Allahabad High Court: In Case Of Contradiction, English Version Of Law Prevails Over Hindi In Terms Of Article 348(3) Of The Constitution of India

The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of a contradiction, the English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations would prevail.

The Court was considering a Petition seeking a direction to the concerned authority to permit Petitioner to participate and include her name in the impugned list for the post of "cutting swing" scheduled on July 19, 2025.

The Bench of Justice Manish Mathur held, "In view of aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is quite evident that not only in terms of Article 348(3) of Constitution of India, but also in terms of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this court, it would be the English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations which would prevail. In such circumstances, twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the National Trade Certificate Test/National Apprenticeship Certificate Test would prevail."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Jitendra Kumar Pandey, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for Petitioner submitted that in view of the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014 the Petitioner would be entitled for consideration in terms of paragraph 16(3) (ka) thereof since marks in the high school and I.T. I. certificate examinations are required to be taken into consideration as per the Hindi Niyamavali. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Commissioner of Trade Taxes versus Associated Distributors Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2002.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 submitted that the Petitioner's candidature was not considered since there was no such provision in the advertisement issued in November 2015 for the said post, which is in accordance with the English version of the rules known as UP Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that a clear dichotomy is evident between Rule 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version and Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English version

"Upon consideration of provision of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, it is evident that the aforesaid provision commences with a non-obstante clause and indicates that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts and authoritative texts shall the in English language. Clause 2 of the Article, again commencing with a non-obstante clause, indicates that with the previous cosnent of the President, use of Hindi language, or any other language used for any official of the State may be authorized. However clause 3 of the aforesaid Article provides that the authoritative text in English language under this Article would prevail", the Court observed.

It stressed that Clause 3 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, therefore, clearly prescribes an aspect that in case of any dichotomy between the vernacular language and English language, it is the English language which will be considered to be authoritative.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra vs. Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. And 2 Others

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate Ankit Pandey

Respondent- Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Advocate Utsav Mishra

Click here to read/ download Order