http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2265 of 2002

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

RESPONDENT: R. MEENATCHI AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/2008

BENCH: H.K. SEMA & MARKANDEY KATJU

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2265  OF 2002

       In this appeal the question of interpretation of proviso to Schedule appended  to the Rules called Government of Pondicherry, (Superintendent Grade-II)  Recruitment Rules, 1991 has been raised. The controversy  is confined to proviso to  the Schedule appended to the Rules. It reads : "  Provided that the Assistants or, as the case may be, Senior Grade  Stenographers, who have completed 15 years of continuous service as on    1-8-1981 are exempted from passing the Higher Accounts Test:"         The question is while reckoning the period of 15 years of continuous service as  on 1-8-1981 whether the entire period of service rendered by Assistants or Senior  Grade Stenographers is to be counted or only the period as Assistants or  Stenographers as the case may be.         The Tribunal has interpreted the proviso to mean that the period of 15 years is  to be counted on continued service as on 1-8-1981 and not as Assistant  or Senior  Grade Stenographers as the case may be. Aggrieved thereby, the State  preferred   writ petition  before  the  High  Court.                        : 2 : The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal by a cryptic order in   terms of the following : "   Counsel says that the interpretation placed by the Tribunal on the  relevant Rules is incorrect.  Having seen the Rule and the reasoning of  the Tribunal, we cannot accept that submission. The writ petition is  dismissed.  Consequently, W.M.P. No.8968 of 2001 is dismissed."         We do not appreciate the way the Division Bench of the High Court disposed   of the appeal as  contentious points have been raised before the High Court with  regard to the interpretation of the Rules. It was incumbent upon the Division Bench  of the High Court to interpret the law supported by reasons.  In this view of the  matter the order of the Division Bench of the High Court being not supported by   reasons is not tenable in law. The same is set aside and the matter is remitted to the  High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law.          The appeal is disposed of accordingly.