Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis Not Automatically Applicable To Restrict Words Used In Statute If Legislative Intent Is Clear: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently held that the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" cannot be made automatically applicable to restrict the words used in a statute if otherwise intention of the legislature is clear. It is only in cases where intention of the legislature is clear that the general terms shall not be given broader meaning than required, the aforesaid doctrine will have applicability, the court recorded. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar was hearing a plea wherein the petitioner presently working as Registrar Academics, Government Medical College, Srinagar was seeking a direction upon UT administration to issue an executive order for re-designation of posts of Medical Superintendents (Medical Education Department) as Medical Superintendent Grade-I/Professor . The petitioner also submitted in his plea that he being eligible to be promoted/appointed to the said posts, would retire at the age of 62 years and therefore a direction may be issued whereby 30th June 2022 which has been notified as the date of his superannuation, be not acted upon. Contesting the plea the counsel for UT administration raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the subject matter of the writ petition comes within the definition of "service matters" as defined in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and as such, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Advocate General of J&K further contended that Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has been established in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir after coming into effect of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and the prayer of petitioner for seeking a writ of mandamus in respect of the notification of superannuation is definitely is a matter within the definition of "service matters" and even the prayer regarding re-designation of posts is also a matter incidental to service conditions, which in turn makes CAT the appropriate forum for seeking these reliefs, before petitioner approaches the constitutional court. Countering the arguments of Advocate general on the preliminary issue of maintainability of the petition, the petitioners had submitted that the expression "any other matter whatsoever" contained in Clause (v) of Section 3(q) of the Act of 1985, which defines "service matters‟, has to be given a restricted meaning by applying the principle of "ejusdem generis" and if that is done, the relief relating to creation/re-designation of posts would not come within the definition of "service matters". Adjudicating upon this preliminary issue of maintainability the court found it worthwhile to record the supreme court observation in Chote Lal and Ors. Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation, decided on 8th January, 2008 wherein SC had observed "Therefore, Rule 3 (q) (v) of the Tribunals Act cannot be said to be of a general nature qualifying the service conditions of service enumerated earlier in the provision. It is in itself an independent rule and is not dependant on the first four rules enumerated in Section 3(q) of the Tribunals Act and is wide enough to cover every aspect of the service. Therefore, the phrase "any other matter whatsoever" though of general nature but has been used independent of the terms used in Section 3(q) (i) to (iv) of the Act." Finding merit in the arguments of the Advocate General the bench further observed that the doctrine of "ejusdem generis" cannot be made automatically applicable to restrict the words used in a statute if otherwise intention of the legislature is clear. It is only in cases where intention of the legislature is clear that the general terms shall not be given broader meaning than required, the aforesaid doctrine will have applicability, the court underscored. Deliberating further on the subject the court noted that the expression "any other matter whatsoever‟ contained in Clause (v) of Section 3(q) of the Act of 1985 has to be given widest possible interpretation. The word "whatsoever" is of great significance which clearly shows that the term "service matters" includes not only the conditions of service but also other incidental and ancillary matters, it observed. Summing up, the bench recorded that the prayer of re-designation/creation of posts for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to get promoted/appointed to the said post(s) or to get extension in his age of superannuation is a matter ancillary and incidental to the service conditions of the petitioner and clearly falls within the ambit of expression "any other matter whatsoever" contained in Clause (v) of Section 3(q) of the Act of 1985. Parting ways the court found the writ petition not maintainable and accordingly transferred the matter to Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar. Case Title: Waseem Qureshi vs UT of...

Doctrine Of Ejusdem Generis Not Automatically Applicable To Restrict Words Used In Statute If Legislative Intent Is Clear: J&K&L High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags