ROHITASH KUMAR & Ors. v. OM PRAKASH SHARMA & Ors.

The appellants, who were the officers in the Batch No. 17 approached this Court with the permission of the Court as they were not the parties before the High Court. They interalia contended that the officers selected o through single selection process, if have been given training in different batches cannot be accorded different seniority by bifurcating them; and that statutory authorities have previously always fixed seniority without taking note of the fact that training was conducted in E different batches. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Contemporanea expositio as expounded by administrative authorities, is a very useful and relevant F guide to the interpretation of the expressions used in a statutory instrument. The words used in a statutory provision must be understood in the same way, in which they are usually understood, in ordinary common parlance with respect to the area in which, the said law G is in force or, by the people who ordinarily deal with them. [Para 7] [62-H; 63-A] K.P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer, Emakulam and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1922: 1982 (1) SCR 629; Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd., Cuttack v. Collector of Central Excise, H 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.