ivil Appeal No 4128 of 1988
PG NO 961 From the Judgment and Order dated 381988 of the Bombay High Court in WP NO 28 of 1987
VN Ganpule and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant
AS Bhasme BR Agarwala and Mrs Sushma Manchanda for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
Special leave granted
Heard learned Counsel for both the parties
The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging inter alia the legality of the action of the respondents refusing to admit the appellant in the post graduate MD Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the 1987 session
The appellant passed the MBBS examination from the Kakatiya Medical College under the University of Kakatiya
Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh
She obtained 72 6663 and 675 marks in the first second and third MBBS examinations
She was awarded Governor s Gold Medal by the State of Andhra Pradesh for her consistent high merit at the MBBS examinations
In August 1985 she completed her one year internship
She married one Dr Ashok Patwardhan a Government Medical Officer working in the State of Maharashtra
He was transferred to Solapur in January 1985
The appellant had to come to Solapur in October 1985 and since then she has been residing there with her husband
After coming to Solapur she intended to prosecute her studies in the post graduate MD Degree Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Dr VH Medical College Solapur under the Shivaji University the respondent No 2
Rules X2 and 3 of the Rules regulating the appointments of Housemen and House Surgeons at the hospital attached to the Government Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra hereinafter referred to as the Rules 
provide as follows X                 
PG NO 962 Government have from time to time sanctioned supernu merary posts 1             2 to allow spouses of Government servants on transfer to undertake studies if standing high in merit which means not less than 55 at first attempt in the subject from another college 3 to allow students of other colleges in Maharashtra to compete on merit for posts so as to conduct post graduate course for which facilities are not existant or very meagre in their own college
These supernumerary posts should be awarded after fullest consideration of these principles in the above order and on merit and it is not incumbent to fill all of them or to reserve them      
It is understood that granting of registration does not absolve a candidate from competing on merit and if he cannot earn post on merit his registration would lapse for failure to compete housemanship requirements     The appellant made an application to the Government of Maharashtra praying for the creation of a Housepost in Obstetrics and Gynaecology under rule X2 so as to enable her to do post graduate studies in Dr VM Medical College Solapur
As she fulfilled and requirements of rule X2 namely that she is the wife of a Government servant on transfer and that she stood high in merit securing more than 55 marks in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in her MBBS examination the Dean of the College specifically recommended her case for the creation of such a supernumerary Housepost
While the application of the appellant was under consideration the appellant was selected for a Housepost in Surgery in the said College
She joined the Housepost in Surgery in January 986 and completed the same in July 1986
But in order to be eligible for post graduate studies in Obstetrics and Gynaecology she was to join another Housepost in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
On July 2 1986 the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of its power under rule X2 created a Housepost in Obstetrics and Gynaecology with effect from July 15 1986 specifically and categorically stating that the PG NO 963 supernumerary Housepost was created to enable the appellant to complete her post graduate studies at Dr VM Medical College Solapur
The Government resolution dated July 2 1986 is extracted below Government hereby grants permission for creation of one supernumerary non stipendary post of Houseman with effect from 1571986 for a period of six months at Dr Vaishampayan Memorial Medical College Solapur to enable Dr Mrs SA Patwardhan to complete her Post Graduate Course in the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
Mrs Patwardhan should join the said post within 10 days from 1571986
In the event of her not joining the said post will be treated as abolished
By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra
Sd JP Budhwant Deputy Secretary Govt
of Maharashtra The Dean of the College called upon the appellant to join the Housepost and not to quit the same before completing the term inasmuch as the Housepost was specifically created to enable the appellant to complete her post graduate studies at Dr VM Medical College Solapur
The appellant joined the Housepost and duly completed the same
The Dean of the College issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post graduate seats in various disciplines for January 1987 batch
The appellant made an application praying for the issuance of an application form for the MD Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology but no such form was issued to her
In other words the appellant was refused admission in the MD Course at Dr VM Medical College Solapur
Being aggrieved by the action of the Dean of the College the appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court
The High Court as stated already dismissed the writ petition holding inter alia that no inference could be drawn that everybody who completed the house job was entitled to get admission to the post graduate course ipso PG NO 964 facto and that granting of registration for house job would not amount to admission to the post graduate course in a Medical College
Hence this appeal
There can be no doubt that there is no question of automatic admission in the post graduate course simply because one has completed the house job or housemanship
It is not the case of the appellant that as she completed the housemanship she has acquired a right of automatic admission to the post graduate degree course in the said College
Her complaint is that she was not even given an application form for the post graduate degree course
The College authorities or the University did not at all consider her case for admission
The High Court has not considered this aspect of the appellant s case
It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of the provision in the Rules giving institutional preference in the matter of admission the appellant could not be admitted
The other ground that has been urged on behalf of the respondents is that as the appellant passed the MBBS examination from the Kakatiya University in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as there is failure on the part of the State of Andhra Pradesh to reciprocate with regard to reservation of 25 of the total number of seats in the matter of admission to post graduate degree course in Medical Science the respondents were justified in refusing admission to the appellant
So far as the first contention is concerned we do not think that there is any merit in the same
All the seats in the post graduate degree course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology are not reserved for the candidates passing the MBBS examination from the said Dr VM Medical College Solapur
It is not disputed that certain percentage of seats are reserved for the students of the College
But no application form was issued to the appellant and accordingly the question of not admitting the appellant on the ground of institutional preference or institutional reservation of seats does not arise
In our opinion the first ground founded on institutional preference seems to be a mere plea
The real ground for refusal to issue even an application form for admission to the appellant is the failure of reciprocity on the part of the State of Andhra Pradesh
The State of Maharashtra in our opinion is entitled to refuse to admit any student passing the MBBS examination from any Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh as that State has not reciprocated in the matter of admission to post graduate degree courses in Medical Colleges of that State
But in the facts and circumstances PG NO 965 of the present case the respondents are not at all justified in refusing to admit the appellant in the postgraduate degree course
The most glaring fact in this respect is that on the prayer of the appellant a supernumerary Housepost was created so as to enable the appellant to become eligible for the post graduate degree course
It is not the case of the respondents that they were not aware of the fact that the appellant had passed her MBBS examination from a Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh
Indeed it has been categorically averred by the appellant that in her application for the creation of a supernumerary Housepost she disclosed all facts including the fact of her passing the MBBS examination from the said Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh
The State of Maharashtra after considering all facts and circumstances including the high merit of the appellant specifically created a supernumerary Housepost for the appellant
After the appellant had completed her house job and applied for the issuance of an application form for the post graduate degree course she was refused an application form presumably on the ground that she had passed her MBBS examination from a Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh
In our opinion the appellant could be refused at the very outset that is to say her application for creation of a supernumerary Housepost could be turned down on the ground of failure to observe reciprocity by the State of Andhra Pradesh
But after creating the supernumerary Housepost specifically for the appellant so as to enable her to become eligible for the post graduate degree course the respondents in our opinion are not at all justified in refusing her even an application form and in not considering her case for admission to post graduate degree course on the ground of failure of reciprocity by the Andhra Pradesh State
We fail to understand how the College authorities and the Government could take this attitude so far as the appellant is concerned
In our opinion it was unreasonable and unjust for the respondents to refuse admission to the appellant on a ground which is not at all tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case
It is not disputed that the appellant has all the requisite qualifications for admission in the post graduate degree course
She applied to admission in the session commencing from January 1987 but she was not admitted
The 1988 sessions has also passed as the appellant had to file a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay which as noticed already was dismissed by the High Court
The appellant prays that she may be admitted in the post graduate course in Dr VM Medical College in the 1989 session
PG NO 966 The facts stated above reveal that the appellant has been harassed to a great extent
She was misled by the fact of the creation of a supernumerary Housepost for her by the State of Maharashtra
She has already lost two years of her academic career
Normally this Court does not interfere in the matter of admission of students in an educational institution
Even if it interferes it generally directs the authorities concerned to consider the question of admission in accordance with the rules of the institution
But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the appellant had to lose two years of her academic career for no fault of hers we direct the respondens to issue to her an application form for admission in the post graduate MD Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and we further direct that after the submission of the application form and compliance with other formalities by the appellant she shall be admitted in the post graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Dr VM Medical College Solapur in the 1989 session provided she is not otherwise unfit
The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Medical Council also supports the case of the appellant for her admission in the 1989 session
The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed
There will however be no order as to costs
MLA Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent company was engaged in the manufacture of nonalcoholic beverage bases falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff
According to the Revenue the company manufactured the nonalcoholic beverage bases without holding proper Central Excise Licence and had cleared the said goods without payment of the duty due thereon
The stand of the company was that the goods were exempt from duty under Notification No 5575 CE dated 1st March 1975 which inter alia exempted all kinds of food products and food preparations
The Customs and Excise Collector confirmed the demand of central excise duty against the company
In appeal the Confirmed the demand of and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal accepted the contention of the company
The Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants contended that i non alcoholic beverage base though having some food value was not food product or food preparation
at any rate in the context of the Act and notification as such ii the expression food products and food preparations was used in contrast to beverages so far as the present Act and notifications thereunder were concerned iii in ordinary common and commercial parlance also the goods in question were not known as food products andor food preparations as such and therefore these were PG NO 933 PG NO 934 not to be treated as exempt under the notification and iv how Government understood a matter at the time of the notification was a relevant factor and that was a factor which one should bear in mind
KP Verghese vs Income Tax Officer Ernakulam  and Government of India s decision in Re Asian Chemical Works  relied upon
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the Tribunal had acted on the varied materials and therefore such decision of the Tribunal should not be altered or deviated from
Collector of Customs Bombay vs Swastic Woollen P Ltd  relied upon
Allowing the appeals it was HELD 1 The word Food  has no fixed definition of universal application and its meaning varies from statute to statute
But food is one which nourishes and sustains human body for the purposes of growth work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process939D Brooke Bond India Limited vs Union of India  Brooke Bond India Limited vs Union of India
11941 and The State of Bombay vs Virkumar Gulabchand Shah   referred to
2 The expression food products  is not defined in the Act
The exemption includes food products and food preparations  and provides an inclusive definition of food products  and food preparations 
946E 3 The words used in the provision imposing taxes or granting exemptions should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in ordinary parlance in the area in which the law is in force or by the people who ordinarily deal with them
947F 4 It is a well settled principle of interpretation that courts in construing a statute or notification will give much weight to the interpretation put upon it at the time of enactment or issue and since by those who have to construe execute and apply the said enactments
l947E PG NO 935 5 The notification should not only be confined to its grammatical or ordinary parlance but it should also be construed in the light of the context
The expression should be construed in a manner in which similar expressions have been employed by those who framed the relevant notification 948E Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd vs State of Uttar Pradesh   referred to
6 The question of interpretation involves determining the meaning of a text contained in one or more documents
Judges are often criticised for being tied too closely to the statutory words and for failing to give effect to the intention of the Parliament or the law maker
949C 7 According to the tradition of our law primacy is to be given to the text in which the intention of the law giver has been expressed
949D 8 The principle is well settled that when two views of a notification are possible it should be construed in favour of the subject as notification is part of a fiscal enactment avoiding however as absurd meaning
948F Coroline M Armytage  Ors
vs Frederick Wilkinson  referred to
9 The notification must be read as a whole in the context of the other relevant provisions
When a notification is issued in accordance with power conferred by the statute it has statutory force and validity and therefore the exemption under the notification is as if it were contained in the Act itself 947G H Orient Weaving Mills P Ltd vs Union of India 1962 Supp3 SCR 481 and Kailash Nath vs State of UP AIR 1975 SC 790 referred to
10 The purpose of exemption is to encourage food production and also give boost to the production of goods in common use and need
After all the purpose of exemption is to help production of food and food preparations at cheaper price and also help production of items which are in common use and need like electric light and power
949A B PG NO 936 11 Having regard to the language used it would not be in consonance with the spirit and the reason of law to give exemption for non alcoholic beverage bases under the notification
Bearing the aforesaid purpose it cannot be contended that expensive items like Gold spot base Limca base or Thumps up base were intended to be given exemption at the cost of the public exchequer949E F 12 Non alcoholic beverage bases in India cannot be treated or understood as new nutritive material absorbed or taken into the body of an organism which serves for the purpose of growth work or repair and for the maintenance of the vital process  and an average Indian will not treat non alcoholic beverage bases as food products or food preparations in that light948G H