Duty Of Court Is To Simply Take Statute As It Stands; No Word In Statute Can Be Ignored: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that the duty of the Court is to simply take the statute as it stands and no word in statute can be ignored.

Three Special Appeals were preferred before the Jodhpur Bench against the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC).

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed, “… the duty of the Court of law is to simply take the statute as it stands as it is a well-settled principle of interpretation that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. … It is also a settled position of law that no word in the Statute can be ignored and every word has to be assigned a meaning as has been settled in catena of cases.”

The Bench reiterated that from the words of law, there should be no departure and the Courts should go by litera legis i.e., the letter of legislation.

Senior Advocate Rajesh Joshi and Advocate Rajat Arora appeared on behalf of the Appellants, while Senior Advocate/Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate Vikas Balia, Advocates Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, Madhav Vyas, and Devi Singh Rathore appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Single Judge had quashed the ‘Note’ appended to the advertisement with liberty to the State authorities to conduct the recruitment for the post of Food Safety Officer (FSO) strictly in accordance with the Food Safety and Standards Rules of 2011 and with the direction that the condition of possessing the essential qualification including training at the requisite date shall be adhered to. The Appellants were the candidates who claimed to have been selected after participating in the selection process but were not impleaded as Respondents in the Writ Petition and hence, preferred the Appeals along with applications seeking leave to Appeal which were allowed.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The maxim absoluta sententia expositore non indigent means the plain words need no explanation and thus, if the language of the Statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it and has no right to ignore or extend its operation solely to advent into the arena of interpretation.”

The Court said that the only and solitary conclusion which can be arrived is that the training as referred in Rule 2.1.3 is the induction training as given to the FSOs in terms of clauses 8 and 9 of training manual, which is only after their selection.

“The Note appended to the qualification mentioned in the advertisement neither alters nor modifies much less dilutes the eligibility criteria and is very much in consonance with the literal reading of Section 37 of the Act of 2006 read with Rule 2.1.3 of Rules of 2011”, it added.

The Court was of the view that the provisions are plain and simple and even, no interpretation is required other than a literal interpretation

“The Learned Single Judge has grossly erred in holding that Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 requires a candidate to complete the necessary qualification of completing the training at the time of selection as none of the provisions provides for the same”, it remarked.

Conclusion

The Court clarified that once it is established that the training mentioned in Rule 2.1.3.1(iii) of the Rules of 2011 means the training as imparted by FSSAI after selection and that too at its own expense, the interpretation of the said qualification as made by the Respondents would completely frustrate and defeat the entire process and it is more than settled that no interpretation which defeats the basic purpose of the Statute can be taken.

“… any construction of a provision which reduces a Statute to a futility or which defeats the plain intention of the Legislature has to be avoided. … Thus, the emerged position is that if a selected candidate fulfills the qualifications as prescribed in Rule 2.1.3.1(i) or (ii) of the Rules of 2011, he will have to undergo a training as prescribed under Rule 2.1.3.1(iii) of the Rules of 2011 and only after the successful completion of such training, he will be notified by the Commissioner as FSO by invoking the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 2006. The word ‘so appointed’ solely refers to the appointment of FSO by way of notification in terms of Section 37 of the Act of 2006”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Special Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- Kuldeep Singh Choudhary & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Rajesh Joshi, Advocates Rajat Arora, and Lucky Rajpurohit.

Respondents: Senior Advocate/Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate Vikas Balia, AAG N.S. Rajpurohit, Advocates Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, Madhav Vyas, Devi Singh Rathore, Aditi Sharma. and Mahesh Thanvi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment