http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4098 of 2006

PETITIONER: Sanjay Kumar Manjul                                                      

RESPONDENT: The Chairman, UPSC and Ors.                                              

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/09/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.26297 of 2005] W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4099 OF 2006 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4976 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA,  J :

       Leave granted.

       The Archaeological Survey of India is a department of Archaeology  of the Government of India. The post of Superintending  Archaeologist fell  vacant.  Sanjay Kumar Manjul (Appellant) and Dr. S. Rajavelu, Respondent  No.4 herein applied therefor. An advertisement was issued for direct  recruitment to the said post.  169 applications were received therefor.  16  applicants including that of Sanjay Kumar Manjul were interviewed.  Four  of them had been selected on 04.08.2004.  Indisputably, the case of Dr. S.  Rajavelu was not considered by the Union Public Service Commission (for  short, ’the Commission) on the premise that he did not fulfill the essential  qualifications requisite therefor.

       An original application was filed by some candidates before the  Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, marked as  O.A. No. 1899 of 2004, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.07.2005.

Dr. S. Rajavelu also filed an original application before the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Madras, which was marked as O.A. No.720 of   2004.  By an order dated  28.04.2005, the said original application was also  dismissed.   

       Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, he filed a writ petition  before the High Court of Madras.  Even till the time of filing of the said  original applications and writ petition, selection process of the candidates  was not finalized and by an order dated 21.07.2005, the High Court passed  an interim order on the following terms :

"\005.if any appointment is made in the meantime, such  appointment shall be subject to result of the present writ  petition and it shall  be so indicated clearly in the  appointment order that if ultimately the petitioner  succeeds in the present writ petition, such appointment  shall be liable to be quashed, returnable within three  weeks.   Private notice is also permitted."    

       The Archaeological Survey of India, however, issued unconditional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

offer of appointment to the selected candidates, inter alia, stating :

       "I am directed  to inform that on the  recommendations of the Union Public Service  Commission, the President is pleased to offer you the  post of Superintending Archaeologist (G.C.S. Group ’A’  Gazetted) in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15200/- in the  Archaeological Survey of India.  Your pay will be fixed  in accordance with the normal rules or instructions issued  by the Government and you will also be entitled to draw  dearness and other allowances at the rates admissible and  subject to the rules and orders governing the grant of  such allowances, in force, from time to time."

       The Appellant herein  was not impleaded as a party in the said writ  petition.  By reason of the impugned judgment, the writ petition of the  Fourth Respondent was allowed.  

Before the High Court as also before us,  the question raised was as to  whether experience in Epigraphy may be considered to be ’field experience  in Archaeology’.

       Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Vikas Singh,  the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the  Appellants, in the respective appeals, submitted that having regard to the  extant rules, field experience in Epigraphy would not satisfy the test of  essential qualifications for appointment to the post of the Superintending  Archaeologist.  The expressions ’Archaeology’ and ’Epigraphy’, it was  urged, mean two different disciplines and in fact not only the scope of study  thereof are different, their  cadres are also distinct and different.   

It  was submitted that the Commission as also the Archaeological  Survey of India being experts bodies, the High Court should not have  ordinarily interfered with the decision taken by the department as  ’Archaeology’ and ’Epigraphy’ constitute two different disciplines.   

In any event, the Commission having short-listed the candidates  providing for better meritorious candidates, the writ petition of the Fourth  Respondent should not have been allowed. It was also urged that the  Appellant having not been impleaded in the writ petition, the same was not  maintainable.     

Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  Fourth Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that :  (i) The Appellant having not been appointed on the date of filing of  the writ petition and the High Court having directed that his appointment  would be subject to the result of the writ petition, he was not a necessary  party.  (ii)  The Commission undoubtedly had the jurisdiction to shortlist the  candidates; but the same was required to be done in terms of the rules.  (iii)  Eligible candidates in the name of short-listing could not have  been made ineligible and, thus, non-consideration of the case of the Fourth  Respondent herein by the Commission violates his fundamental right under  Article 16 of the Constitution of India.  (iv) Study of Epigraphy being a part of study of Archaeology,   experience gained therein would amount to experience in Archaeology.   By  way of an example, it was contended that cardiology although is a speciality,  the same has been held to be a part of  medicine by this Court in  Dr. M.C.  Gupta and Others v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta  and Others [(1979) 2 SCC  339].

The requisite essential qualifications for recruitment to the post of  Superintending Archaeologist are as under :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

"(i)    At least a second class Master’s Degree of a  recognized University or equivalent in Indian  History/Archaeology/Anthropology with  knowledge of Stone Age Archaeology Geology  with knowledge of Pleistocene Geology;

(ii)    Diploma in Archaeology from the Archaeological  Survey of India with three years field experience;

                                       OR

Field experience of at least  five years in  Archaeology and knowledge of Monuments and  Antiquities.   

                (iii)   Doctorate Degree in any of the above subjects or  equivalent published research work (evidence to be  furnished).

       Desirable Qualifications :

       Knowledge of Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, Persian or  Arabic upto degree level.

       Age prescribed for the post not exceeding 40 years  on normal closing date relaxable for other Backward  Classes candidates upto 3 years in respect of  the  vacancies reserved for them.  Relaxable for Employees of  Government of India and Union Territories upto 5 years."     

                Entitlement of the Appellant herein for consideration of the  recruitment to the said post is not in dispute.  Archaeological Survey of India  is a multi-faceted  organization.  Its technical officers fall under the  following separate cadres :

(a)     Archaeological cadre  (b)     Conservation cadre (c)     Science cadre (d)     Epigraphy cadre (e)     Horticulture cadre.

We are concerned with the essential qualifications of EQ-II, namely,    a diploma in Archaeology with three years’ field experience or field  experience of at least five years in Archaeology and knowledge of  monuments and antiquities.  In the Post-Graduate Diploma in Archaeology,  there are thirteen subjects, twelve being theory papers and one practical.   Out of total 2000 marks, Epigraph and Numismatics carries only 100 marks  i.e. 50 marks for Epigraph and 50 marks for Numismatics.  The Post  Graduate Diploma Course, therefore, provides that Epigraphy forms only  2.5% of Archaeology.     

So far as PGDA Course is concerned, the qualifications therefor are as  under :

"The qualification for admission are Master’s  Degree in Ancient or Medieval Indian  History/Archaeology/Anthropology from a recognized  University or equivalent including Indian Classical  languages such as Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit, Tamil, Arabic  or Persian or Geology with knowledge of Pleistocene age  with a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate, relaxable by  5% in the case of SC/ST/OBC candidates and candidates  working in the Archaeological organization,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Central/State Government and University Departments."    

We may for the sake of clarity refer to the dictionary meanings of the  said terms :  

Webster American Dictionary : "Archaeology is the study of human history and pre- history through the excavation of sites and the analysis of  artifacts and other physical remains."

Oxford Dictionary :

"It is the study of human history and prehistory through  the excavation of sites and analysis of physical remains."

Webster American Dictionary :

"Epigraphy is the study and interpretation of ancient  inscription; epigraphs collectively.  It is an inscription on  a building, statue or coin; a short quotation or saying at  the beginning of a book or chapter, intended to suggest  its theme."

       We may usefully notice that in Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn., the  term ’Archaeology’ has been defined to mean : "A systematic description or  study of antiquities", whereas the term "Epigraph" has been defined to mean  "An old inscription of a durable material".      

       It is also significant to notice that in ’The New Encyclopaedia of  Britannica in ’The Study of  History’,   ’Archaeology’ and ’Epigraphy’ have  been discussed separately;  both the subjects although have been put under a  common heading, namely,  ’Ancillary Fields’.   They  have been dealt with  separately.  ’Epigraphy’ has been stated to be the study of written matter  recorded on hard or durable materials and is the prime tool in recovering  much of the firsthand record of antiquity.           It is interesting to note therein that ’Archaeology’ and ’Epigraphy’  have been distinguished, stating :

       "Strictly speaking, archaeology is not concerned  with the analysis and interpretation of the bones of  ancient man himself \026 whether fossilized or not.  The  study of the skulls and skeletons of ancient man is the  concern of the physical anthropologist or human  paleontologist.  Neither is the archaeologist normally  prepared to decipher or interpret the writings of ancient  man \026 this is the specialty of the epigraphist and  philologist."                     The question as to whether Archaeology is a compendious expression,  as was urged by Mr. Viswanathan, has to be considered in the  aforementioned backdrop.   

’Epigraphy’ is a study of inscription is not denied or disputed.  There  are persons who have expertise in different parts of Epigraphy.  Persons may  acquire expertise in the study  of inscription in different languages.  The  Fourth  Respondent is an expert in respect of inscription only in the language  of Tamil.          The qualifications for recruitment to a post are  laid down in terms of  the statutory rules.  The Fourth Respondent raised a contention before the  Tribunal that several persons named in Ground ’G’ of the writ petition had  occupied the very post in the Archaeological Department, although they

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

were experts in Epigraphy.

       The aforementioned contention of the Fourth Respondent herein has   specifically been denied and disputed.  It has been contended that  recruitment rules of the Deputy Superintending Archaeologist are different  from the Superintending Archaeologist.  Whereas in the case of the former,  two years’ research experience in various subjects including Epigraphy was  considered to be sufficient, in the case of latter, what was necessary was   field experience of five years in Archaeology and knowledge of monuments  and antiquities.   

       The statutory authority is entitled to frame statutory rules laying down  terms and conditions of service as also the qualifications essential for  holding a particular post.  It is  only the authority concerned who can take  ultimate decision therefor.    

The jurisdiction of the superior courts, it is a trite law, would be to  interpret the rule and not to supplant or supplement the same.   

       It is well-settled that the superior courts while exercising their  jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India ordinarily  do not direct an employer to prescribe a qualification for holding a particular  post.

       What was, therefore, permissible for recruitment to the post of Deputy  Superintending Archaeologist need not necessarily be held to be permissible  for recruitment of Superintending Archaeologist.  Once a person holds the  post of Deputy Superintending Archaeologist, keeping in view the decision  of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [(1968) 1 SCR 185],  he may be treated identically; but then it would not mean that while making  a direct recruitment to a higher post, the Commission must have jurisdiction  to relax the rules  The power of relaxation, it is well-settled, must also be  expressly conferred.   

       In this case both the Commission as also the Archaeological Survey of  India categorically opined that the requirements for both the posts are  different.  The Commission categorically stated :

"\005The experience in Epigraphy cannot be construed as  experience in Archaeology.  Similarly his experience as  Sub Editor cannot be considered as field experience in  Archaeology.  Hence, he does not possess the required  experience under educational qualification (ii) and hence  he is ineligible for the post."                  Archaeological Survey of India in its Counter Affidavit also took the  same plea, stating :

               "Epigraphy is a separate Branch of Archaeology  Survey of India and constitutes a separate cadre, which is  distinct and different from that of the archaeological  cadre."    

        Strong reliance, as noticed hereinbefore, has been placed by Mr.  Viswanathan on Dr. M.C. Gupta (supra).  Therein, this Court was  considering the definition of the word ’medicine’ contained in Section 2(f)  of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.  It was held to mean modern  scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics,  but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery. The Court although  opined that it was too wide a definition, but proceeded to consider the  question having regard to the regulations operating in the field.  While  holding that teaching experience in the subject forms part of general  medicine, it was opined that keeping in view the regulations operating in the  field, the Commission was amply justified in reaching at the conclusion that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

the Appellant therein possessed  the requisite teaching qualification.  

       We may, however, notice that the aforementioned opinion was arrived  at keeping in view the expert opinion as also the opinion of the Medical  Council of India in that behalf in the following terms :                          "\005An extreme argument was urged that in adopting this  approach it may be that somebody may be working in  different specialist branches such as neurology,  gastroenterology, psychiatry, etc. and each one would  qualify for being appointed as Professor of Medicine  without having even a tickle of experience on the subject  of general medicine. This wild apprehension need not  deter us because it should be first remembered that any  one going into specialist branch under medicine has to be  M.D. (Medicine). Thereafter, if he wants to become a  professor in the specialist branch such as cardiology, the  academic qualification required is to hold a degree of  D.M. in the specialist branch. This becomes clear from a  perusal of the regulations. It is not necessary, therefore,  to go into the dictionary meaning of the expression  "medicine" to determine whether it includes cardiology.  The Medical Council of India, a body composed of  experts have in the regulations clearly manifested their  approach when they said that cardiology is a specialist  branch under medicine. Ipso facto, medicine includes  cardiology. It was not disputed that one qualifying for  M.D. (Medicine) has to learn the subject of cardiology.  And it must be remembered that the four experts aiding  and advising the commission have considered teaching  experience in cardiology as teaching experience in  medicine. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the  Commission in terms states that medicine is a wide and  general subject and includes cardiology whereas for the  post of Professor of Cardiology a further two years’  special training in cardiology or D.M. in cardiology after  M.D. in medicine has been laid down as a requisite  qualification by the Medical Council. It is further stated  that teaching experience in cardiology will make the  person eligible for the post of Professor of Medicine.  That was the view of the experts who assisted the  Commission\005"  

       The opinion of experts in this case is just the converse.  In an  academic field, apart from Dr. M.C. Gupta (supra), the court would normally  be governed by the opinion of the experts in the field particularly in the  academic field.

       The said decision does not help the case of the Fourth Respondent.   The situation therein was entirely different.  Opinions of the experts were  duly considered in arriving at the decision.    

       In Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University and Others  [(2001) 8  SCC 546], this Court stated the law thus :

"\005This Court stated that normally, it is wise and safe for  the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to  experts who are more familiar with the problems they  face than the courts generally are. Area of interference by  courts would be limited to whether the appointment made  by the academic body had contravened any statutory or  binding rule and while doing so, the court should show  due regard to the opinion expressed by the experts and on  whose recommendations the academic body had acted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

and not to treat such expert body as a quasi-judicial  tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision.  Equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an  academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to  express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears  that the experts were satisfied that the equivalence has  already been considered and declared by it\005"  

       Mr. Viswanathan relied on N. Suresh Nathan and Another v. Union of  India and Others [(1992) Supp. 1 SCC 584] for the proposition that  construction in consonance with the long standing practice is permissible.   There is no dispute  with regard to the aforementioned proposition of law.    What, however,  is necessary for applying the principle of interpretation of   statute is to take recourse to the literal interpretation and only when the same  would result in absurdity or anomaly, other principles, depending upon the  nature of the statute, may be applied.  It is not a case where the terms are  statutorily defined.  The dictionary meaning or the meaning attached to the  expression in the context of the rules, therefore, must be given effect to not  only having regard to the purport and object thereof but also the opinion of  the experts in the field.   

       We have noticed hereinbefore that even in common parlance  Archaeology and Epigraphy contain two different disciplines.   It is used  both in the broader and narrower sense.  Although the term ’Archaeology’  may include a science of Epigraphy, for the purpose of the Ancient  Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the  regulations framed thereunder, essential qualifications required for holding  the post may have to be construed differently.   

Upon interpretation of the terms, this Court is satisfied that the Fourth  Respondent did not hold the requisite essential qualifications and, thus, was  not eligible to hold the post.   Furthermore, we do not have sufficient  materials to hold as to on what basis, the Archaeological Survey of India  opined differently in the cases of  persons named in Ground ’G’ of the writ  petition of the First Respondent.  We may, however, notice that the same has  been explained.   Mr. Viswanathan submitted that no explanation has been  offered in respect of Dr. Ramesh.  We refrain ourselves from going into the  said question, simply on the proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution  of India carries with it a positive concept and the equality clause contained  therein cannot be said to have any application in a case of illegality.     

       For the views we have taken, we are of the opinion that it is not  necessary for us to advert to the other contentions raised by the learned  counsel.

       For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment of the  High  Court cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.  The appeals are  allowed.  No costs.