1998 JTR(SC) 38
1998 AIR(SC) 703 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 390 ; 1998 1 ALT(SC) 20 ; 1998 2 APLJ 1 ; 1998 1 JT 60 ; 1998 LIC 491 ; 1998 2 RSJ 240 ; 1998 1 Scale 81 ; 1998 2 SCC 580 ; 1998 SCC(L&S) 703 ; 1998 1 SCR 85 ; 1998 1 SCT 703 ; 1998 1 SLR 458 ; 1998 1 UJ 346 ; 1998 KHC 766 ; 1998 1 Supreme 221
1998(1) SUPREME 221
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Employees Union, Secundrabad -Appellant
versus
Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4343 of 1988
Decided on 13-1-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. K. Subba Rao and Mr. A. Subba Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, Mr. B. Kanta Rao and Mr. T.V.S. Narasimachari (N.P.), Advocates.
Act Referred :ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT : S.16, S.116(a)
(A) The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, Sections 16 and 116(a), empowers the Governor to issue directives regarding reservation in appointments for co-operative institutions, while Section 116B provides for government directions on reservation in promotions within cadres created under the Act. In this matter, the statutory framework intersected with the society's bye-laws, which contained a rule prohibiting reservation in promotions, and the Governors notification that interpreted 'appointment' to potentially encompass promotional posts. The court examined whether the notification issued under Section 16 extended to promotional appointments in co-operative societies, considering the interplay between the Act, the societys regulations, and constitutional mandates under Article 16(4)(a).
(B) Key legal principles include that a notification issued under the Act must be construed according to its plain meaning, giving full effect to all its terms; the principle of statutory construction prohibits disregarding surplusage; and governmental powers under Section 116B are exercisable only within the bounds of the notification's language. The court held that the word 'appointment' in the notified context, when read with the requirement of direct recruitment, is not wide enough to cover promotional posts, and that a proper interpretation must align with the scheme of the Act and the society's rules.
Facts of the case:
The appellant society, registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, maintains employees of South Central Railway and frames service conditions through bye-laws, including one that prohibits reservation in promotions. The society issued rules that did not provide for reservation in promotions. Subsequently, private respondents were promoted on 9.8.1982 on the basis of reservation, but the society cancelled their appointments on 10.8.1982. The respondents challenged the cancellation, and the single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that reservation applies to promotional posts. The Division Bench upheld this view, interpreting the Governors notification as covering promotional appointments.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench erred in law by giving a wide interpretation to the word 'appointment' in the notification and disregarding the latter part of the notification requiring direct recruitment. The court found that the notification was limited to initial appointments and did not extend to promotional posts. Consequently, the impugned order of the High Court was unsustainable, and the societys rule against reservation in promotions was valid as framed.
Issues:
Whether the Governors notification under Section 16 of the Act applies to promotional posts in co-operative societies; whether the word 'appointment' in the notification can be interpreted to include promotions; and whether the High Court correctly applied the principles of statutory construction in interpreting the notification.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that a notification issued under Section 16 must be interpreted according to its plain language, and when read with the clause 'to be filled by direct recruitment on temporary or regular basis,' it is evident that the directive does not extend to promotional posts. The principle of statutory construction requires effect to be given to the entire notification, and the word 'appointment' cannot be expanded to include promotions without disregarding the clear requirement of direct recruitment. Therefore, the governments power under the Act does not cover promotional appointments in this context.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the judgments of the High Court and the single Judge are set aside, and the writ petition filed by the private respondents is dismissed without costs.
(A) The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, Sections 16 and 116(a), empowers the Governor to issue directives regarding reservation in appointments for co-operative institutions, while Section 116B provides for government directions on reservation in promotions within cadres created under the Act. In this matter, the statutory framework intersected with the society's bye-laws, which contained a rule prohibiting reservation in promotions, and the Governors notification that interpreted 'appointment' to potentially encompass promotional posts. The court examined whether the notification issued under Section 16 extended to promotional appointments in co-operative societies, considering the interplay between the Act, the societys regulations, and constitutional mandates under Article 16(4)(a).
(B) Key legal principles include that a notification issued under the Act must be construed according to its plain meaning, giving full effect to all its terms; the principle of statutory construction prohibits disregarding surplusage; and governmental powers under Section 116B are exercisable only within the bounds of the notification's language. The court held that the word 'appointment' in the notified context, when read with the requirement of direct recruitment, is not wide enough to cover promotional posts, and that a proper interpretation must align with the scheme of the Act and the society's rules.
Facts of the case:
The appellant society, registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, maintains employees of South Central Railway and frames service conditions through bye-laws, including one that prohibits reservation in promotions. The society issued rules that did not provide for reservation in promotions. Subsequently, private respondents were promoted on 9.8.1982 on the basis of reservation, but the society cancelled their appointments on 10.8.1982. The respondents challenged the cancellation, and the single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that reservation applies to promotional posts. The Division Bench upheld this view, interpreting the Governors notification as covering promotional appointments.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench erred in law by giving a wide interpretation to the word 'appointment' in the notification and disregarding the latter part of the notification requiring direct recruitment. The court found that the notification was limited to initial appointments and did not extend to promotional posts. Consequently, the impugned order of the High Court was unsustainable, and the societys rule against reservation in promotions was valid as framed.
Issues:
Whether the Governors notification under Section 16 of the Act applies to promotional posts in co-operative societies; whether the word 'appointment' in the notification can be interpreted to include promotions; and whether the High Court correctly applied the principles of statutory construction in interpreting the notification.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that a notification issued under Section 16 must be interpreted according to its plain language, and when read with the clause 'to be filled by direct recruitment on temporary or regular basis,' it is evident that the directive does not extend to promotional posts. The principle of statutory construction requires effect to be given to the entire notification, and the word 'appointment' cannot be expanded to include promotions without disregarding the clear requirement of direct recruitment. Therefore, the governments power under the Act does not cover promotional appointments in this context.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the judgments of the High Court and the single Judge are set aside, and the writ petition filed by the private respondents is dismissed without costs.
Judgment
G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.-The appellant is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and the members of the society are the employees of South Central Railway. The society in turn maintains certain staff members for running the affairs of the society. The service conditions of such employees of society is governed by the bye-laws of the society. Bye law 33 of the society empowered the committee of management to frame service regulation pertaining to the service conditions of the officers and the employees of the society. Pursuant to the aforesaid power the society has framed a set of rules with the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies determining the service conditions of the employees of the society. The said rules of society categorically provided that there should be no reservation in promotions of the employees of the society. The private respondents filed a writ petition No. 8051 of 1982 challenging the order of cancellation of their appointment dated 10.8.1982 and that writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. On an appeal being filed by the present appellant the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge. It may be stated that the private respondents were given promotions on 9.8.1982 to various promotional posts by applying the principle of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but that order was cancelled by order dated 10.8.1982 on the ground that under the rules of the society dealing with the service conditions of its employees the principle of reservation has no application in the matter of promotion. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the rule of reservation applies to the promotional posts also. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court interpreted the notification issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and held that the notification in question is wide enough to include all posts in all co-operative institutions including the promotional post to which the principle of reservation should be made applicable and the word ‘appointment’ in the notification is not necessarily referable only to the stage of initial recruitment. With this conclusion the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and confirmed the decision of the learned single Judge. Hence the present appeal.
2. Mr. K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that under Section 116B of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act the Government no doubt has the power to give directions to a society or class of societies or appointment committees to make provisions for the reservation of appointment or posts under any such society in any cadre created under the said section in favour or for the grant of any special concession in the matter of appointments to any such posts or cadre to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Castes, and the society or appointment committee shall be bound to comply with such directions and give effect to any provisions so made. But in the case in hand in exercise of such power the notification that has been issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh does not bring within its purview the promotional post to which the principle of reservation would get attracted and as such the impugned judgment of the High Court is unsustainable in law. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the High Court while interpreting the notification in question has not considered the later part of the notification which has ultimately vitiated the conclusion arrived at.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand contended that in view of the wide powers of the Government to issue directions contained in Section 116B of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act and in the fact that the railways have been following the principle of reservation in promotional posts and further the appellant society itself having followed the principle of reservation for some length of time it would not be in the public interest to hold that the principle of reservation should not apply in respect of promotional posts. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the provisions contained in Article 16(4)(a) of the Constitution, it is a constitutional mandate that the State can make laws for reservation in matter of promotion of any class or classes or post in the service under the State in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and such constitutional mandate should be borne in mind while interpreting the relevant notification.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having examined the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act as well as the notification issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of power conferred under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, we have no hesitation to hold that the Government has wide powers to give directions to the societies for applying the principle of reservation in the matter of promotion to the posts under the society. But the real question arises for consideration is whether the notification that has been issued by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh did provide for reservation in the promotional posts of the co-operative societies? The notification in question is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:
“Notification :
In Exercise of the powers conferred by Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs to Societies and the appointment committee constituted under Section 116-a of the appendix hereto shall be followed with regard to reservation of appointments to all posts in all co-operative institutions, to be filled by direct recruitment on temporary or regular basis.”
5. On a plain reading of the aforesaid notification it is crystal clear that the direction of the Governor was to follow the principle of reservation in appointments to all posts in all co-operative institutions to be filled by direct recruitment either on temporary or on regular basis. It is undisputed before us that the promotional posts in the societies cannot be filled up by direct recruitment, and therefore, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the aforesaid direction of the Governor to apply the principles of reservation is only in respect of appointments in the initial cadre and not to any appointments in the promotinal cadre. The Division Bench of the High Court while giving wide interpretation to the expression ‘appointment’ in the notification have completely overlooked the later part of the said notification to the effect “to be filled by direct recruitment on temporary or regular basis”. The interpretation given by the High Court to the notification only by giving a wide interpretation to the word ‘appointment’ makes the later part of the notification wholly redundant or surplusage. It is a cardinal principle of construction not to brush aside words used in a statute or in a notification issued under a statute and full effect must be given to the entire words of an instrument. Applying the said principle to the notification which is for consideration before us, we had no hesitation to come to the conclusion that under the said notification no direction has been given by the Governor to apply the policy of reservation in appointments to the promotional posts. The High Court, therefore, committed serious error of law in interpreting the aforesaid notification and by holding that the policy of reservation has been made applicable to the promotional posts also. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as judgment of the learned single Judge and hold that though it was open to the Govt. to apply the principle of reservation but by the impugned Notification it has not been made applicable to the promotional posts available in the society. This appeal accordingly is allowed and the writ petition filed by the private respondents stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.
**********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
South Central Railway Employees Co-operative Credit Society Employees Union, Secundrabad v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors., 1998(1) Supreme 221
00028