KAMLESH SINGH Vs. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was selected by the District Committee following the procedure provided in Rule 15 of the U. P. Rural Develop ment (Gram Sewak) Service Rules, 1980 in the post of Gram Sewak. Such candidates are sent for training under Rule 16 of the said Rules. But the Commissioner has altered the position of the select list prepared by the District Committee and did not include the petitioner within the list of candidates meant for training. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the said action of the Commissioner on the ground of its being wholly without jurisdiction,

(2.) DR. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rules do not prescribe any jurisdiction to the Commissioner to alter the select list prepared by the District Committee. By reason of Rule 16 he is bound to send the names of the candidates selected by the District Com mittee for training. His jurisdiction to prepare the list arises only after the completion of the training as provided in the last paragraph of Rule 16. Besides this the Commissioner does not derive power to intervene with the select list prepared in order of merits by the District Committee. He draws my attention to Rule 15, particularly to sub-Rules (1) and sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 and Rule 16 (1) and last part thereof. According to him the expression at the end of sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 is to be reconciled with the sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 and the last paragraph of Rule 16. A harmonious con struction of the statute, according to him, would lead us to conclude that there cannot be any scope for preparation of two list by the Commissioner at two stages. According to him, the principle governing construction of the Statute is to give a harmonious construction and there is no controversy in between the two provisions. He further contends that because of Rule 16 and sub-rule (1) of Rule 13, the select list is to be prepared district wise and the candidates selected will be sent for training and that the final list is to be prepared on the basis of the result of the training, In that event it was not necessary to prepare a further list at a stage before the candidates are sent for training.

(3.) IT is also established principle of law that the legislation never waste words. No part of the statute can be said to be meaningless. The sub-rule (4) does not stop with the forwarding of the list to the Commis sioner in Appendix 'c'. On the other hand it prescribes for certain obliga tion of the Commissioner after such list is received by him. Sub-rule (4) specifically prescribes that list is to be prepared on the basis of the profi ciency as disclosed by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candi date. The manner of awarding marks have been prescribed in sub-rule (3 ). Appendix 'c' also makes out several column. Column 6 makes provision for indicating the marks obtained in written test while column 7 indicates marks obtained in the physical test, column 8 indicates marks obtained in the interview and then column 9 indicates total marks obtained. The note appended to Appendix 'c' also prescribes how the marks in an interview ought to be indicated. The note also prescribes that list of candidates as in order of preference shall be based on the total marks as given in the column 9. In order to appreciate the position it is necessary to refer to Appendix 'c' quoted below : MERIT LIST OF GRAM SEWAKS IN THE DISTRICt (1) Sl. No. (2) Order of Merit. (3) Name and address of candidate. (4) Educational qualification. (5) Age. (6) Marks obtained in the written test. (7) Marks obtained in the physical test. (8) Marks obtained in the interview. (9) Total marks obtained. (10) Remarks. Note.-Scheduled Castes, Backward classes and candidates, belong ing to hilly tracks should be indicated by letters SC, BC and (H) respectively in the remarks column. The marks given to a candidate by all the interviewers at the inter view be added up and the total thus obtained divided by the number of interviewers. In other words, the figure in this column shall be given an average of the marks obtained by a candidate at the interview. The list of selected candidate as in order of preference shall be based on the total marks, as given in Column 9 above. Therefore the list sent by the Committee is prepared strictly in order of marks received in the selection held by the district Committee: Had it been an intention of the Legislature that the candidate so selected would be sent for training without the intervention of the Commissioner, in that event it would not have introduced the last phrase of sub-rule (4) empower ing the Commissioner to select the candidates in order of preference in the district list. The provision contained in hub-rule (1) of Rule 15 providing for the selection of candidates district wise is subject to sub-rule (4 ). The opening words of sub-rule (1) gives an harmonious construction and do not seem to eclipse last pharse of sub-rule (4 ). On the other hand the opening words of sub-rule (1) are subject to the last pharse of the sub-rule (4) which is again subject to the last paragraph of Rule 16. The provision of sub-rule (1) is engrafted for the shake of convenience in order of conduct selec tion on the district level. The procedure of formation of Selection Committee and the manner in which the Selection Committee would act was provided in sub- rule (2 ). Sub-rule (2) also provides for syllabus and procedure for awarding marks which has also been prescribed in Appendix 'b'. The detailed guidelines have been given for conducting such selection and awarding such marks.