Case: B. Premanand  Vs. Mohan Koikal

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment/order of the Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 24th May, 2006 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1774 of 2003. By that judgment the writ appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 24th September, 2003 has been dismissed. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessaryThe dispute in this appeal is about the inter se seniority on the post of Block Development Officer between the general category candidates (the respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates (the appellants herein)The rule relevant for this purpose is Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1959 (for short the Rules), which states:27(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list. A perusal of the above rule shows that seniority is to be determined by the date of first effective advice made by the Public Service Commission to the State Government for appointmentAdmittedly, in the present case, the first effective advice for the appellants was made by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 8.7.1992, and they joined between 13.8.1992 and 22.10.1992 whereas the advice for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was made on 6.4.1993, and they were appointed as B.D.O. On 28.9.1993 and they joined between 6.10.1993 and 17.11.1993. Hence, it is obvious from Rule 27(c) of the Rules that the appellants are senior to the private respondents. However, both the learned Single Judge and Full Bench have held in favour of the respondentsWe have carefully perused the judgments of the Full Bench and the learned Single Judge, and we regret we cannot agree with them.

Reasoning:
The Full Bench and Single Judge have relied on equity, justice and good conscience, rather than law. We are of the opinion that this approach is incorrect. When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which is to prevail. Equity can only supplement the law when there is a gap in it, but it cannot supplant the law. In the present case, Rule 27(c) clearly makes the appellants senior to the respondents as the advice for their appointments were made prior to that for the respondentsThat decision, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable as it makes no reference to Rule 27(c) of the Rules. Moreover, the observation therein that when two vacancies arose on 6.10.72 the appellant had a right to be appointed against one of the vacancies is clearly against the settled legal position that even a selected candidate has no indefeasible right to be appointed vide Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 , and several decisions thereafter. In our opinion, Rule 27(c) of the Rules is plain and clear. Hence, the literal rule of interpretation will apply to it. No doubt, equity may be in favour of the respondents because they were selected earlier, but as observed earlier, if there is a conflict between equity and the law, it is the law which must prevail. The law, which is contained in Rule 27(c), is clearly in favour of the appellantsIn Mimansa, the literal rule of interpretation is known as the Shruti or Abhida Principle. This is illustrated by the Garhapatya nyaya (In Mimansa Maxims are known as nyayas). There is the vedic verse: Aindrya garhapatyam upatishthate, which means By the Mantra addressed to Indra establish the household fire. This verse can possibly have several meanings viz. (1) worship Indra (2) worship Garhapatya (the household fire) (3) worship both, or (4) worship eitherHowever, since the word Garhapatyam is in the objective case, the verse has only one meaning, that is, worship Garhapatya. The word Aindrya means by Indra, and hence the verse means that by verses dedicated to Indra one should worship Garhapatya. The word Aindrya in this verse is a Linga, (in Mimansa Linga means the suggestive power of a word), while the words Garhapatyam Upatishthate are the Shruti. According to the Mimansa principles, the Shruti (literal meaning) will prevail over the Linga (suggestive power)It is not necessary to go into details, but reference can be made to the Book Mimansa Rules of Interpretation by K.L.Sarkar which is a collection of Tagore Law Lectures delivered by him in 1909. According to the Mimansa Principles, the Sruti Principle or literal rule of interpretation will prevail over all other principles, e.g., Linga, Vakya, Prakarana, Sthana, Samakhya etc