KUNJAMMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter is before us on a reference by our learned brother, Bhaskaran Nambiar, J. THE question of law for decision is whether s. 6 (2) of the Cochin University Act (Act 30 of 1971) (the Act), takes within its sweep the provisions of R. 17a of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (the Service Rules ). Sub-section (2) of S. 6 of the Act reads as follows:- "in making appointments to posts in any service, class or category under the University, the University shall mutatis mutandis, observe the provisions of clauses (a), (b)and (c) of R. 14 and the provisions of r. 15,16, and 17 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules as amended from time to time. "

(2.) ON a plain reading of the sub-section, it is clear that R. 17a of the Service Rules has not been made applicable in making appointments to posts in the service of the University. What then remains to be examined is whether by necessary implication that Rule could be deemed to have been made applicable in making appointments.

(3.) IN adapting the Service Rules for the purpose of making appointments to the posts in the service of the University, to the extent it was found necessary or expedient, it was open to the legislature to include or not to include a particular rule. It would be too presumptuous on our part to take a view that the legislature omitted to mention R. 17a of the service Rules while enumerating the rule in sub-section (2) of S. 6 of the Act in relation to the service of the University accidentally. The legislature, having taken care to mention even the particular clauses in R. 14 that would apply in making appointment to the posts in the service of the University, would not have omitted an important rule like R. 17a which, as we have already noticed, has an independent and separate status unconsciously or without there being any purpose behind it. When clause (d) of R. 14 has been omitted to be mentioned in sub-section (2) of S. 6 of the Act, the meaning definitely is that that clause would have no application in making appointments to posts in the service of the University. The same logic and the same reasoning should apply when legislature has omitted to include R. 17a of the Service Rules among the rules adapted in relation to the making of the appointments to posts in the service of the University. There is absolutely no justification to read into the Section something which the legislature has consciously and deliberately left out; and to deem that having been incorporated in the Section to suit the convenience, would run counter to all accepted principles of interpretation, particularly in view of the fact that for a harmonious construction of the provisions contained in the Rules specifically adapted by the legislature such strained interpretation is not at all necessary. We, therefore, conclude that it has not been the intention of the legislature to lay down that in making appointments to posts in the service of the University R. 17a of the Service rules would apply. It is equally clear that nothing prevents the University from prescribing methods and qualification for making appointments to the posts in the service of the University, not covered by the service rules adapted by the legislature or University.