IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 944 of 2008. Reserved on: 04.11.2008. Decided on: 11.11.2008. Lata Devi. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Kishore Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The present petition is directed against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in Miscellaneous Appeal No.207 of 2008 dated 30.5.2008. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner and respondent No.6 appeared in the interview for the post of Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Anganwari Worker before the Selection Committee in the month of August, 2007. The petitioner was offered appointment of the post of Anganwari Worker on 14th August, 2007. The appointment of the petitioner was assailed by respondent No.6 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. The Deputy Commissioner, Kullu vide order dated 3rd November, 2007 held that the respondent No.6 was entitled to two marks in the interview being orphan/destitute. The selection of petitioner was declared invalid. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by order dated 3rd November, 2007 filed an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division on 14th January, 2008. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division (H.P.) dismissed the appeal on 30th May, 2008. Mr. Onkar Jairath has strenuously argued that the respondent No.6 was not entitled for two marks under the category of orphan. His precise contention is that since the respondent No.6 had attained the age of more than 30 years at the time of selection in the year 2007, she could not be termed as orphan. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. R.K. Sharma appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Adarsh Sharma appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 have supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The engagement of the Anganwari Worker/Helper is made as per the Scheme/Guidelines issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 11.4.2007. Para 4 of the Scheme deals with eligibility criteria and the same reads thus:- - 3 - “4. Eligibility Criteria Only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker or Helper who are: a) Resident of the village (in case of rural Area)/ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area; b) For Anganwadi worker minimum qualification shall be Matric or equivalent and for Helper minimum Primary; c) Age between 21-45 years; d) From whose family no one is in Government/Semi Government employment/service; e) Those belonging to a family which was legally separated as a separate family as per procedure laid down in the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules before 1st January, 2004; f) Those whose annual income does not exceed Rs.8000 per annum to be certified/countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.” Para 7 of the Scheme provides that the selection shall be made on the basis of merit out of total marks of 20 and the marks are to be awarded as under:- “a) Maximum 9 Marks for education qualification will be in the following manner:- 1. Anganwari Worker Percentage of marks in matric divided by 10 subject to the maximum of 9 marks. 2. Anganwari Helper. Primary pass – 9 marks - 4 - b) 2 marks for experience. (1 mark is to be awarded for every year experience as Anganwadi Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher/Shishu Palak/ ECCE subject to a maximum 2 marks) c) 2 marks for State Home/Balika Ashram Inmates/Orphans/Widows/destitute. Provided that these additional 2 marks will not be given to those widows who are obtaining family pension from the govt. d) 2 marks for SC/ST/OBC and those belonging to ex-service men category/widow and ward of freedom fighter. e) 1 mark for disabled. f) 4 marks for personal interview.” The petitioner and respondent No.6 appeared before the Selection Committee. The respondent No.6 had produced before the Selection Committee the certificate of being orphan duly issued by the Executive Magistrate. It is apparent from the detailed order of the Deputy Commissioner that the orphan certificate produced by respondent No.6 was not taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. In case the orphan certificate produced by respondent No.6 had been taken into consideration and allotted two marks for the same, she would have stolen march over the petitioner. The age prescribed for the engagement of Anganwari Worker/Helper is between 21 and 45 years. It is clear from para 7 of the Scheme that one mark is to be awarded for every year experience as Anganwadi Helper/Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher/Shishu - 5 - Palak/ECCE subject to a maximum 2 marks. It is evident from para 7 of the Scheme that two marks are to be awarded for State Home/Balika Ashram Inmates/Orphans/Widows/ destitute. The word ‘orphan’ has to be read in conjunction with State Home/Balika Ashram Inmates/widows/destitute. The primary aim of the Scheme as per para 1 is to provide an opportunity for the local women of the State to work/serve on voluntary basis in Anganwadi Centres, opened under ICDS Scheme on fixed monthly honorarium decided by the Central/State Governments from time to time. In order to alleviate the sufferings of down-trodden persons like inmates of Ashrams/orphans/widows/destitute etc., allotment of two marks to such class is justifiable. The Deputy Commissioner was also right in equating orphan with destitute. There is considerable force in the submission of learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the two marks have to be awarded to orphans since they have been deprived of the opportunity of getting themselves educated at the young age and they have been deprived of the parental care as well. The respondent No.6 is not married as yet as per submission of Mr. Adarsh Sharma. Mr. Jairath on the basis of the dictionary meaning of the word ‘orphan’ has argued that only those children can be treated as orphan who loose their parents in the childhood and according to him, respondent No.6 being more than 30 years of age at the time of selection cannot be termed as ‘orphan’. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.S. Nayak versus A.R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183 have held that the dictionary meaning should be understood in the context of the words appearing in the statute. Their Lordships have held as under:- - 6 - “Undoubtedly, M. L. A. receives a salary and allowances in his capacity as M. L. A. Does it make him a person 'in the pay of the Government'? Our attention has been drawn to the meaning of the word 'pay' in different dictionaries and to the decision in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, (1979) 3 SCR 254 : (AIR 1979. SC 898) wherein after ascertaining the meaning of the word 'pay' given in different dictionaries, the Court observed, that the expression 'in the pay of' does not signify master- servant relationship. The word 'pay' standing by itself is open to various shades of meaning and when the word is used in a phrase 'in the pay of', it is more likely to have a different connotation than when standing by itself. Before referring to the various shades of meaning set out in the dictionaries, it would be advisable to caution ourselves against an unrestricted reference to dictionaries. Standard dictionaries as a rule give in respect of each word as many meanings in which the word has either been used or it is likely to be used in different contexts and connections. While it may be permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the meaning in which a word is capable of being used or understood in common parlance, the well known canon of construction should not even for a minute be overlooked that the meaning of the words and expressions used in a statute ordinarily take, their, colour from the context in which they appear. In Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi v. K. T. Kosalram, (1971) 2, SCR 507 at p. 517 : (AIR 1971 SC 1283 at p. 1284) this Court observed as under : "It is not always a safe way to construe a statute or a contract by dividing it by a process of etymological dissection and after separating words from their context to give each word some particular definition given by lexicographers and then to reconstruct the instruments upon the basis - 7 - of those definitions. What particular meaning should be attached to words and phrases in a given instrument is usually to be gathered from the context, the nature of the subject matter, the purpose or the intention of the author and the effect of giving to them one or the other permissible meaning on the object to be achieved. Words are, after all used merely as a vehicle to convey the idea of the speaker or the writer and the words have naturally therefore, to be so construed as to fit in with the idea which emerges on a consideration of the entire context. Each word is but a symbol which may stand for one or a number of objects. The context, in which a word conveying different shades of meanings is used, is of importance in determining the precise sense which fits in with the context as intended to be conveyed by the author." In State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Court observed in his inimitable style that “dictionaries are not dictators of statutory construction where the benignant mood of a law may furnish a different denotation.” With this caution, we may briefly refer to the meaning of the: expression 'pay' and 'in the pay of given by different dictionaries.” Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have further held in Gramophone Company of India Ltd. versus Birendra Bahadur Pandey and Others, (1984) 2 SCC 534 that dictionary meaning is not helpful where word of common parlance with varied meanings is to be construed. Their Lordships have further held that such word should be construed in the context in which it appears. Their Lordships have held as under:- - 8 - “The question is what does the word 'import' mean in Section 53 of the Copyright Act? The word is not defined in the Copyright Act though it is defined in the Customs Act. But the same word may mean different things in different enactments and in different contexts. It may even mean different things at different places in the same statute. It all depends on the sense of the provisions where it occurs. Reference to dictionaries is hardly of any avail, particularly in the case of words of ordinary parlance with a variety of well-known meanings. Such words take colour from the context. Appeal to the Latin root won't help. The appeal must be to the sense of the statute. Hidayatullah J. in Burmah Shell v. Commercial Tax Officer has illustrated how the contextual meanings of the very words ‘import’ and 'export' may vary.” Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa etc. etc., v. M/s N.C. Budharaja and Company and another, etc. etc., AIR 1993 SC 2529 have laid down that the Statute cannot always be construed with dictionary in one hand and the statute in the other. Regard must also be had to the scheme, context and legislative history of provisions. Their Lordships have held as under:- “The unamended sub-clause (ii), which corresponds to present sub-clause (iii), was thus confined to the "articles and things" in the IXth Schedule. The IXth Schedule, since omitted, contained as many as 33 items. Item 15 therein related to "ships". All the items referred only to movables; none of them refers to an immovable object like a building, factory or bridge. Since the appropriate word in the case of ships is 'construction' - in common parlance one speaks of construction of ships and not manufacture of ships - the legislature used the expression 'construction' in unamended sub-clause - 9 - (ii). The said sub-clause also referred to "articles or things", which is the heading of the IXth Schedule. After amendment, sub-clause (ii), which became sub-clause (iii) underwent a certain change. Not only were the words "in any other industrial undertaking" were added at the beginning of the sub-clause; the applicability of the sub- clause was extended to all articles and things except those articles and things mentioned in the XIth Schedule. The heading of XIth Schedule is again "list of articles or things,", but the list does not include 'ships'. In other words, sub-clause (iii), after amendment, continues to apply to ships. Ships are among the articles or things to which the present sub-clause (iii) applies. And that is precisely the reason the word 'construction' is retained in amended sub-clause (iii) - the sub-clause corresponding to unamended sub-clause (ii). So far as the use of the word "thing" is concerned, it has no special significance inasmuch as both the IXth Schedule and the XIth Schedule both contain a list of articles or things. Both the IXth Schedule, to which alone the unamended sub-clause (ii) applied as well as the XIth Schedule, the articles and things wherein are excluded from the purview of amended sub-clause (iii), refer only to movable objects - called articles or things. In this background, it is not possible or permissible to read the word 'construction' as referring to construction of dams, bridges, buildings, roads or canals. The association of words in former sub- clause (ii) and the present sub-clause (iii) is also not without significance. The words are: "construction, manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles and things......" and "construction, manufacture or production of any articles and things....." respectively. It is equally evident that in these sub-clauses as well as in the IXth Schedule and XIth Schedule, the words 'articles' and 'things' are used inter-changeably. In the scheme and - 10 - context of the provision, it would not be right to isolate the word "thing", ascertain its meaning with reference to Law Lexicons and attach to it a meaning which it was never intended to bear. A statute cannot always be construed with the dictionary in one hand and the statute in the other. Regard must also be had to the scheme, context and - as in this case -to the legislative history of the provision. We are, therefore, of the opinion that b clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of S. 32-A does not comprehend within its ambit construction of a dam, a bridge, a building, a road, a canal and other similar constructions.” In the present case, the dictionary meaning cannot be accepted for deciding the term “orphan” in the Scheme. The Court has to give purposive/contextual interpretation to the word ‘orphan’ in furtherance to achieve the objective of the Scheme. The age prescribed as noticed above for engagement Anganwari Worker/Helper is 21-45 years. The respondent No.6 falls in the age group of 21-45 years. The inmates of State Home/Balika Ashram inmates/orphans/widows/destitute constitute a distinct class who have been deprived of the basic necessities of life due to lack of parental care and opportunity. In State Home and Balika Ashram only those children are admitted who have lost their parents. Orphans are also deprived of the parental care and they have to struggle to come up in the society. Two marks awarded to orphans even if they fall within the age group of 21-45 years are reasonable taking into consideration the objective of the Scheme. The reasoning given by the learned Deputy Commissioner whereby he had treated the respondent No.6 as orphan/destitute is also upheld. The Deputy Commissioner as well as Divisional Commissioner have passed reasoned orders strictly - 11 - within four corners of law and the Scheme framed by the State. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the orders passed by them and the same are up held. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. November 11, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.