be relaxable upto two years in respect
of green card holder candidates under the Family Welfare
Programme.
G (g) The General upper age limit shall be relaxable upto five years
in respect of awarded superior caste partners of a couple under
the inter caste marriage inceptive Programme of the Tribal,
Scheduled Castes, and Backward Classes Welfare Department.
(h) The upper age limit shall also be relax able upto five years in
respect of candidates holding 'Vikram Award'
H
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 327
[A.K.SIKRI, J.]
(i) The upper age limit shall be relax able upto a maximum of 33 A
years of age in respect of candidates (who are employees) of
Madhya Pradesh State Corporation/Boards.
UJ The upper age limit shall be relaxed in case of voluntary
Home-Guards for the period of servic_e, rendered by them subject
to the limit of 8 years, biif in no case their age should exceed 3 B
years.
Note (I) Candidates who are admitted to the selection under the
age concession mentioned in sub-clause(i) and (ii) of clause (c)
and clause(i) above shall not be eligible for appointment if after
submitting the application they resign from the service either before C
or after the selection. They will however continue to be eligible if
they are retrenched from the service or post after submitting the
application.
Note (2) In no other case age limits will be relaxed.
Note (3) Department candidates must obtain previous permission D
of their appointing authority to appear for the selection."
11. Column (4) of Schedule III prescribes minimum age limit of
20 years and maximum age limit of 25 years for the post of Dy.S.P.
(HQ, Training, JNPA, PTC, PTS, Security, Lines etc.). A reading of the
aforesaid provision, in its entirety, would suggest that relaxation in age of E
different periods is provided to the candidates belonging to the following
categories:
(i) Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward
Classes.
F
(ii) Employees of the Madhya Pradesh Government holding
permanent post or temporary post or retrenched Government
Servant.
(iii) Ex-Serviceman
(iv) Widow /destitute or divorced women can di dates G
(v) Green card holder candidates under the Family Welfare
Programme
(vi) Awarded superior caste partners of a couple under the inter-
caste marriage inceptive programme of the Tribal, Scheduled
Castes and Backward Classes Welfare Department. H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 1 S.C.R.
A (vii) Those candidates who are holding 'Vikram Award'
(viii) Candidates who are employees of Madhya Pradesh State
Corporation/Boards.
(ix) Candidates who are voluntary Home-Guards
B 12. Admittedly, case of the appellant does not fall in any of the
aforementioned categories wherein age relaxation is provided. If one
has to go by Rule 8 in isolation, having regard to Note (2), age limit in the
case of appellant cannot be relaxed. In this context, however, the
question arises as to whether Rules, 1997, which contain special provision
forappointment of women, would still be applicable having regard to the
c fact that the appellant is a woman candidate. Whereas, the contention
of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant is that since there are special Rules meant for women candidates
in respect of all posts in the State, this special provision is applicable.
On the other hand, contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
D is that having regard to Rule 8(1) of Rules, 2000, which provides for
provision relating to 'age' specifically for the post in-question, it is this
Rule which would determine the eligibility of candidates insofar as
prescription of 'age' therein is concerned.
13. We may add here that Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior
E counsel for the appellant had also drawn our attention to States Service
Examination Rules, dated June 9'". 2003 (Examination Rules, 2003). He
submitted that the examination in-question was conducted as per those
Rules. These Rules are applicable to the post of Dy.S.P. as well and
Rule 5 thereof deals with eligibility conditions. Apart from prescribing
nationality, minimum educational qualification etc., It specifically lays
F down provision relati.ng to age of the candidates. Though, the minimum
of age of 21 years and maximum of age 30 years as on first January
next following the date of commencement of the competitive examination
is stipulated therein, proviso to this provision of age empowers the State
Government to vary the lower and upper age limits for any of the services
G included in these Rules looking to the exigencies of services. This Rule
also makes provision for relaxation in the upper age limit in certain cases.
What is relevant for us is that for women candidates, a provision is
specifically made providing that as per Rules, 1997, 10 years age
relaxation would be given to women candidates, as is clear from the said
provision which reads as under:
H
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATT!SGARH AND ORS. 329
[A.K.SlKRl, J.]
"(xiv) up to maximum I 0 years: for women candidate: As per A
Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 7.2.1997, Published rule C.G. Civil
Service (Special provision ofappointment for women) Rule 1997,
10 years age relaxation will be given to women candidate."
Taking advantage of this provision, Mr. Sinha argued that since
examinations were conducted under the aforesaid Ru !es, in view of the B
said specific provision, the appellant was entitled to age relaxation, as ·
per Ru !es, 1997.
14. Another submission of Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha was that in any
case it was not permissible for the respondents to make recruitment in-
quest ion on the basis of Rules, 2000 in view·ofthe fact that in the State c
ofChhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Recruitment
and Promotion Rules, 2005 were promulgated vide Notification dated
June 28, 2005 issued by the Governor of the State in exercise of proviso
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and, these Rules specifically
repealed Rules, 2000. He pointed out that in these Rules specific provision
has been made under Rule S(f) for giving relaxation upto I 0 years to D
women candidates, in terms of Rules, 1997. The said provision is as
follows:
"8(f) The upper age limit for women candidates shall be relaxable
upto I 0 years as per Chhattisgarh Civil Service (special provision
for appointment of women) Rules, 1997. this relaxation shall be E
in addition to the other age relaxation.''
15. He submitted that in the instant case, advertisement for the
post in-question, in which the appel !ant participated, was issued on August
26, 2005, i.e. after the promulgation of Rules, 2005 which became
effective from June 28, 2005 and, therefore, it is Rules, 2005 which F
were applicable and as these Rules contain specific provision for
relaxation for women candidates on the applicability of Rules, 1997.
.. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents countered the aforesaid
·submissions by arguing that the first requisition in the instant case was
sent by the State on September 27, 2004 which was followed by 2'' G
requisition on March 23, 2005. These requisitions were in respect of
post which had fallen vacant at that time and as on the dates of these
requisitions, Rules 2000 were applicable. It is for this reason that even
in the requisition it was specifically mentioned that post in-question shall
be filled up in accordance with Rules, 2000. The learned counsel,
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A therefore, argued that since the process was initiated under Rules, 2000,
it was clearly saved in Rules, 2005 as is evident from proviso to Rule 27
dealing with repeal and saving. It reads as under:
"27. Repeal and Saving:
Provided that any order made or action taken under rules so
B repealed, shall be deemed to have been made or taken under the
corresponding provisions of these rules."
17. It was argued that precisely for this reason even in the
advertisement, it was mentioned that the post will be filled up as per
Rules, 2000. It was further contended that this advertisement was never
c challenged by the appellant and, therefore, recruitment made under Rules,
2000 in respect of vacancies which were for the period when Rules,
2000 were applicable, could not be faulted with. In this very line of
submission, it was further argued that once it is accepted that Rules,
2000 govern the field, admittedly as per these Rules there is no provision
D for relaxation for women candidates and, therefore, High Court rightly
held that the appellant was not entitled to any such age relaxation and
was, therefore, suffered from age bar.
18. From the arguments noted above, the questions that fall for
consideration and need the answers are the following:
E (a) Whether the recruitment to the post of Dy.S.P. was governed
by Rules, 2005 or it was rightly done under the Rules, 2000?
It may be pointed out at this stage itself that if Rules, 2005 are
applicable then the outcome of the case would clearly be in favour
of the appellant inasmuch as rules specifically provided for
F relaxation upto I 0 years for women candidates. However, if
answer to the aforesaid question is that recruitment process was
rightly carried under Rules, 2000 then further question would arise
for consideration, viz.:
(b) Notwithstanding the fact that Rules, 2000 do not contain any
G provision for relaxation qua women candidates, whether a
relaxation would still be available to women candidates under Rules,
1997?
There are two incidental facets of question no. (b), which are as
follows:
H
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 331
[A.K.SlKRl, J.]
(i) Whether Rules, 1997 are applicable, which make special A
provision for relaxation in upper age limit by 10 years in respect
of women candidates?
(ii) Whether Examination Rules, 2003 which specifically contain
a provision for applicability of Rules, 1997 would be treated as
applicable for the examination in-question? B
19. Question No. 1
The High Court held that first and second requisitions to commence
recruitment process against the vacant seats to the post of Dy.S.P. was
made when Rules, 2000 were in force. Therefore, recruitment was rightly
undertaken under Rules, 2000. c
The admitted facts are thatthe process of selection started before
Rules, 2005 were promulgated with the requisitions dated September
27, 2004 and March 26, 2005 sent by the State Government to the CPSE.
At that time, Rules, 2000 were in vogue. For this reason, even in the
requisition it was mentioned that appointments are to be made under D
Rules, 2000. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the vacancies in-
question which were to be tilled were for the period prior to 2005. Such
vacancies needed to be tilled in as per those Rules, i.e. Rules, 2000.
This is patent legal position which can be discerned from Y. V. Rm1gllillli
llnd Others v. J. SlireenivttS<t Rllo 1• As per the facts of that case a
E
panel had to be prepared every year of list' of approved candidates for
making appointments to the grade of Sub-Registrar Grade-II by transfer
according to the old rules. However, the panel was not prepared in the.
year 1976 and the petitioners were deprived of their right of being
considered for promotion. In the meanwhile, new rules came into force.
In this factual background, it was held that the vacancies which occurred F
prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by
the amended rules. The judgment in the case of B.L. Guptll llnd
Another v. M.C.D.' also summarises the legal position in this behalf.
The judgment in P. Glllleshwllr Rllo llnd Otlters v. Stllte of Aml/1m
Pmdeslt llnd Otlters3 is also to the same effect. Para 9 of the judgment
G
laying down the aforesaid proposition of law, is reproduced below:
'< 1983) 3 sec 284
' <1998) 9 sec 223
'1988 <~~PPl sec 740 H
332 SUPREME COU!{T REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A "9. When the statutory rules had been frame din 1978, the vacancies
had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of
1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in
our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the
question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen
earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention
B
has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of this Court in the
case of N. T. Devin Klltti v. Kllrnlltllkll Public Service
Commission [(1990) 3 SCC 157]. In that case after referring to
the earlier decisions in the cases of Y. V. Rtmglliaft', P.
Gllnesftwllr Rllo.1, and A.A. Clifton v. Director of Educlltion
c [(198~) 3 SCC 33] it was held by this Court that the vacancies
which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would
be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules."
20. No doubt. under certain exceptional circumstances,
Government can take a conscience decisions not to fill the vacancies
D under the old Rules and, thus, there can be departure of the aforesaid
general rule in exceptional cases. This legal precept was recognised in
the case of Rlljllstlu111 Public Service Commission v. Keillll Kumllr
Plllliwlll llml llnotfter' in the following words:
"There is no quarrel over the proposition oflaw that normal rule is
E that the vacancy prior to the new Rules would be governed by the
old Rules and not by the new Rules. However, in the present
case, we have alr~ady held that the Government has taken
conscious decision not to fill the vacancy under the old Rules and
that such decision has been validly taken keeping in view the facts
and circumstances of the cases."
F
21.This position is reaffirmed in State ofPunjab v. Aru11 Kumllr
AggllnVlll'.
22. However, as far as present case is concerned, the State sent
the requisition specifically mentioning that the recruitment has to be under
G Rules, 2000. This was so provided even in the advertisement. The
appellant never challenged the advertisement and contended that after
the promulgation of Rules, 2005 the recruitment should have been under
'(2007) 1osec 260
H ' (2007J 10 sec 402
. RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 333
(A.K.SIKRI, J.]
Rules, 2005 and not Rules, 2000. Therefore, the appellant is even .A
precluded from arguing that rec.ruitment should have been made under
Rules, 2005. '
23. Thus, we answer question no. (i) by holding that recruitment
was rightly made as per Rules, 2000.
24. Question No. (ii)~ As noted above, Rue 8 of Rules 2000, B
which, inter alia, deals with age criteria that has to be fulfilled by the
candidate, does not make any provision for age relaxation insofar as
women candidates are concerned. On the other hand, we have Rules,
1997 which also have statutory force as they are also framed UiYder
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution oflndia. These Rules contain c
special provisions for appointment of women candidates and are made
applicable to the public service and posts .in connection with the affairs
of the State. The question is as to whether these Rules would not be
applicable in those cases where recruitment is made under Rules, 2000
which not only contains specific provision for age relaxation but does
not make any provision for age relaxation in favour of women candidates D
and on the contrary categorically provides under Note (2) that 'in no
other case age limits will be relaxed'. Significantly, this omission in Rules,
2000 has taken note of when Rules, 2005 were framed and, therefore,
the situation was remedied in Rule 8 of Rules, 2005 by specifically
providing under sub-rule (f) of Rule 8 that relaxation in the upper age E
limit would also be available to women candidates as per Rules, I997 as
noted above. However, we have already come to a conclusion that Rules,
2005 are not applicable in respect of selection in question. Therefore,
position will have to be considered keeping in view Rules, 2000 in
juxtaposition with Rules, 1997 and other relevant provisions which were
applicable as on that date. F
25. No doubt, Rule 8 of Rules, 2000, which, inter a/ia. lays down
the provision pertaining to upper and lower age of the candidates, does
not make any specific provision for relaxation of age in respect of women
candidates. We also are conscious of the fact that Note (2) appended to
Rule 8 provides that in no other case, age limit will be relaxed. However, G
that is not the end of the matter. The legal position is to be examined in
conjunction with all other mies which occupy the field and all relevant to
determine the issue. We are of the opinion that Rules, 1997 read with
State Services Examination Rules, 2003 would get attracted and as these
Rules make a specific provision for providing of age relaxation upto ten
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A years that is. to be given to women candidates, the appellant herein shall
be entitled to the said benefit. The reasons for arriving at this finding are
explained hereinafter:
26. In the first instance, it is to be borne in mind that Rules, 1997
are specific Rules, specially meant to give benefit of age relaxation to
B women in public service and post in connection with the affairs of the
State. These Rules are statutory in nature framed under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a special provision is
made in favour of females in.consonance with the Constitutional spirit
contained in Article 15(3) of the Constitution oflndia which empowers
the State to make any special provision for women and children. The
c salutary purpose and objective behind promulgating Rules, 1997 is
manifest and can be clearly discerned. It is to encourage women, hitherto
known as weaker section, to become working women, by taking up
different vocations, including public employment. It would naturally lead
to empowerment of women, which is the need of the hour. Women in
D this world, and particularly in India, face various kinds of gender disabilities
and discriminations. It is notwithstanding the fact that under the
Constitution oflndia, women enjoy a unique status of equality with men.
In reality, however, they have yet to go a long way to achieve this
Constitutional status. It is now realised that real empowerment would
be achieved by women, which would lead to their well-being facilitating
E enjoyment of rights guaranteed to them, only if there is an economic
empowerment of women as well. Till sometime back, the focus was to
achieve better treatment for women and for this reason, the concentration
was mainly on the well-being of women. Now the focus is shifted to
economic empowerment. Such objectives have gradually evolved or
F broadened to include the active role of women when it comes to
development as well. No longer the passive recipients of welfare-
enhancing help, women are increasingly seen, by men as well as women
as actiye agents of change: the dynamic promoters of social
transformation that can alter the lives of both women and men. It is
now realised that there is a bidirectional relationship between economic
G development and women's empowerment defined as improving the ability
of women to access the constituents of development-in particular health,
education, earning opportunities, rights, and political participation. This
bidirectional relationship is explained by Prof. Amartya Sen by propounding
a theory that in one direction, development alone can play a major role in
H driving down an equality between men and women; in another direction,
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 335
[A.K.SIKRI, J.]
continuing discrimination against women can hinder development. In A
this scenario, empowerment can accelerate development. From
whichever direction the issue is looked into, it provides justification for
giving economic empowerment to women. It is, for this purpose, there
is much emphasis on women empowerment (as it leads to economic
development) hy United Nations World Bank and other such Bodies.
B
Interestingly, the 2012 World Development Report (World Bank 2011)
adopts a much more nuanced message. While it emphasizes the "business
case" for women empowerment, it mainly takes it as given that the
equality between women and men is a desirable goal in itself, and policies
should aim to achieve that goal. Poverty and lack of opportunity breed
inequality between men and women, so that when economic development c
reduces poverty, the condition of women improves on two counts: first,
when poverty is reduced, the condition of everyone, including women,
improves, and second, gender inequality declines as poverty declines, so
the condition of women improves more than that of men with development.
Economic development, however, is not enough to bring about complete
D
equality between men and women. Policy action is still necessary to
achieve equality between genders. Such policy action would be
unambiguously justified if empowennent of women also stimulates further
development, starting a virtuous cycle. Empowerment of women, thus,
is perceived as equipping them to be economically independent, self-
reliant, with positive esteem to enable them to face any situation and E
they should be able to participate in the development activities.
27. Keeping in view all the aforesaid and other relevant
considerations, when such affirmative actions are taken by lawmaker, in
the form of subordinate legislation, they need to be enforced appropriately
so that the purpose that is intended is suitably achieved. Seen in this F
context, Rule 4 of Rules, 1997 is to be interpreted to have universal
application when it comes to women candidates seeking appointnient in
public service and post in connection with the affairs of the State of
Chhattisgarh. After all, that is the primary purpose behind enacting the
aforesaid Rule having statutory character.
G
28. In order to gather the intention of the lawmaker, the principle
of 'purposive interpretation' is now widely applied. This has been
explained in the case of Slwiiesh D/111iryllw1111 v. Mo/11111 Blllkrislmll
Lu/Ill' in the following words:
''2015 (11) SCALE 684 H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A "9. The aforesaid two reasons given by me, in addition to the
reasons already indicated in the judgment of my learned Brother,
would clearly demonstrate that provisions of Section 15(2) of the
Act require purposive interpretation so that the aforesaid objective/
purpose of such a provision is achieved thereby. The pri-nciple of
'purposive interpretation' or ·purposive constru'ction' is based
B
on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that
meaning to the provisions which serve the purpose' behind such
a provision. The basic approach is to ascertain what is it designed
to accomplish? To put it otherwise, by interpretative process the
Court is supposed to realise the goal that the legal text is designed
c to realise. As Aharan Barak puts it:
"Purposive interpretation is based on three components: language,
purpose, and discretion. Language shapes the range of semantic
possibilities within which the interpreter acts as a linguist. Once
the interpreter defines the range, he or she chooses the legal
·v meaning of the text from among the (express or implied) semantic
possibilities. The semantic component thus sets the limits of
interpretation by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that
the text can bear in its (public or private) language."
10. Of the aforesaid three components, namely, language, purpose
E and discretion 'of the Court', insofar as purposive component is
concerned, this is the ratio Juris, the purpose at the core of the
text. This purpose is the values, goals, interests, policies and aims
· that the text is designed to actualize. It is the function that the text
is designed to fulfil.
F 11. We may also emphasize that the statutory interpretation of a
provision is never static but is always dynamic. Though literal rule
of interpretation, till some time ago, was treated as the 'golden
rule', it is now the doctrine of purposive interpretation \vhich is
predominant, particularly in those cases where literal interpretation
may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. If it brings
G about an end which is at variance with the purpose of statute, that
cannot'be countenanced. Not only legal process thinkers such as
Hart and Sacks rejected intentionalism as a grand strategy for
statutory interpretation, and in its place they offered purposivism,
this principle is now widely applied by the Courts not only in this
country but in many other legal systems as well."
H
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS. 337
[A.K.SIKRI, J.]
29. Even if any doubt arises about the applicability of Rules, 1997 A
because of absence of any specific provisions in Rules, 2000, that is
taken care of by State Services Examination Rules, 2003. It is not disputed
by the respondents that competitive examination forrecruitment to the
post of Dy.S.P. was conducted under the aforesaid Rules. As already
noted above, Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with eligibility conditions.
B
Apart from prescribing nationality, lninimum educational qualification etc.,
it specifically lays down provision relating to age of the candidates. After
prescribing minimum and maximum age limits as eligibility condition for
appearing in the examinations, proviso to this provision of age empowers
the State Government to vary the lower and upper age limits for any of
the services included in these Rules looking to the exigencies of services. c
This Rule also makes provision for relaxation in the upper age limit in
certain cases. What is relevant for us is that for women candidates, a
provision is specifically made providing that as per Rules, 1997, I 0 years
.. age relaxation would be given to women candidates, as is clear from the
said provision >Nhich reads as under:
D
"(xiv) up to ma)(imum I 0 years: for women candidate: As per
Rajpatra (Asadharan) dated 7.2.1997, Published rule C.G. Civil
Service (Special provision of appointment for women) Rule 1997,
I 0 years age relaxation will be given to women candidate."
30. It can, therefore, be clearly inferred that incorporation in the E
manner aforesaid Rules, 1997 were made applicable for the examination
in question and in this way the lacuna in Rules, 2000 also got filled up. It
\¥Ould not be too much presumptuous to say that omission of Rules,
1997 in Rule 8 of Rules, 2000 was merely accidental and it was not a
case of casus omissus. Because..ofthis reason, said omission was also
rectified while enacting Rules, 2005 by making a specific provision in F
Rule 8(t) of Rules, 2005. Therefore, the intention of the rule making
authorities had always been to give benefit of relaxation in age to women
candidates. After all, we are called upon to interpret subordinate
legislation salutary aim whereof is to achieve social purpose and
consequently social justice. What should be the approach in interpreting G
such laws is explained in Badshah v. Sou. Urmila Badshah 'Godse
and. Anr. 7 in the followingwords: ·
'<2014) 1sec188 H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016 J I S.C.R.
A "13.3. Thirdly, in such cases, purposive interpretation needs to be
given to the provisions of Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure
While dealing with the application of destitute wife or hapless
children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with
the marginalized sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve
"'social justice" which is the Constitutional vision, enshrined in the
B
Pr~amble of the Constitution oflndia. Preamble to the Constitution
of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path
under rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens,
justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights
achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden
c duty of the Courts to advance the cause of the social justice.
While giving interpretation to a particular provision, the Court is
supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.
14. Oflate, in this very direction, it is emphasized that the Courts
have to adopt different approaches in "social justice adjudication",
D which is also known as "social context adjudication" as mere
"adversarial approach" may not be very appropriate. There are
number of social justice legislations giving special protection and
benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon
describes it eloquently:
E It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that "social context judging"
is essentially the application of equality jurisprudence as evolved
by Parliament and the Supreme Court in myriad situations
presented before courts where unequal parties arc pitted in
adversarial proceedings and where courts are called upon to
dispense equal justice. Apart from the social-economic inequalities
F accentuating the disabilities of the poor in an unequal fight, the
adversarial process itself operates to the disadvantage of the
weaker party. In such a situation, the judge has to be not only
sensitive to the inequalities of parties involved but also positively
inclined to the weaker party ifthe imbalance were not to result in
G miscarriage of justice. This result is achieved by what we call
social context judging or social justice adjudication.
15. The provision of maintenance would definitely fall in this
category which aims at empowering the destitute and achieving
social justice or equality and dignity of the individual. While dealing
· with cases under this provision. drift in the approach from
H
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHllAITISGARl-I AND ORS. 339
[J\.K.SIKRI, .1.J
"adversarial" litigation to social context adjudication is the need A
of the hour.
16. The law regulates relationships between people. It prescribes
patterns of behavior. It retlects the values of society. The role of
the Court is to understand the purpose of law in society and lo
help the law achieve its purpose. But the law of a society is a B
living orgnnisni. It is based on a given f~1clual and social reality
that is constantly changing. So1netin1es change in 1<1\v precedes
societal change and is even intended to sti1nulatc it. In 1nost cases.
ho\vcvcr, a chang(;: in lavv is the result of a change in social reality.
Indeed, when social reality changes, the law must change too.
Just as change in social reality is the law oflife, responsiveness to
c
change in social reality is the life oflhe law. It can be said that the
history of law is the history of adapting the law to s_ociety's
changing needs. In both Constitutional and statutory interpretation,
the Court is supposed lo exercise direction in determining the proper
relationship between the subjective and objective purpose of the D
law.
17. Cardozo ac.knowledgcs in his classic
... no system ofjus scriptum has been able lo escape the need of
it", and he elaborates: "It is true that Codes and Statutes do not
re1ider the Judge supertluous, nor his work perfunctory and E
mechanical. There are gaps to be filled. There arc hardships and
wrongs to be mitigated ifnot avoided. Interpretation is oltcn spoken
of as if it were nothing but the search and the discovery of a
meaning which, however. obscure and latent, had none the less a
real and ascertainable pre-existence in the legislator's mind. The
process is. indeed, that at times. but it is olien something more. F
The ascertainment of intention may be the least of a judge's
troubles in ascribing 1neaning to a stature.
Says Gray in his lecture
The fact is that the difficulties of so-called interpretation arise
G
when the legislature has had no meaning at all; when the.question
which is raised on the statute never occurred to it; when what the
judges have to do is, not to determine that the legislature did mean
on a point which was present to its mind, but to guess what is
would have intended on a point not present to its mind, ifthc point
had been present. II
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] l S.C.R.
A 18. The Court as the interpreter of law is supposed to supply
on1issions, correct uncertainties, and hannun ize rt:su lts \vi th j ustil.:c
through a method of free decision-"! ibrc recherche sceintifique"
i.e. "free Scientific research". We are of the opinion that there is
a non-rebuttable presumption that the Legislature while making a
provision like Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, to fulfill
B
its Constitutional duty in good faith, had always intended to give
relief to the woman becoming "'wife'' under such circumstances.
This approach is particularly needed while deciding the issues
relating to gender justice. We al ready have examples of exe111plary
efforts in this regard. Journey from Shah Ba no. AIR 1985 SC 945
c to Shabana Bano. AIR 20 I0 SC 305 guaranteeing nrnintenance
rights to :Yluslim women is a classical example.
19. In Ra111eshchandra Daga v. Rameshwari Daga. AIR 2005
SC 422, the right of another woman in a similar situation was
upheld. Here the Cou11 had accepted that Hindu marriages have
D continued lo be bigamous despite the enactment of the Hindu
Marriage Act in 1955. The Court had commented that though
such marriages are illegal as per the provisions of the Act. they
are not 'im111oral' and hence a financially dependent woman cannot
be denied maintenance on this ground.
E 20. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take
into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted,
but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule,
first propounded in I lcydon 's Case ( 1854) 3 Co. Rep. 7a. 7b which
became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court
\Vould also invoke the legal 111axin1 co11struc1iu11 ut res 111agis
F valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative
constructions arc possible the Court must give effect to that which
will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which
the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road
block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the
G narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of
the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction
which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept
the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would
legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result.
If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a
H
RICHA MISHRA v. STATE OF CHl-IAITISGARl-I AND ORS. 341
[A.K.SIKRL J.]
premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore. at A
least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section I25.
Code of Criminal Procedure. such a woman is to be treated as
the legally wedded wife.
21. The principles of Hindu Personal Law have developed in an
evolutionary \Vay out of concern for all those subjl!ct to it so as tn 13
make fair provision against destitution. The manifest purpose is to
achieve the social objectives for making bare minimum provision
to sustain the members of relatively smaller social groups. Its
foundation spring is humanistic. In its operation field all though. it
lays do\vn the pennissiblc categories under its benefaction. \vhich
arc so entitled either because of the tenets supported by clear
c
public policy or because of the need Ill subscrve the social and
individual n1orality 1ncasurcd for n1aintcna11cc.
22. In laking the aforesaid view, \VC arc also encouraged by the
following observations of this Court in ~@L Ramesh Chander
I)
Km1sbal v. v.,_ena_~ausiiaJ ( 1978) 4 sec 70:
The brooding presence o/ the Co11Stit11tio11u/ e111potln· .fin· the
1veaker sections like \1·0111en an(/ chff(lren 111us1 i1~f(Jrn1
i11te17Jretutio11 ~l ii has lo /Ja1·e social relevance. S'o vieH'e<I. ii
is 11ossib/e to be selective in JJicki11,g 0111 !hat i11te111retu1io11
out <~f t1ro a/ter11util'es lFhich uclra11ces the call.\'('_ - the cause E
of the derelicts.··
3 I. When all the aforesaid Rules are seen in jux1aposition and in
conjunction with each other. intention of rule making authority becomes
apparent and is clearly asce11ained. The intention ofrule making authority
was. and it continues to be so. to give benefit to age relaxation to women F
candidates. That, according to us, represents the true intention.
Otherwise the very purpose of such Rules is defeated. The rule making
authority has manifest its intention by removing the ambiguity and
providing a specific provision even in Rules, 2005 which. according to
us, is by way of abundant caution so that such kinds of disputes or G
situations with which we arc confronted here. arc eliminated.
32. Thus, in ultimate analysis. we hold that the appellant was entitled
to age relaxation as per Rule 4 of Rules. 1997 read with State Services
Examination. 2003. She was. therefore. eligible to be considered lorthe
post ofDy.S.P. The facts narrated above reveal that she participated iii
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] I S.C.R.
A the selection process and in the merit list prepared, she was placed at
Serial No.54. Persons below her in the merit list have been appointed.
She was excluded only because of alleged age bar since we find that
this impediment would not come in her way, the present appeal warrants
to be allowed. The direction is issued to the respondents to appoint the
appellant as Dy.S.P. w.c.r. the date her juniors in the merit list, namely,
B
Tarkeshwar Patel and Rann Sahu are appointed. Her seniority and pay
shall be fixed on that basis. However, she will not be allowed to make
any claim for salary for the intervening period otherwise the intervening
period shall count for all other purposes.
This appeal is allowed with costs, in aforesaid terms.
c
ABHAY MANOI !AR SAPRE, J. I. I have had the benefit of
reading the elaborate, well considered and scholarly written draft opinion
of my learned Brother.
2. Having gone through the opinion, I entirely agree with the
D reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by my learned Brother.
3. In my considered opinion also, the appellant is entitled to claim
age relax.ation as provided to women candidates in Rule 4 of Rules of
1997 read with proviso to clause (xiv) of Rule 5 of the States Services
Examination Rules, which has application to the case of the appellant
E while considering her case for the post of Deputy Superintendent of
Police. I, however, need not elaborate my conclusion since I entirely
agree with the reasoning of my learned Brother on this issue.
4. I also concur with the subtle observations made by my learned
Brother in Para 26 where His Lordship has observed that the very object
of promulgating the Rules of 1997 and especially Rule 4 is to encourage
F
women's participation in various State services. In my view, denial of
such benefit to a woman candidate while considering her case for the
post in State services would make the Rule wholly nugatory. Such can
never be the intention of the Legislature being against the spirit ofArticles
15 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia.
G
5. With these few words of my own, I fully agree with my learned
Brother.
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "age relaxation"Sign in to search