One of the questions raised before us is as to whether the marks assigned to hereditary claims, 30 marks to first blood and 15 marks to second blood, are mandatory in the sense that if a person falls within the category of rule 17(1)(a) of the Rules, the concerned official has to mandatorily grant the maximum allocated marks or if the collector still, in certain instances, has the power of withholding the grant of the maximum marks provided in column 3 of the rule 17(1)(a)? Example setup before us is that if a person having some mental or physical handicap, disability or being fugitive of law or due to some other compelling reasons is totally incapable to serve as a link between villagers or landowners and the authorities, but he has hereditary claim (30 marks) and in addition to the same he also has claim of 10 marks that is allocated to property rights in the village will have total 40 marks; can he still be appointed as headman of the village, if there is no other person who can exceed 40 marks on the basis of other claims (i.e. out of the remaining 70% maximum marks)? Learned Law Officer has contended that word „shall‟ in sub-rule 1 of rule 17 ibid, is indicative of the fact that grant of maximum marks is mandatory in nature. The sub-rule 1 of rule 17 ibid, provides that “in the first appointment of headman, following matters shall be considered and the maximum marks to be assigned against each item are as under...”. The reading of the sub-rule reflects that the word “shall”, used in the first part of the sentence, makes it incumbent upon the authorities to ensure considering the factors given thereunder. Thus, considering all the factors are mandatory requirement of law. However, in later part of the sentence the rule-makers have elected the word “maximum”. The word “maximum” has simple meaning that is the greatest quantity or highest point(s). The use of word „maximum‟, by the rule-makers, in this part of rule 17(1) as well as in the third column contained thereafter leads to clear inference that in circumstances above (in the situation delineated by the learned counsel for the petitioners), the authority can still withhold the grant of highest allocated marks to the hereditary claim, otherwise, the object to choose a person to serve as a link between authorities and villagers is likely to be defeated. Though the circumstances of the above given example can arise rarely in practice but when faced with such circumstances the absurd result can be avoided by not allocating the highest marks to the hereditary claim, in view of the settled principle of construction that the Courts should avoid any interpretation of an enactment or rules that flouts common sense and results into absurdity and the Court should always give effect to the same by interpreting it in accordance with the judicially presumed parliamentary concern for common sense and justice.
I.C.A. No.71340/2021
Ahsan Khan Versus Government of the Punjab etc
31-10-2022
. The use of word „maximum‟, by the rule-makers, in this part of rule 17(1) as well as in the third column contained thereafter leads to clear inference that in circumstances above (in the situation delineated by the learned counsel for the petitioners), the authority can still withhold the grant of highest allocated marks to the hereditary claim, otherwise, the object to choose a person to serve as a link between authorities and villagers is likely to be defeated.){kind=link}
0 Comments