Sweta Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.15266 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 2 the department. (Annexure-1). the Circular of (iv) To consider the petitioner‟s subject M.A. Anthropology as Social Science as the Human Resources Department Bihar, vide letter no. 406 dated 27.07.2011 and reconsider the candidature of the petitioner by adding two points in her merit list (Annexure-5). (v) To prepared by the office respondent no. 4 illegal, improper and contrary to the advertisement no. 33/11 (Annexure-3).” the merit Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has confined his submission on a very limited issue. He submits that when in the advertisement for the post of Female Supervisor there was a clause for giving weightage to post graduation in the subject of social science, the petitioner having post graduation in the subject of Anthropolgy, which is also social science, cannot be deprived of weightage point. Attractive though the aforesaid submission may be, the aforesaid explicit terms of advertisement, if taken into account, will itself expose the obvious fallacy in the aforementioned submission. The advertisement, in no un-certain terms, had stated as follows :- “…iii‰ vuqca/k ij fu;kstu ds fy, vgZrk,¡%& …d‰ vH;FkhZ dsoy efgyk gks A …[k‰ vH;FkhZ Hkkjr dh ukxfjd gks A …x‰ vkosfndk lacaf/kr ftyk {ks= dh LFkk;h fuoklh gks A blds fy, lacaf/kr vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh dk vkoklh; izek.k i= vfuok;Z gksxk A …iv‰1- …d‰ ftyk Lrj ij Lohd‘r cy ds fo:/k fjDr inksa esa ls 75 izfr’kr in ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds ek/;e ls vuqca/k ij lh/ks Hkjs tk;sxsa ,oa 'ks’k 25 izfr'ke in vkaxuckM-h lsfodkvksa ls Hkjs tk,xsa A efgyk i;Zosf{kdk ds fy, vgrkZ fuEukafdr gksxh Patna High Court CWJC No.15266 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 3 %& vfuok;Z vgZrk %& Hkkjr esa ekU;rk izkIr fdlh fo’ofo/kky; ls Lukrd A okaNuh; vgZrk %& fuEufyf[kr fo’k; esa Lukrdksrj …U;wure 45 izfr’kr vad‰ ds lkFk mRrhZ.k mEehnokjksa dks cksul vad fn;s tk;sxsa %& …I‰ lekt ’kkL= …II‰ lekt dk;Z …III‰ x‘g foKku …IV‰ euksfoKku …V‰ cky fodkl ,oa iks’k.k ¼VI‰ vkgkj foKku …VII‰ Je ,oa lekt ’kkL= A led{k ijh{kk mrhZ.k gks fdUrq blds varxZr rduhdh f’k{kk dh fMxzh …iksfyVsdfud] ;wukuh] f’k{kk vkfn‰ ’kkjhfjd f’k{kk] izkP;Hkk"kk@Hkk"kk fo'ks’k ls lacaf/kr fMxzh ¼ekSyoh] mi&’kkL=h‰ rFkk LoSfPNd laLFkkuks a }kjk iznRr le:i fMxzh …ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx }kjk of.kZr‰ efgyk i;Zosf{kdk in ij fu;kstu gsrq lfEefyr ugh gS A 'ks’k 25 izfr'kr in vk¡xuokM-h lsfodkvksa ds fy, d.kkZfdar gksxsa A bl dksfV ds vUrxZr p;u gsrq vgrkZ fuEu izdkj gksxh %& 2- …d‰…1‰ U;wure eSfV““d ;k led{k mRrhZ.k …2‰ p;u o"kZ dh igyh tuojh dks 10 o"kZ dk dk;Zdky A (underlining for emphasis) From a bare reading of the underlying portion of the advertisement with regard to qualification it would be clear that the bonus marks were to be given to the post graduate in the subject of Samaj Shastra, equivalent whereof would be “Sociology” and not “Social Science”. As a matter of fact, when the said subject of Sociology has been distinguished from “SAMAJ KARYA”(Social Work), “GRIH VIGYAN” (Home Science), “MANOVIGYAN” (Psychology), “BAAL VIKASH EVAM POSAN” (Child Development and Nutrition), „AAHAR VIGYAN‟ (Nutrition Science) and “SHARAM EVAM SAMAJ SHASTRA” (Labour and Social Welfare), the intention of the framers of the guidelines laying down qualification becomes absolutely clear that Anthropology may be a super specialty of the Patna High Court CWJC No.15266 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 4 subject of the Sociology but when the requirement which would weigh for bonus is restricted to the subject of Sociology, the petitioner could not have been given the bonus for her Post- graduation in the subject of Anthropology. The rest of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the field of Social Science would include both Sociology and Anthropology will have, therefore, no meaning because Samaj Shashtra cannot be read as a “Social Science”. In fact, the word “Sociology” can be nearest to the word “Samaj Shastra” and the official dictionary also defines hindi meaning of word “Sociology” as “Samaj Shastra”. In this regard this Court has found from the Universal‟s Law Dictionary, 1st Edition, 2009, published by Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. that while Anthropology in Hindi means „MANAV VIGYAN‟, the meaning of the work Sociology therein in the same Dictionary is „SAMAJ SHASTRA‟. By-now it is well settled that wherein the Statute or Bye-laws an expression is used in Hindi its meaning in case of any difference in English literature will always have to be given by looking into the original text and its meaning in Hindi. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Sachchidanand Sinha (Dr.) vs. The Patna High Court CWJC No.15266 of 2012 (2) dt.08-02-2013 5 Collector of Patna, reported in 1989 PLJR 1141. Thus, in view of the advertisement prescribing weightage for five special subjects including only „SAMAJ SHASTRA‟ i.e. Sociology and not „MANAV VIGYAN‟ i.e. Anthropology, this Court would find it difficult that the petitioner‟s qualification of Post-graduation in the subject of Anthropology would qualify for grant of additional credit/ bonus marks. That being so, this Court would find no error in the order of the Divisional Commissioner, who has taken the same view that the subject of Anthropology did not qualify for the grant of bonus point for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Female Supervisor. In the result, this writ application being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Amin/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)