UGC Regulations– High Court held that Reg.10 has no application in relation to appointment on the post of Assistant Professor – Allowing appeal, SC observed: Once Reg.10 specifically refers to counting of previous regular service, whether national or international, inter alia as Assistant Professor, the Division Bench in the exercise of its judicial review powers could not have held that Reg.10 has no application to one aspiring for appointment as an Assistant Professor. (Para 43)
Interpretation Of Statutes –A situation could arise where plain and literal reading of a statute could lead to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose for which the enactment was introduced and, the situation, necessarily compels the court to adopt that construction which would carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. The court would be justified in doing so, but it must be cautious that while it irons out the creases in the material it does not alter the material of which the legislation is woven. (Para 18)
Principle Of ‘Reading down’ – Whenever a court is seized of a question of vires of a primary legislation/ subordinate legislation or a part of it, a presumption of constitutionality is attached to the impugned provision and the courts would ordinarily strive to save the impugned provision from being declared ultra vires; however, there could be situations where the subordinate legislation (like a rule or a regulation) is challenged on the ground of excessive delegation or is itself violative of the enabling/primary legislation under which it is framed or even breaches constitutional guarantees -Reading down of a provision is a subsidiary rule of interpretation of statutes, which the courts tend to employ in situations to save the subordinate legislation like a rule or a regulation, wherever possible and practical, by reading it down by a benevolent interpretation, rather than declaring it as unconstitutional or invalid. However, it has been clarified that it is to be used sparingly, and in limited circumstances. Additionally, it is clear that the act of reading down a provision, must be undertaken only if doing so can keep the operation of the statute “within the purpose of the Act and constitutionally valid”. (Para 27)
Public Appointments – Recruitment – Whenever selection is based solely on the performance of the aspirants in the interview, it is not open to the recruiting authorities to dilute in any manner the norms and standards prescribed by the statutory provisions or executive orders governing recruitment for screening aspirants to be called for interview; however, it is always open to them to prescribe enhanced norms to have the zone of consideration for interview restricted to those aspirants satisfying the enhanced norms or higher criteria. In such cases, however, care has to be taken such that the enhanced norms or higher criteria are not susceptible to a challenge on the ground of arbitrariness or being contrary to the statutory provisions or executive orders governing recruitment. (Para 30)
Constitution of India – Article 32,226 – Writ Petition – Pleadings – The necessity for appropriate pleadings in a writ petition cannot be overemphasized, particularly when such petitions are mainly decided on affidavit evidence and not witness action- A court cannot in the absence of the requisite pleadings grant relief claimed by a party- while deciding a writ petition on the basis of affidavits, the writ court’s enquiry ought to be restricted to the case pleaded by the parties and the evidence that they have placed on record as part of the writ petition or the counter/reply affidavit, as the case may be. Findings of the court have to be based on the pleadings and the evidence produced before it by the parties. It is well-nigh impermissible for the writ court to conjecture and surmise and make out a third case, not pleaded by the parties, based on arguments advanced in course of hearing. (Para 31-37)
Constitution of India – Article 32,226 – The authority to craft subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling/primary legislation and it is imperative that such legislation harmonises with the provisions outlined in the enabling/primary legislation. Thus, grounds for challenging a subordinate legislation to ultimately succeed would, normally, be the same. The only additional ground available is that if the subordinate legislation offends any provision of the enabling/primary legislation, that too would provide room for the courts to hold the impugned provision ultra vires such enactment. (Para 39)
Interpretation of Statutes – Courts cannot add words to a statute or read words into it, which are not there; at the same time, it cannot also read a statute in a manner that results in deletion of words which are there. This is for the simple reason that the court has no power to legislate; hence, it cannot rewrite the legislation. (Para 43)
