Bombay High Court4A vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. on 13 August, 2009Author:Swatanter KumarBench:Swatanter Kumar,A.M. Khanwilkar1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                     
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION




                                             
            WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 808 OF 2009
                          ALONG WITH
            WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 810 OF 2009




                                            
    WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 808 OF 2009


    Abhishek s/o Vidya Nand Singh                           )




                                 
    4A, Ram Niwas, Collector's Colony                       )
    Chembur, Mumbai 400 074.
                      ig                                    ).. Petitioner

         VERSUS
                    
    Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.                    )
    having its Registered Office at 17,                     )
    Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400 020.                    ).. Respondent
      
   



    ALONG WITH
    WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 810 OF 2009





    Prakash Raghunandan Niranjan                            )
    Hindu Adult, Indian Inhabitant                          )
    Aged 26 Years, Occ.: Service                            )
    R/o CWM, Traction Machine Workshop                      )
    RB 3, 310/A, Eklahara Road, Nasik Road                  )
    Nashik 422 101.                                         ).. Petitioner





         VERSUS


    1)   M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation               )
         Limited, A Government of India Enterprise          )
         Having its registered office at Petroleum          )
         House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road,                     )
         Mumbai 400 020.                                    )




                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::
                                       2

    2)   The General Manager                                 )
         Human Resources Department                          )




                                                                      
         M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation                 )
         Limited, A Government of India Enterprise           )
         having its registered office at Petroleum           )




                                              
         House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road,                     )
         Mumbai 400 020.                                     ).. Respondents




                                             
    Mr. S.C. Naidu i/b C.R. Naidu & Co. for the Petitioner in Writ
    Petition (Lodging) No. 808 of 2009.

    Mr. P.B. Shah i/b Vivek Salunke for the Petitioner in Writ
    Petition (Lodging) No. 810 of 2009.




                                   
    Mr. M.D. Siodia i/b Rustomji Y. Ginwala for the Respondents in
                      
    both the Writ Petitions.
                     
                     CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
                            A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

         JUDGMENT RESERVED   ON : 29TH JULY 2009
      

         JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH AUGUST 2009
   



    JUDGMENT (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)Rule in both the Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable

    forthwith. By consent of the parties, Writ Petitions taken up for





    final hearing and disposal.2.         Vide letter dated 20th February 2009, services of

    Officer Trainee (Abhishek Vidya Nand Singh, Petitioner in Writ

    Petition (Lodging) No.808 of 2009)       working in the Technical

    Department of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited at::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::3Mumbai Refinery were terminated on the ground that he had




                                                                      
    furnished incorrect information and secured the employment.The letter reads as under :-"Shri Abhishek (Exm.No.31938480)           February




                                             
         20, 2009
         Officer Trainee
         Technical Department
         HRD/RECT/OT
         Mumbai Refinery




                                  
                                   Terimination of Services
                      
         Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (Government
         of India Enterprise) had published an advertisement in
         Dec' 07, whereby applications were invited for the
                     
         position of Officer Trainees. All candidates having 60%
         and above marks as aggregate (50% and above for
         SC/ST candidates) in the qualifying degree were
         eligible to apply subject to fulfilling other eligibility
      

         norms.Now, it has been observed that, in your `on-line-
         application' and `Application for Employment' you have
         furnished that you have secured 62.78% as aggregate
         in the qualifying degree. However, you have actually





         secured 55.78% as aggregate in the qualifying degree.Thus, you have furnished incorrect information and
         secured the employment.Since you have furnished false/incorrect information





         with regard to the marks secured by you in the
         qualifying degree, your services are hereby terminated
         with immediate effect, as provided for under Clause
         No. 10 of the employment letter ref. HRD/RECT/OT
         dated 10th June '08.Sd/-Acknowledgement                     D.K. Deshpande
                                         Executive Engineer-HRD"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::43.         This letter was acknowledged by the Petitioner under




                                                
    protest and stating that the averments made in the letter were

    incorrect and he was accepting the letter under protest with a




                                               
    further prayer to the authorities of the Respondent Corporation to

    review the case in light of the facts and Mumbai University Rules.However, the Respondent Corporation declined to consider the




                                    
    matter any further resulting in filing of the present Writ Petition.4.         Prakash    R     Niranjan   (Petitioner      in    Writ      Petition

    (Lodging) No.810 of 2009) filed the Petition apprehending that his
      

    services are likely to be terminated in a similar fashion. In fact,
   



    his services were terminated subsequent to the filing of his

    Petition by letter dated 20th April 2009 on the ground that he had





    furnished false/incorrect information with regard to marks secured

    in the qualifying Degree.5.         Both the Petitions challenge the identical letters of

    termination on somewhat similar facts.                 Thus, it will be

    appropriate to dispose of both these Writ Petitions by a common

    judgment as not only they are based on somewhat similar facts

    but raise common questions of law.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::56.           The challenge to the letter of termination dated 20th

    February 2009, by the Petitioner Abhishek Vidya Nand Singh, inter




                                                
    alia, is on the following grounds :-(a)   The order of termination is violative of principles of

          natural justice as no opportunity was granted to show




                                      
          cause and reasons were not given and at no point of

          time    the
                          
                          Petitioner   was    granted         appropriate

          opportunity to show cause or put forth his point of view
                         
          based on Rules and Regulations of the concerned

          Universities.   Thus, the order is vitiated for want of
      


          hearing in any form known to law.(b)   With reference to the advertisement and the Rules of

          the Mumbai University, the Petitioner has neither made





          any mis-representation nor has furnished incorrect

          information to the Respondent Corporation.                    Thus,

          there is no justification for passing of the impugned





          order of termination.(c)   The records including the application form of the

          Petitioner had been duly verified by the authorities

          before even he was called for interview and the

          declarations    made    in   the   application      were        duly::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::6accepted by the authorities and the Petitioner was




                                                                              
          found to be eligible. The Respondents thus are bound

          by their conduct and are estopped from taking any




                                                      
          other stand and act to the prejudice of the Petitioner.(d)   Lastly,   it   is    contended       that   the     Petitioner        had




                                                     
          completed his training period on 13th February 2009

          and   thus     his    services   could      not    be      terminated




                                          
          simplicitor     by    the   order       and     the      Respondent
                         
          Corporation was obliged to hold regular departmental

          enquiry in accordance with the relevant provisions of
                        
          Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules and could not

          have terminated the services of the Petitioner in an
      


          arbitrary manner.Identical grounds of challenge are raised regarding letter of





    termination dated 20th April 2009 issued to the Petitioner Prakash

    Niranjan.7.          Before dealing with the merits or otherwise of these

    contentions, we may refer to the necessary facts giving rise to the

    present Writ Petitions.       For the purpose of convenience, we are

    referring to the facts in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 808 of 2009.The Petitioner obtained his Bachelor's degree in Mechanical::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::7Engineering while securing 62.78% marks and was conferred with




                                                                       
    the Degree on 12th December 2005.           On 29th December 2007

    advertisement appeared in the "Employment News" in terms of




                                               
    which   the   Respondent    Corporation     invited      applications           for

    prospective candidates for the post of "Officer Trainees" in




                                              
    different Engineering disciplines.     The Petitioner applied for the

    said post by submitting his application on-line. Admit Card was




                                    
    issued to the Petitioner for appearing in the written test at New
                      
    Delhi Centre which test he qualified successfully and was directed

    to appear for personal interview on 19th March 2008.                          The
                     
    Petitioner was interviewed on 22nd April 2008 and all the

    documents including the original documents were examined by
      


    the competent authorities of the Respondent Corporation. After
   



    being satisfied, the Petitioner was directed to appear for the

    medical check-up.     Having cleared all these procedures, the





    Petitioner was informed by e-mail dated 4th June 2008 that the

    Petitioner had been selected and was directed to attend the

    induction programme i.e. Samavesh camp which the Petitioner





    attended. There again the candidates were called upon to come

    turn by turn with their original documents before a panel of Senior

    Officers of the HR Department of the Respondent Corporation.After the said authorities were satisfied and all necessary

    credentials   were   verified,   the   Petitioner     was       offered        the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::8appointment vide letter dated 10th June 2008 appointing him as an




                                                                        
    Officer Trainee. During his training programme, he was posted in

    various   Departments   and,    according      to    the      Petitioner,        he




                                                
    successfully completed the training programme and while he was

    performing his duties at Mumbai Refinery, he was called by the




                                               
    Chief Manager, HR Department.        During that meeting on 27th

    January 2009, he was asked to tender resignation on the ground




                                   
    that he had misrepresented the percentage of marks secured by
                     
    him in qualifying examination.       The Petitioner attempted to

    convince the said authority that the marks obtained by him in the
                    
    VII and VIII Semesters are to be counted for qualifying examination

    and that he had secured 879 marks out of total 1400 marks and
      


    the percentage work out to 62.78% exactly and he had made no
   



    mis-representation.8.         On 28th January 2009, the Petitioner approached the

    Mumbai University and received the Ordinance and Regulation

    relating to Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical





    course. Attempt of the Petitioner to show the Ordinance to the

    Respondent authorities brought no results and he was all

    throughout   pressurized   to   tender   resignation           or    else      was

    threatened to be terminated. On 25th February 2009, the Petitioner

    submitted a representation facing the threat of termination.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::9According to the Petitioner, without referring any reasons and in




                                                                         
    an arbitrary manner on 27th February 2009 his services were

    terminated by issuing a back dated letter which he received under




                                             
    protest. Though the letter of termination was dated 20th February

    2009 the same was served on him on 27th February 2009




                                            
    compelling the Petitioner to resign.    In light of these facts, the

    Petitioner also got further information from the Mumbai University




                                   
    under the provisions of theRight to Information Act, 2005and he
                      
    submitted a detailed representation on 4th March 2009 to the

    Respondents and still another representation dated 31st March
                     
    2009 addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of the

    Respondent Corporation but of no help and result.                      On these
      


    premise, the    Petitioner   has   challenged        the      action       of    the
   



    Respondent Corporation as being arbitrary, violative of principles

    of natural justice, against the Rules and in violation ofArticles 14and16of the Constitution of India.9.         First and the foremost question that would require





    some   deliberation   and    consideration      by     the     Court       is    the

    interpretation and scope of the advertisement which is the very

    foundation of the dispute between the parties.                   The relevant

    clause reads as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::10"Candidates scoring with 60% & above marks (for
          SC/ST - minimum 50%) in the qualifying examination




                                                                      
          are eligible to apply.Candidates        possessing    Engineering/Technology




                                             
          Degrees in CORE DISCIPLINES (Civil Chemical,
          Electrical, Instrumental and Mechanical) ONLY would be
          considered.Those candidates who will be appearing for their Final
          Year Examination by July, 2008 and awaiting their
          results can also apply. On the date of application,
          Candidates must have minimum 60% marks (For SC/ST- minimum 50%) in aggregate till the last semester to




                                   
          be eligible to apply. (However, their eligibility for the
          selection will be subject to their obtaining 60% & above
                      
          marks (for SC/ST-minimum 50%) in aggregate in
          qualifying degree."10.        According to the learned Counsel appearing for the
   



    Petitioners, the above clause contains two different class of

    persons who could apply, namely, (i) who possess the Bachelor of





    Engineering degree in different disciplines, and (ii) who were still

    to appear for their final year examination by July 2008 and the

    advertisement contemplates different criteria of eligibility for





    these two classes. The contention is that the candidates who had

    passed the course were required to have at least 60% and above

    marks in the qualifying examination in Core discipline while for SC-ST it was 50%.      The candidates who were still to take the

    examination and were awaiting their results, could also apply but

    on the date of the application they must have minimum 60% of::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::11marks in aggregate till the last semester to be eligible to apply.However, their eligibility for selection was subject to their

    obtaining 60% and above marks in aggregate in qualifying




                                            
    examination. According to the Petitioners, therefore, the persons

    who had already obtained an Engineering degree were expected




                                           
    to have 60% marks in their Core discipline i.e. in the degree

    course and not aggregate of all the semesters from first year to




                                  
    the last year as there is no such practice nor the Rules of the
                     
    University require the same. On the contrary, the learned Counsel

    appearing for the Respondent Corporation contends that the
                    
    clause in the advertisement is a consolidated one and there is no

    distinction between different categories of applicants. Everybody
      


    has to obtain 60% or above marks and 50% in the case of SC/ST as
   



    an average of marks obtained in all the semesters.11.        Usefully reference can also be made to certain

    documents which would help the Court in analysing this clause in

    a better and more practical perspective.       The Corporation had





    issued interview letters for Officer Trainees and under the heading

    "Essential Documents for Personal Interview", required the

    candidates to bring along with them the documents at the time of

    interview. Clauses 4 and 5 of that letter are of some relevance.The same read as under :-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::12"4. Final Year Mark-sheet and Provisional or




                                                                      
          Degree/Post- graduate Degree Certificate towards proof
          of having passed the requisite B.E./B.Tech/M.E./M.Tech
          Degree/Post-graduate Degree Examination in the




                                              
          respective CORE DISCIPLINE with minimum 60% Marks
          (For SC/STs-minimum 50% Marks) in the qualifying
          Degree.5.    The candidates who will be appearing in their
          Final-year Degree/Post-graduate Degree Examination
          in April/May 2008 will also be interviewed, provided
          they have secured minimum 60% Marks (For SC/STs-
          minimum 50% Marks) in aggregate till the last




                                   
          semester.Further, their Eligibility for Final Selection will be
          subject to their obtaining minimum 60% Marks (For
          SC/STs - minimum 50% Marks) in aggregate in the
                     
          qualifying Degree."12.        After selection, "Appointment position-Officer Trainee"/
   



    appointment letters were also issued to the successful candidates

    and it had stated under clause 16(b) that a candidate should





    produce the original certificate in support of date of birth,

    educational qualifications (i.e. mark-sheets/degree certificate).The clause in the advertisement, without infringement of any





    settled canons of interpretation of documents, can safely be

    disected into two classes (i)the candidates who have passed and(ii) candidates who still have to take their final examination in July

    2008 and may also be awaiting their result as on the date of the

    application.   We are unable to accept the contention of the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::13Respondent Corporation that it is a common or a composite class




                                                                      
    which is universally applicable to all applicants.               Surely, the

    candidates who have already obtained their degree and otherwise




                                              
    satisfy the conditions stipulated in the advertisement including

    age etc., will be a class apart from the candidates who have still




                                             
    even to take their final examination.            Even from common

    prudence point of view these two classes can hardly be clubbed




                                   
    together. If that was not the intent of the authorities concerned,
                      
    there was no reason for them to point out in bold letters the two

    different classes and then to provide their eligibility conditions in
                     
    smaller print. The design of the advertisement thus supports the

    idea of formation of two classes of applicants. The applicants are
      


    expected to possess a degree in core discipline having degree in
   



    Civil, Chemical, Electronics, Instrumentation and Mechanical

    Engineering only. Besides this, they are required to have secured





    60% and above marks in their qualifying examination which will

    make them eligible. It is of some significance that neither the bold

    nor the ordinary print of the first clause uses the word "aggregate"any where. It only uses the expression "qualifying examination".Absence   of   that   expression    from the     first    clause        of    the

    advertisement itself is an indicator that the authorities inviting the

    applications never intended to apply the 60% aggregate concept

    to the candidates falling in first clause. It will be unfair and to::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::14some extent even impermissible to implant or read the expression




                                                                      
    "aggregate of all semester" into the first clause applicable to first

    category of candidates as specified in the advertisement.13.           The second class of applicants are those who have to




                                             
    still appear in their final examination and are awaiting their

    results.     On the date of the application those candidates must




                                   
    have 60% and above marks in aggregate till the last semester to
                        
    be eligible to apply, which means the last semester in which they

    have already appeared. This eligibility criteria is applicable only to
                       
    the persons who have not taken their final examination or whose

    results are still awaited. They ought to have secured in aggregate
      


    i.e. right from first to the last semester 60% marks in aggregate.This will make them eligible to apply but still not eligible for

    selection.     The candidates who have still to pass their final





    examination if do not have 60% marks aggregate of all the

    Semesters including the last for which they have already

    appeared, they are not even eligible to apply for the post in





    question. Securing 60% marks in the qualifying examination that

    too in the core discipline is the condition precedent for making the

    first kind of applicants eligible to apply. In clause 4 of the letter

    inviting the applicants for interview, it has been further clarified

    that final year mark-sheet and provisional or Degree/Post-graduate::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::15certificate    towards     proof     of        having    passed        the      requisite




                                                                                 
    B.E./B.Tech etc in the degree examination in core discipline with

    60% marks in the qualifying examination has to be produced at




                                                         
    the time of interview.             This requirement was to be satisfied

    before they can be selected for the post of Officer Trainee.14.           The qualifying examination in the core discipline means




                                         
    the final examination after which degree is awarded to an

    applicant     in
                         
                       terms   of   the       Statute,      Ordinance,          Rules       and

    Regulations of the University. It will hardly be permissible to go
                        
    behind the degree. The University is a creation of a statute and in

    terms of such law, it has the authority and jurisdiction to issue
      


    degrees, diplomas and such                 certificates        to    the      successful
   



    candidates in various fields. Once such a degree is issued then

    the employer can hardly impose limitations which will frustrate





    statutory force of the degree, unless there was unambiguous and

    clear stipulation in the advertisement inviting applications for

    employment of candidates who not only have the degree but their





    entire course percentage of marks is above 60% which will be

    counted for determining the percentage of marks specified in that

    advertisement. The expression "qualifying examination" again will

    be within the power, ambit and jurisdiction of the University. What

    will be the final examination of a degree course which in turn::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::16would be the qualifying examination is again to be ascertained




                                                                         
    and defined by none other than the University itself.                       In the

    present case, the applicants had under theRight to Information




                                                 
    Actwritten to the University seeking information about which

    semesters were to be considered as the qualifying examination for




                                                
    awarding degree and the Rules/Regulations/Ordinances in respect

    of the same. This query was made by the Petitioner vide letter




                                    
    dated 3rd March 2009 and it was replied to by the University on
                        
    30th March 2009. The reply reads as under :-" University of Mumbai

         Examinations Section        No.Exam./Engg/2348 of 2009
         Engineering Unit            Mumbai-98, 30th March, 2009
      

         M.J. Phule Bhavan
         Vidyanagair
   



         Santacruz (West)
         MUMBAI 400 098.Shri Abhishek





         S/o Vidya Nand Singh
         4A; Ram Niwas
         Collector's Colony, Chembur
         MUMBAI 400 074.Ref.: Application under      rule   6    ofThe      Right       to





         Information Act, 2005.Sir,

              This has reference to your application under theRight to Information Act, 2005dated, 3rd March, 2008
         asking the information on point 3(iii) (i)(ii) & (iii).3.(iii) (i)   for B.E. (Mechanical), which semesters are
                       considered as the qualifying examination for::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::17awarding degree and the rules/Regulation/
               Ordinances in respect of the same.Ans.    B.E. (Mechanical) (Sem. VIII) is qualifying
               examination for awarding degree (Copy of




                                        
               the statutes enclosed).(ii)     Whether the percentage obtained by the
               student for purpose of B.E. (Mechanical)




                                       
               Degree examination is to be computed on
               the basis of grand total of marks obtained
               by the candidate in the VII & VIII semesters
               taken together ?Ans.      Yes.

     (iii)Is it the practices in Mumbai University to
               take the aggregate of marks obtained by
               the     candidate    appearing  for    B.E.
               
               (Mechanical) Degree examination of I to VIII
               Semesters and then computing percentage.If so then the rule therefore and the
               methodology for the same.Ans.      No.  There is no such rules and the
   



               methodology for the same.

          The    Registrar,  Principal   K.  Venkatramni,University of Mumbai is appellate authority whose





     address and telephone no. is as under :Principal K. Venkatramni
                      The Registrar
                      University of Mumbai
                      Fort Office, First Floor





                      MUMBAI 400 032.Telephone No. 2270 2344, 2265 6953.Yours faithfully

                                             Sd/-Prof. Vilas B. Shinde
                                   (Information Officer &
                               Controller of Examinations)"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::1815.        Furthermore, the Ordinances and Regulations relating

    to the degree of Bachelor of Engineering of the Mumbai University




                                                    
    were also placed on record and referred to during the course of

    arguments.        In O.3703 it has been stated that Bachelor of




                                                   
    Engineering (B.E.) degree course is of four years and each year

    consists of two semesters.        First year Engineering (F.E.) course




                                      
    consists of Semester I and II; Second year Engineering (S.E.)
                        
    course consists of Semester III and IV; Third year Engineering (T.E.)

    course consists of Semester V and VI and Final year Engineering
                       
    (B.E.) course consists of Semester VII and VIII.16.        O.3714 is an ordinance relating to examination which
   



    clearly states that the candidate would be required to pass eight

    semester examinations to qualify for the award of the degree of





    Bachelor of Engineering.          The First and Second Semester

    examinations will be called First Year Engineering (F.E.); Third and

    Fourth Semester examinations together will be called the Second





    year Engineering (S.E.) examination; the Fifth and Sixth Semester

    examination together will be called Third year Engineering (T.E.)

    examination while the Seventh and Eighth Semester examination

    together   will    be   called   the    Final   year      Engineering            (B.E.)

    examination.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::1917.        R. 3902 clearly states that successful candidates who

    secure 70% or more of the total marks in Seventh and Eighth




                                            
    Semester examination taken together at one sitting only will be

    deemed to have passed the Final year B.E. Degree examination in




                                           
    First Class with Distinction and if they obtain 60% or more marks,

    they would be deemed to have passed the Final year B.E. Degree




                                 
    examination in First Class.18.        Another aspect which will provide an insight into this
                     
    aspect is that under O.5287, the candidates who have passed

    Bachelor of Engineering (Full-time and/or Part-time) and who wish
      


    to improve their class of percentage of marks would be permitted
   



    to appear again for the same examination with same subjects (all

    subjects of Semester Seventh and Eighth theory and oral together)





    without being required to keep any term again. Thus, the scheme

    of the Statute of Mumbai University from where both the

    Petitioners have passed their degree examination clearly shows





    that it is the Seventh and Eighth Semesters which is determinative

    for issuance of degree of Bachelor of Engineering in all the core

    disciplines. The cumulative effect of reading the above Ordinance

    and Regulations conjunctively is that the degree which is the

    qualifying examination shall primarily consist of 7th and 8th::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::20Semesters       and   securing    of   60%    marks      in    terms        of    the




                                                                          
    advertisement ought to relate to the final examination of the

    degree course. Such interpretation would be in consonance with




                                                  
    the language of the Statute of the University as well as would

    satisfy   the    object   of   interpreting   the    first    clause        of    the




                                                 
    advertisement.19.         Firstly, there is no ambiguity in the language of the
                          
    advertisement, but even if it is assumed that the relevant clause

    of the advertisement admits some element of uncertainty or
                         
    ambiguity in regard to the qualifying examination and scoring of

    60% marks whether in the degree examination or on an average
      


    of all the Semesters, it will be appropriate to take the approach
   



    which we have adopted for interpreting the meaning of a doubtful

    word by ascertaining it with reference to the meaning of words





    associated with it. "Noscitur A Sociis" is a known maxim that is

    applied to such situation. The Court cannot give meaning to the

    clause in the advertisement which will be in apparent conflict with





    the Statute of the University and would also defeat the very

    distinction clearly stated in the advertisement between the

    candidates who have already passed the degree examination and

    the ones who still have to take the final examination and whose

    results are awaited. The words in the advertisement should be::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::21understood in their proper perspective and the words must be




                                                                      
    read and understood together with reference to the degree as

    quoe non valeant singula juncta juvant.20.           Ambiguity in written instruments can be settled by




                                             
    taking into consideration meaning of express words and intent of

    the parties.    Both these ingredients will obviously be applied in




                                   
    consonance with the laws attendant to such document.                     In the
                        
    case of Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui v Deputy Director of

    Health Services and others, 2008 (6) Mh. L.J. 941, a Full Bench of
                       
    this Court while applying the rule of "plain construction" observed

    as under :-51. A statute is stated to be a will of the
          Legislature. It expresses a will of the Legislature,
          and function of the Court is to interpret the





          document, according to the intent of them that
          made it.       It is a settled rule of construction of
          statute that the provisions should be interpreted
          with application of plain rule of construction. The
          courts normally would not imply anything in them
          which is inconsistent with the words expressly used





          by the statute.      In other words, the Court would
          keep in mind that its function is jus dicere, not jus
          dare. The right of appeal being creation of a statute
          and being a statutory right does not invite
          unnecessary liberal or strict construction. The best
          norm would be to give literal construction keeping
          the legislative intent in mind.52. The Supreme Court in the case ofShiv Shakti
          Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur vs Swaraj
          Developers and Others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::22659, while referring to the principles for
     interpretation of statutory provisions, held as under:"19. It is a well-settled principle in law that
           the court cannot read anything into a




                                          
           statutory provision which is plain and
           unambiguous. A statute is an edict of the
           legislature. The language employed in a
           statute is the determinative factor of




                                         
           legislative intent. Words and phrases are
           symbols that stimulate mental references
           to referents. The object of interpreting a
           statute is to ascertain the intention of the
           legislature enacting it.     (SeeInstitute of




                              
           Chartered Accountants of India v. Price
           Waterhouse.)
                  ig           The intention of the
           legislature is primarily to be gathered from
           the language used, which means that
           attention should be paid to what has been
                
           said as also to what has not been said. As
           a consequence, a construction which
           requires for its support, addition or
           substitution of words or which results in
      

           rejection of words as meaningless has to be
           avoided.As observed in Crawford v.Spooner courts cannot aid the legislatures'
           defective phrasing of an Act, we cannot
           add or mend, and by construction make up
           deficiencies which are left there.        (SeeState of Gujarat v. Dilipbhai Nathjibhai
           Patel).It is contrary to all rules of
           construction to read words into an Act
           unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.
           [ See Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. ]
           Rules of interpretation do not permit courts





           to do so, unless the provision as it stands is
           meaningless or of a doubtful meaning.
           Courts are not entitled to read words into
           an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for
           it is to be found within the four corners of
           the Act itself.( Per Lord Loreburn, L.C. In
           Vickers Sons and Maxim Ltd. v. Evans,
           quoted inJumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra
           Deviah.)"::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::2353. The Law Commission of India, in its 183rd
     Report, while dealing with the need for providing




                                                                  
     principles of interpretation of statute as regards the
     extrinsic aids of interpretation inGeneral Clauses
     Act, 1897expressed the view that a statute is a will




                                          
     of legislature conveyed in the form of text. Noticing
     that process of interpretation is as old as language,
     it says that the rules of interpretation were evolved
     even at a very early stage of Hindu civilization and




                                         
     culture and the same were given by `Jaimini', the
     author of Mimamsat Sutras, originally meant for
     srutis were employed for the interpretation of
     Smrities also. While referring to the said historical
     background, the Commission said thus: -"It is well settled principle of law that as the statute
                 
     is an edict of the Legislature, the conventional way
     of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the
     intention of legislature. The intention of legislature
                
     assimilates two aspects; one aspect carries the
     concept of `meaning', i.e., what the word means and
     another aspect conveys the concept of `purpose'
     and `object' or the `reason' or `spirit' pervading
      

     through the statute. The process of construction,
     therefore, combines both the literal and purposive
   



     approaches. However, necessity of interpretation
     would arise only where the language of a statutory
     provision is ambiguous, not clear or where two views
     are possible or where the provision gives a different





     meaning defeating the object of the statute. If the
     language is clear and unambiguous, no need of
     interpretation would arise.In this regard, a
     Constitution Bench of five Judges of the Supreme
     Court inR.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC 684
     has held:".....If the words of the Statute are clear
               and unambiguous, it is the plainest
               duty of the Court to give effect to the
               natural meaning of the words used in
               the provision.          The question of
               construction arises only in the event of
               an ambiguity or the plain meaning of
               the words used in the Statute would be
               self defeating."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::24Recently, again Supreme Court inGrasim Industries
          Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (2002)4 SCC




                                                                     
          297 has followed the same principle and observed:"Where the words are clear and there is




                                             
                    no obscurity, and there is no ambiguity
                    and the intention of the legislature is
                    clearly conveyed, there is no scope for
                    court to take upon itself the task of




                                            
                    amending or altering the statutory
                    provisions."54. Above stated principles clearly show that the




                                    
          Court can safely apply rudiments of plain
          construction to legislative intent and object sought
                      
          to be achieved by the enactment while interpreting
          the provision of an Act. It is not necessary for the
          Court to implant or exclude words or over emphasize
                     
          the language of a provision where it is plain and
          simple."21.        Lord Wensleydale while referring to construction of

    documents stated as follows :-"In construing wills and indeed statutes and all written
          instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
          word is adhered to, unless that would lead to some
          absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with





          the rest of the instrument in which case the
          grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be
          modified, so as to avoid that absurdity, and
          inconsistency, but no further".(Reference : Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.

    Singh, 11th Edition 2008).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::2522.        In light of the above principles, we must examine the




                                                                      
    advertisement along with other clauses in letter of interview and

    appointment. The intent of the parties as is clear from the




                                              
    documents and more particularly the Statute and Regulations of

    the University which had issued the degree in question are the




                                             
    most relevant factors.     In any case it is always better to have

    ordinary and popular meaning which could go in line with the




                                   
    object to provide criteria of eligibility. Though it is a facet which
                      
    falls in the domain of the authority inviting the application for

    employment,    but   the   authority   cannot     alter     the      statutory
                     
    background of the degree in a course. The authorities had clearly

    spelt out two different categories and the second clause about
      


    average 60% marks in the Semesters including the last Semester
   



    for which the candidate had appeared but had not taken the final

    examination is applicable to the candidates who had not





    completed their Engineering course while the first clause was

    restricted to the persons who had already passed and obtained a

    degree in core discipline stated in the advertisement. The eligible





    candidates do not form a common group and real intention of the

    advertisement was to regulate them and render them eligible on

    different criteria as on the date of the application. It is apparent

    that the Petitioners belong to the first category. Thus, in our view,

    the Respondent Corporation was not justified in terminating the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::26services of the Petitioners who were holding degrees prior to the




                                                                          
    date of advertisement and, therefore, belong to first category

    mentioned in the advertisement.            The approach of Respondent




                                                  
    Corporation is based upon mis-reading and mis-construction of the

    relevant clause of the advertisement.23.        It is contended that there has been violation of




                                  
    principles of natural justice in passing the orders of termination
                     
    dated 20th February 2009 in case of Petitioner Abhishek Vidya

    Nand Singh and dated 20th April 2009 in case of Prakash R.
                    
    Niranjan. It is not in dispute before us that no show cause notice

    was served upon the Petitioners before their services were
      


    terminated. However, relying upon the averments made in the
   



    Writ Petitions, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent

    Corporation contended that they admit that the Petitioner





    Abhishek was called by the Officer of the Corporation on 27th

    January 2009 and he was asked if he was willing to resign and

    ultimately the impugned orders of termination were issued.According to the Petitioner Abhishek in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.

    808 of 2009, he was called by e-mail dated 22nd January 2009 and

    he met the Chief Manager, H.R. Department on 27th January 2009

    wherein he was told that he should resign as he had mis-represented   the   percentage        of    marks       of     his      qualifying::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::27examination.    Though, according to the Petitioner, he had




                                                                      
    informed that marks obtained in the 7th and 8th Semesters are to

    be taken into consideration and he had secured 879 marks out of




                                              
    1400 marks and the percentage was 62.78% exactly and thus

    there was no mis-representation, his contention was not accepted




                                             
    and no opportunity was given to him to produce the relevant

    documents including the Statute of the University and in an




                                  
    arbitrary manner the letter of termination was served upon him on
                     
    27th February 2009, though the same was prepared on 20th

    February 2009, as he refused to resign.24.        The principles of natural justice are applicable to every
      


    such situation. Wherever they are not specifically provided they
   



    will be read into the provisions and wherever an authority is

    desirous of passing any order of civil consequences against its





    employee, it is expected that it would give at least a reasonable

    opportunity to show cause why order of such serious consequence

    may not be passed against him for reasons stated in such letter.Admittedly, no such letter was issued and this attitude of the

    Respondent Corporation can hardly be explained in the facts and

    circumstances of the case. The letter of termination is dated 20th

    February 2009 but it was served upon the Petitioner on 27th

    February 2009. Why the Respondent authority couldn't ask the::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::28Petitioners     to explain their conduct about the alleged mis-representation of percentage of marks is a matter which has been

    left to one's imagination as there is no explanation for the same in




                                                 
    the reply affidavit or even forwarded during the course of

    argument.25.           The applicability of principles of natural justice is not a




                                      
    mere formality.       In fact there has to be adherence to these
                         
    principles in fact and apparently they should have been seen to be

    applied in their proper perspective. A Division Bench of Delhi High
                        
    Court in the case ofInternational Cargo Services v. Union of India

    & Anr., 120 (2005) Delhi Law Times 195, after referring to various
      


    judgments of the Supreme Court, held as under:-"7.      The principles of natural justice have twin
          ingredients. Firstly, the person likely to be adversely
          affected by the action of the authorities should be
          given notice to show cause or granted reasonable
          opportunity of being heard in consonance with the
          maxim audi alteram partem. Secondly, the order so





          passed by the authorities should give reason for
          arriving at any conclusion showing proper
          application of mind. Violation of either of these
          principles normally would render an order
          particularly quasi-judicial in nature invalid. Violation
          of principles of natural justice is violation of basic
          rule of law and would invite judicial chasticism.
          However, this rule is not without exceptions. Of
          course, the exceptions to such a rule are rare.
          Where the legislative scheme of provisions of a
          statute suggest that intent of the Legislature is to::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::29take emergent action, in that event and subject to
          fulfilment of ingredients of the provisions, an order




                                                                     
          could be passed without affording pre-decisional
          hearing and an expeditious post-decisional hearing
          may amount to substantial compliance with the basic




                                             
          rule of law. ........xxx   xxx   xxx12. It is true that in administrative action, vesting
          the person of civil consequences, the principles of
          natural justice should be adhered to. In the case of
          M/s.Raj Restaurant and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation




                                  
          of Delhi, (1982) 3 SCC 338, the Supreme Court held
          as under:`Wherein in order to carry on business a
               licence is required, refusal to give licence or
                     
               cancellation or revocation of licence would be
               visited with both civil         and pecuniary
               consequences and as the business cannot be
               carried on without the licence it would also
      

               affect the livelihood of the person. In such a
               stituation before either refusing to renew the
   



               licence or cacelling or revoking the same, the
               minimum principle of natural justice of notice
               and opportunity to represent one's case is a
               must. In the present case, no such opportunity





               was given before taking the decision not to
               renew the licence. The action disclosing the
               decision being in violation of the principle of
               natural justice, deserves to be quashed."26.        Similarly, in the case of National Organic Chemicals

    (RCD) Limited and another vs Pandit Ladaku Patil, 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 83, a Bench of this Court also clearly stated that while

    applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of

    natural justice), the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::30mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said




                                                                               
    rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no

    failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in




                                                       
    applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them. In

    disciplinary proceedings, fairness and prejudice are the concepts




                                                      
    of some significance.         Non-compliance of the procedure or the

    principles of natural justice would vitiate the action. Furthermore,




                                        
    there has to be substantial compliance to the principles of natural
                           
    justice and not as a mere formality. Departmental actions are to

    be tested on the touchstone of justness and fairness and there
                          
    should be adherence to principles of natural justice.27.              An inbuilt effect of compliance of principles of natural
   



    justice is to restrict the abuse of power and to ensure greater

    transparency into disciplinary actions.             These principles are not





    static     but     would   vary   with        reference    to     the      facts      and

    circumstances of a given case.In the case ofCanara Bank and

    others v Debasis Das and others, (2003) 4 SCC 557, the Supreme





    Court observed in regard to application of principles of natural

    justice and of their adherence as per the conscious of the man in

    the following words :-"13. Natural justice is another name for common-
             sense justice.    Rules of natural justice are not::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::31codified canons. But they are principles ingrained
          into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the




                                                                      
          administration of justice in a common-sense liberal
          way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals
          and human values. The administration of justice is




                                              
          to be freed from the narrow and restricted
          consideration which are usually associated with a
          formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and
          grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice




                                             
          which has to determine its form.14. The expression "natural justice" and "legal
          justice" do not present a watertight classification. It
          is the substance of justice which is to be secured by




                                   
          both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this
          solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of
                      
          legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice
          from     unnecessary      technicality,   grammatical
          pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the
                     
          omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster
          said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted
          to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence."28.        We are unable to understand why a show cause notice





    was not served upon the Petitioners before passing the impugned

    order. If the Respondent Corporation could call one of them to

    issue a command only to resign, they could have in normal





    circumstances issued a proper show cause notice stating the

    alleged mis-representation inviting the Petitioners to submit their

    explanations and then could have taken action in accordance with

    law. The arbitrariness in the action of the Respondent Corporation

    is apparent and the manner in which it has been executed has no

    legal basis. Abhishek Vidya Nand Singh, Petitioner in Writ Petition::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::32(Lodging) No.808 of 2009 was called upon by the Chief Manager,




                                                                    
    H.R. Department on 27th January 2009. The termination order was

    prepared and signed on 20th February 2009 but was issued and




                                            
    served upon the Petitioner on 27th February 2009.                Thus, the

    Respondent Corporation had sufficient time at their disposal for




                                           
    complying with the principles of audi alteram partem in an

    appropriate manner.29.
                     
              It was a serious matter for consideration whether the

    Petitioners had actually made any mis-representation to the
                    
    authorities or that their point of view was fully substantiated by

    the Statute of the University and even as per the practice adopted
      


    by the Mumbai University and State of Maharashtra in such
   



    matters. Such a casual approach on the part of the Respondent

    Corporation can hardly stand to the scrutiny of law. The learned





    Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation while referring

    to Clauses 3, 10 and 13 of the letter of appointment, contended

    that the Petitioners were probationers and their services could be





    terminated without assigning any reason. Further, they had made

    a mis-representation in the documents while securing the

    appointment and, therefore, their services could be terminated

    with immediate effect and the decision of the Corporation was

    final and binding and not questionable. It is not necessary for us::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::33to go into the legality and validity of the three clauses relied upon




                                                                          
    by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation

    as there is no challenge to them by the Petitioners in the present




                                                  
    Writ Petitions.     Suffice it to note that the letters dated 20th

    February 2009 and 20th April 2009 terminated the services of the




                                                 
    Petitioners without giving them notice of any kind. Firstly, even if

    the Petitioners are treated as probationers, as claimed by the




                                     
    Respondent Corporation, even then, there is no adherence to the
                       
    Regulation and Clause 3 of appointment letter as on successful

    completion of training, the Petitioners had to be absorbed in
                      
    regular service of the Corporation in Grade A and were to be on

    probation for a period of six months. Clause 3 itself is arbitrary as
      


    it says that the services can be terminated by either side without
   



    notice and without assigning any reasons. Secondly, if they were

    under probation as stated and the Corporation wanted to take





    disciplinary   action   against   them   as      they      had      made        mis-representation, the Respondent Corporation was                     expected to

    follow the procedure provided under the relevant Regulations and





    in any case at least serve proper show cause notice upon the

    Petitioners which in fact they have not done.                 Even when the

    Petitioner had brought to the notice of the authorities the correct

    facts duly supported by the Statute, Ordinance or Regulation and

    the letter of the University and prayed before the higher::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::34authorities to reconsider the decision, no heed was paid by the




                                                                        
    Respondent Corporation to this request of the Petitioner. This

    compelled the Petitioners to challenge that decision before this




                                                
    Court in the present Writ Petitions.      Clause 13 which says that

    regarding interpretation of any terms and conditions, the decision




                                               
    of the Corporation shall be final and binding upon the Petitioners,

    can hardly be of much advantage to the Respondent Corporation.The Corporation must act in accordance with law fairly and in
                       
    consonance with the principles of natural justice. The action of the

    Respondent Corporation, to us, appears to be arbitrary and in
                      
    violation of the principles of natural justice.30.         For all these reasons, we pass the following order :-(a)   Rule is made absolute in both the Writ Petitions.(b)   Orders of termination dated 20th February 2009 of

                Abhishek Vidya Nand Singh, Petitioner in Writ

                Petition (Lodging) No. 808 of 2009 and dated 20th





                April 2009 of Prakash Raghunandan Niranjan,

                Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.810 of

                2009 passed by the Respondent Corporation are

                set aside. The Petitioners would be entitled to all

                the consequential benefits.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::35(c)     In the facts and circumstances of the case, we




                                                                         
                   leave the parties to bear their own costs.CHIEF JUSTICE




                                       
                                                  A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.uday/judgments09/wp-l-808-09final::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:53:27 :::