Manish Garg, Member (J)
1. The applicant has preferred the instant Original Application against the alleged illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional action of the respondents in declaring him unfit for Police Services on account of his height despite the fact that he figured at All India Rank 671 under ST category in the list of selected candidates in the Civil Services Examination, 2019 conducted by UPSC (respondent no.2)
2. Brief facts, as enumerated by the applicant, are that the Union Public Service Commission [UPSC] notified Civil Services Examination, 2019 along with its rules, vide notification dated 19.02.2019. The applicant, who belongs to ST category, being eligible, applied for the same. He was allotted Roll No.0869360 and appeared in Preliminary Examination, 2019 on 02.06.2019. Having being declared successful, he appeared in the main Examination on 20.09.2019 and was declared successful therein vide result dated 14.01.2020. Accordingly, he was called for interview/personality test on 12.03.2020 by the UPSC.
2.1. The applicant was medically examined in Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital, New Delhi on 14.03.2020 and his height was recorded as 164 centimetres vide medical examination report of even date. The UPSC issued the Select List, in order of merit, of candidates who had been recommended for appointment to (i) Indian Administrative Service; (ii) Indian Foreign Service; (iii) Indian Police Service and (iv) Central Services, Group 'A; and Group 'B' vide Result of Civil Services Examination, 2019 dated 04.08.2020 and the name of the applicant figured at All India merit position at serial no.671.
2.2. The height recorded by Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital as 164 cm was challenged by the applicant and, hence, he was again medically examined by Central Standing Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital on 31.08.2020 where his height was measured as 163 cms and noted that "Unfit for all Police Services due to short height", vide report dated 31.08.2020.
2.3. The applicant contended that as per general guidelines for Medical Board, his height of 163 cm is sufficient to qualify the prescribed height for ST candidates, which is 160 cm. For the sake of clarity, relevant rules are extracted below:-
"NOTIFICATION
7. General Guidelines for Medical Board-
(a) The following intimation is made for the guidance of the Medical Examination:-
(b) In the matter of co-relation of age, height and chest girth of candidates of India (including Anglo-Indian race), it is left to the CSMB to use whatever correlation figure are considered most suitable as a guide in the examination of the candidates. If there be any disproportion with regard to height, weight and chest girth, the candidates should be hospitalized for investigation and X-ray of the chest taken and examined before a medical opinion regarding the candidate is given with respect to his/her fitness.
(c) However, for certain services minimum standard for height and chest girth without which candidates cannot be accepted, are as follows:
**The following relaxed minimum height standard in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and to the races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland are applicable to Indian Police Service and Group 'A;, Group 'B' Police Services and Group 'A' Post in Railway Protection Force-
Men -160 cms
Women -145 cms"
2.4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the mandate of the Rules of Civil Services Examination, 2019 states that for Indian Police Service, Group 'A' Post in Railway Protection Force and other Central Police Services Group 'A' & Group 'B', the required height is 165 cm, however, for a candidate belonging to ST category, it is relaxed by 5 cm thereby the required relaxed standard height for ST category is 160 cms.
2.5. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred an appeal on 12.09.2020 followed by email dated 16.09.2020, but his representation/appeal was not considered by the respondents. Thus, the applicant earlier preferred OA No.1382/2020 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2020 directing the respondents to pass orders on applicant's representations dated 12.09.2020 and 16.09.2020 within a period of ten days. In compliance of Tribunal's order, the respondents considered the applicant's representations and rejected his claim vide impugned order dated 28.12.2020 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as also the rules pertaining to the said examination.
2.6. The applicant filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"(a) Summon the original records of the case.
(b) Set aside the Impugned Medical Report of Central Standing Medical Board, Safdarjung Hospital dated 31.08.2020 (Annexure A-1) to the extent of the observation "unfit for all Police Services due to short height", as it is contrary to Rules of Civil Services Examinations, 2019 and consequently set aside Service Allocation dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure A-1) of the Civil Services Examination 2019 and also set aside Order No.22012/35/2020-AIS-I dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure A-1), issued by the respondent-DOPT, with all consequential benefits, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and consequently
(c) Pass an appropriate order, or direction, directing the respondents to grant the benefit of relaxation in the physical standard for height as Scheduled Tribes candidates for IPS (and other Police Services) thereby directing the respondents to consider the applicant's height 163 Cm., as the required height is only 160 Cm. for STs Candidates for IPS (and other Police Services) as per the Rules of Civil Services Examinations, 2019 published in the Gazette of India on 19.02.2019, and as per the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 (4) read with Art. 335 of the Constitution with all consequential benefits, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and consequently;
(d) Pass an appropriate order or an appropriate direction for allocation of IPS as per the merit of the applicant, with all consequential benefits, and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice, and /or;
(e) Pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. Per contra, respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed a counter affidavit opposing the claim of the applicant. It has been stated that the Service allocation to the applicant was done as per his rank, preferences expressed for various Services, availability of vacancy for ST candidate at his turn, medical status, etc. He had given his preferences as Indian Administrative Service (IAS)-1, Indian Police Service (IPS)-2, Indian Foreign Service (IFS)-3, Indian Revenue Service, Income Tax (IRS IT)-4, etc. and he was allotted to IRS-IT. The applicant is misrepresenting the provision/guidelines of CSE Rules, 2019 only to suit his own interest for getting himself allocated to IPS. The allocation of Service to the applicant by respondent no.1 has been done taking into account his rank, preferences expressed for various Services, availability of vacancy for ST candidate at his turn, medical status etc.
3.1. It has been further stated that Ministry of Home Affairs i.e. Cadre Controlling Authority for IPS, vide OM dated 19.07.2021 has provided its comments on the present Original Application, relating to the provision under Rule 7(c) of CSE Rules, 2019 pertaining to height relaxation applicable for Indian Police Service (IPS), a portion of which is reproduced below:-
"...the relaxation in minimum height standard for IPS is applicable only in cases of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and to races such as Gorkhas, Assameses, Kumaonis, and Nagaland. It can be deduced from the explicitly mentioned Rule position that Shri Rahul Kumar Meena does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and any of the stipulated races such as Gorkhas, Asames, Kumanis and Nagaland together. Though he belongs to Scheduled Tribe but he does not belong to any of the races such as Gorkhas, Assames, Kumanis and Nagaland. The relaxation in minimum height standard for IPS is not applicable to such Scheduled Tribes who do not belong to the races such as Gorkhas, Assames, Kumanis and Nagaland. Hence, it is clear on the basis of Rule position of CSE 2019 that the benefit of relaxation in minimum height standard cannot be made applicable to the Applicant Shri Rahul Kumar Meena because this provision has been kept in the CSE Rules over the years, exclusively for those Scheduled Tribes only who belong to the races such as Gorkhas, Assames, Kumanis and Nagaland. As such, Shri Rahul Kumar Keena (a CSE 2019 candidate) is not eligible for relaxation in height."
3.2. From the comments provided by MHA, it is inferred that the height relaxation for selection in IPS through CSE, 2019 is applicable only to those ST candidates who belong to races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaonis and Nagaland. As per the Detailed Application Form (DAF)-I filled online on the UPSC web portal before the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2019, the applicant mentioned that he belongs to 'Meena' Tribe which is a Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan state. Hence, the applicant does not belong to any of the above Tribes/Races for whom the benefit of height relaxation in IPS has been provided. Hence, the applicant has no claim in this case.
3.3. Respondent no.3 (UPSC) has also filed its separate counter affidavit stating that being aggrieved of the decision of Medical Board declaring him unfit for all Police Services, the applicant filed the instant OA claiming that as per the Rules of CSE, 2019, the prescribed height for IPS for the candidate belonging to ST category as that of the applicant is 160 cm and, hence, his case should not have been rejected as his height is more than what is prescribed for ST category. Since this matter pertains to physical/medical standards prescribed in CSE Rules, respondent no.3 has no role in the matter. As the case of the applicant has not been considered by the DOP&T and MHA for IPS, no remedy lies on part of the answering respondent no. 3, with reference to the reliefs prayed for by him.
3.4. Respondent no.3 also relied upon the Oxford Dictionary meaning of AND' with its commentary, which reads as under:-
And • conjunction 1 used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly: bread and butter I they can read and write | a hundred and fifty.
-used to connect two clauses when the second refers to something that happens after the first: he turned round and walked out.
- used to connect two clauses, the second of which refers to something that results from the first: there was a flash flood and by the next morning the town was under water.
- connecting two identical comparatives, to emphasize a progressive change: getting better and better.
-connecting two identical words, implying great duration or great extent: I cried and cried.
-used to connect two identical words to indicate that things of the same name or class have different qualities: all human conduct is determined or caused- but there are causes and causes.
- used to connect two numbers to indicate that they are being added together: six and four makes ten.
-archaic used to connect two numbers, implying succession: a line of men marching two and two.
2 used to introduce an additional comment or interjection: if it cane to a choice-and this was the worst thing-she would turn her back on her parents.
-used to introduce a question in connection with what someone else has just said: I found the letter in her bag.' 'And did you steam it open
-used to introduce a statement about a new topic: and now to the dessert.
3 informal used after some verbs and before another verb to indicate intention, instead of 'to': I would try and do what he said. See usage below.
-noun (AND) Electronics a Boolean operator which gives the value one if and only if all the operands are one, and otherwise has à value of zero.
-(also AND gate) a circuit which produces an output signal only when signals are received simultaneously through all input connections.
-PHRASES and/or either or both of two stated possibilities: audio and/or video components.
- ORIGIN Old English and, and, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch en and German und.
USAGE 1 It is still widely taught and believed that conjunctions such as and (and also but and because) should not be used to start a sentence, the argument being that a sentence starting with and expresses an incomplete thought and is therefore incorrect. Writers down the centuries from Shakespeare to David Lodge have readily ignored this advice, however, using and to start a sentence, typically for rhetorical effect, as in the following example: What are the government's chances of winning in court And what are the consequences
2 A small number of verbs, notably try, come, and go can be followed by and with another verb, as in sentences like we 're going to try and explain it to them or why don't you come and see the film The structures in these verbs correspond to the use of the infinitive to, as in we're going to try to explain it to them or why don't you come to see the film Since these structures are grammatically odd' for example, the use is normally only idiomatic with the infinitive of the verb and not with other forms (i.e. it is not possible to say I tried and explained it to them) - they are regarded as wrong by some traditionalists. However, these uses are extremely common and can certainly be regarded as part of standard English.
3 For information about whether it is more correct to say both the boys and the girls or both the boys and girls, see usage at BOTH.
4 Where items in a list are separated by and, the following verb needs to be in the plural: see usage at or!,
- And - suffix (forming nouns) denoting a person or thing to be treated in a specified way; analysand.
- ORIGIN from Latin gerundive ending andus."
3.5. To strength its contentions, respondent no.3 relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:-
1. Maharaja Sir Pateshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1963 (50) ITR 731 [LQ/SC/1963/85] ];
2. Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Ors. 2010 (12) SCC 472];
3. Sangeeta Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. 2005 (7) SCC 484] [LQ/SC/2005/830] ;
4. H.S. Vankani & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 (4) SCC 301] [LQ/SC/2010/280] ;
5. Zonal Manager, Bank of India & Ors. vs. Aarya K. Babu & Anr. 2019 (8) SCC 587] [LQ/SC/2019/1221] ;
6. Dr. Ojing Dameng vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA No.1231/2020 decided by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on 27.04.2021].
4. The applicant has filed written submissions narrating the factual matrix of the case with certain case laws on the subject, which are as under:-
i) Union of India & Ar. Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc. [Civil Appeal Nos.517-518 of 2017 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.03.2022]
ii) B. Premanand & Ors. s. Mohan Koikal & Ors. 2011 (4) SCC 266] [LQ/SC/2011/413] .
5. We have heard Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Mr. Murari Lal, Dr. K. Elumalai, Mr. S.P. Singh and Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant; Ms. Kiran Ahlawat, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. R.V. Sinha assisted by Mr. A.S. Singh, learned counsel for R-3. We have perused the material available on record as also the citations relied upon by either side.
6. ANALYSIS
6.1. American University Washington College of Law, Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law in Article titled "And/Or" and the Proper Use of Legal Language by respected Ira P. Robbins has very aptly and lucidly deals with the use of the word " And/or".
6.2. To give due credit to the respected author, the relevant extracts of the above article to deal with present situation and to arrive at some conclusion are emphasized and reproduced herein below:-
"6.2.1 The use of the term and/or is pervasive in legal language. Lawyers use it in all types of legal contexts' including statutes, contracts, and pleadings. Beginning in the 1930s, however, many judges decided that the term and/or should never be used in legal drafting. Ardent attacks on the term included charges that it was vague, if not meaningless, with some authorities declaring it to be a "Janus-faced verbal monstrosity," an "inexcusable barbarism," a "mongrel expression," an "abominable invention," a "crutch of sloppy thinkers," and "senseless jargon." Still today, critics maintain that the construct and/or is inherently ambiguous and should be avoided whenever possible which, many detractors would argue, is always.
6.2.2 And/or, however, is not ambiguous at all. It has a definite, agreed-upon meaning: when used properly, the construct signifies "A or B or both." (SCALIA & GARNER, supra note 16, at 125 ("When [and/or] is meant, careful drafters would say A or B or both. . . ."). In most areas of law, there is simply no compelling reason to avoid using and/or. The term is clear and concise. It derives criticism mainly from instances in which people use it incorrectly. Pleadings, contracts, statutes, and patent claims all allow for a cogent use of and/or. Conversely, some le- gal areas' such as jury instructions, search warrants, and jury verdicts' do not typically allow a drafter to provide options, making and/or unsuitable.
6.2.3 Despite the few contexts in which and/or should be avoided, the construct should not be discarded simply because individuals occasionally misuse the term. After all, legal drafters and courts commonly struggle with using and interpreting "and" and "or," words that are riddled with ambiguity. And/or has a precise meaning; it allows for the possibility of conveying options in the alternative. As with many consistent errors in legal writing, the problem lies not with the term and/or itself, but with a lack of close attention to detail. Legal drafters should use it with the same level of care with which they use any other word or phrase.
6.2.4 Certain courts have also penned diatribes against and/or, the most famous of which came from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 1935: It is manifest that we are confronted with the task of first construing "and/or," that befuddling, nameless thing, that Janus- faced verbal monstrosity, neither word nor phrase, the child of a brain of someone too lazy or too dull to express his precise meaning, or too dull to know what he did mean, now commonly used by lawyers in drafting legal documents, through carelessness or ignorance or as a cunning device to conceal rather than express meaning with view to furthering the interest of their clients. We have even observed the "thing" in statutes, in the opinions of courts, and in statements in briefs of counsel, some learned and some not. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Tollefsen, 263 N.W. 376, 377 (Wis. 1935)
6.2.5 Other courts have denounced the phrase by labeling it as a "crutch of sloppy thinkers" Raine v. Drasin, 621 S.W.2d 895, 905 (Ky. 1981) and "senseless jargon." Cochrane v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 145 So. 217, 219 (Fla. 1932) A Texas court expressed that a plaintiff should have used either "and" or "or" to express either the conjunctive or disjunctive; because the plaintiff used and/or, however, he "ex- pressed neither." Willis Sears Trucking Co. v. Pate, 452 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970) Overall, courts generally "abhor" the term and/or, often claiming the phrase has been so criticized that the court need not reiterate that criticism in the present case. State v. Tuck, No. A-6497- 03T4, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 838, at *11 (Ct. App. Div. Jan. 12, 2006) Moreover, as an institution, the Supreme Court routinely uses and/or in denying "writ[s] of mandamus and/or prohibition." In re Grenadier, 136 S. Ct. 1520, 1520 (2016) (mem.)
6.2.5 Illustrations and case law cited in the article:-
a) "For instance, the phrase "Emily must call young and healthy residents" leaves the reader wondering whether, to receive a phone call from Emily, these residents must be both young and healthy or if they require only one of the listed characteristics. These are only a few examples where, in the right context, "and" can con- fuse the reader of a contract, statute, or other document."
(emphasized)
b) In Cassano v. Cassano, 651 N.E.2d 878, 882 (N.Y. 1995) for example, the New York Court of Appeals interpreted a phrase' containing two terms connected by and/or 'in a child support statute to give courts determining child support amounts discretion to apply either specific calculating factors outlined in the statute, statutory percentages, or both.134 The court deemed this interpretation consistent with the language and the overall objectives of the New York child support law.
(emphasized)
c) Another example involves the minimum wage statute at issue in Cas- tro v. Dryden Farms, Inc. 263 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). In that case, the plaintiff appealed from sum- mary judgment for the defendant, which had been granted based on the ar- argument that the plaintiff had not exhausted administrative remedies to recover from violations of Michigan's minimum wage law. The Michi- gan Court of Appeals, however, noted that by using the term and/or, the statute provided a choice between filing a civil action or an administrative claim.1Although the court was generally skeptical of the term, it acknowledged that it was clear in the statute that "the phrase 'and/or', as used therein, properly expresses the intent of indicating both or either."139 Thus, the plain meaning of and/or in the statute at issue in Castro did not require the plaintiff to exhaust other remedies before filing with the courts.
(emphasized)
d) The key issue, however, is whether the use of the term is likely to lead to confusion. In most other scenarios, and/or is a useful, efficient tool in sentence construction. It is not the fault of the term itself that drafters fail to use it correctly.
e) Courts have held that and/or sufficiently conveys the overall intent of the party using it and that the phrase and/or has a definite meaning, thus of- ten refusing to label it as ambiguous. For example, the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Taylor, 258 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2001) involving a plea agreement, United States v. Jones, 58 F.3d 688, 691 (D.C. Cir. 1995) held that the government intended "to retain the right to determine the specific form of sentencing reduction." The court held that "[however clumsy the 'and/or' may be as a writing device, it sufficiently conveys the intent of the government to retain discretion over whether to seek [one type of sentencing] reduction 'and/or' [another type of sentencing] reduction." Taylor, 258 F.3d at 819 ( Supra)
6.3. The word 'And' signifies two forms or two words to be read together. In contrast to 'Or' where of the two either of them can be used in and both are relevant. The word 'And' signifies conjunction and not disjunction. [(see Sahara India (Form) v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC)] [LQ/SC/2008/906] . The word "and" has generally a cumulative sense requiring the fulfilment of all the conditions that it joins together, and herein it is the antithesis of 'or'. Sometimes, however, even in such a connection, it is, by force of a context, read as "OR". [Ishwar Singh Bindra v. State of U.P., : AIR 1968 SC 1450 [LQ/SC/1968/149] , 1454; Chandra v. Nabadwip, AIR 1931 Cal 476] [LQ/CalHC/1930/246] .
6.4. In Rajasthan Textile Mills v. Union of India (2014) 46 GST 103 relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Babu Manmohan Das Shah v. Bishun Das AIR 1967 SC 643 [LQ/SC/1966/253] ], regarding OR' and And' used generally, it was held that the ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the Legislature from being carried out.
6.5. The Apex Court in Manmohan Das Shah (supra) had laid down thus:
"(6)...The ordinary rule of construction is that a provision of a statute must be construed in accordance with the language used therein unless there are compelling reasons, such as, where a literal construction would reduce the provision to absurdity or prevent the manifest intention of the Legislature from being carried out. There is no reason why the word "or" should be construed otherwise than in its ordinary meaning. If the construction suggested by Mr. Desai were to be accepted and the word "or" were to be construed as meaning "and" it would mean that the construction should not only be such as materially alters the accommodation but is also such that it would substantially diminish its value. Such an interpretation is not warranted for the simple reason that there may conceivable be material alterations which do not, however, diminish the value of the accommodation and on the other hand there may equally conceivably be alterations which are not material alterations but nevertheless would substantially diminish the value of the premises. It seems to us that the Legislature intended to provide for both the contingencies and where one or the other exists, it was intended to furnish a ground to the landlord to sue his tenant without having to obtain the previous permission of the District Magistrate. The construction of cl. (c) placed by the High Court is, therefore, not correct.' Accordingly, owing to use of word 'or' in Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, rebate was not available on both inputs as well as finished goods and rebate was available on either of two. [Case distinguished: Prof. Yashpal. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2005) 5 SCC 420] [LQ/SC/2005/176] .
6.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University [decided on 6 August, 2008] held as under:-
"13. No doubt, the ordinary principle of interpretation is that words should neither be added nor deleted from a statutory provision. However, there are some exceptions to the rule where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a strict construction which leads to absurdity or deprives certain existing words of all meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply the words (vide Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th edn. Pp 71-76)."
6.7. Drawing analogy from the above analysis, what can be aptly said and interpreted is that, using And/Or' between each term illustrates the choices of only A, only B, only C, or any combination of the three terms. Using "And" to connect the subjects of a sentence can create ambiguity in whether the subjects act individually or collectively.
6.8. In Dr. Ojing Dameng vs. UOI [OA No. 1231/2020 MA No. 844/2021 decided on 27th day of April, 2021], coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dealt with similar issue in case of candidate hailing from Arunachal Pradesh, wherein it was held as under:-
"7. Even while stipulating the medical standards for the candidates for IPS, in its notification dated 22.02.2017 the Government provided the relaxation in favour of certain categories and it reads as under:-
"*The following relaxed minimum height standard in prescribe in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes and to the races such as Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribal etc. whose average height is distinctly lower.
Men - 150 cms.
Women -148 cms."
8. From perusal of this, it becomes clear that the relaxation up to 15 cms. in the height is provided in favour of the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and those who belong to the races such as Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribal etc. It is argued that it would be sufficient, if a candidate is Schedule Tribe. We however, find it difficult to accept that. The requirement is not only that a candidate must be Scheduled Tribe but he should also belong to any of the categories "whose average height is distinctly lower" mentioned above. The applicant does not answer such description. Unless he fulfills the requirement of (a) being Schedule Tribe and (b) belonging to the categories such as Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland etc. he cannot be extended the benefit of relaxation of height. Further, if he applicant had any qualms about this, he was supposed to challenge the relevant provision before taking part in the examination, and that not having been done, he cannot be extended any benefit at this stage."
6.9. From the above, it is observed that the Co-ordinate Bench did not go into the interpretation of the "word" "etc." appearing in the notification "Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribal "etc"., whose average height is distinctly lower."
6.10. What would be broad guiding principles that can be culled out in interpreting word "AND", "OR" and "BOTH" are as under:-
i. Plain meaning of the word should be given. Thus, there are some exceptions to the rule where the alternative lies between either supplying by implication words which appear to have been accidentally omitted, or adopting a strict construction which leads to absurdity or deprives certain existing words of all meaning, and in this situation it is permissible to supply the words.
ii. The term should be interpreted, the choice of only and The key issue, however, is whether the use of the term is likely to lead to confusion. Omission to use "whose average height is distinctly lower in ** is accidental.
iii. the overall intent of the party using it and that the phrase and/or has a definite meaning, that is to say in reference to context in which it is used.
iv. interpretation consistent with the language and the overall objectives of Statute.
v. The people understand what they mean."
7. In the facts of the present case, what can be safely said applying above guiding principles are that -
(a) *and* has been used for the sake of reference only to highlight a footnote.
(b) Omission to use "whose average height is distinctly lower." in Rule 7(c) is accidental. It is permissible to supply the words "and" to give true and correct meaning to the clause, if the said word is not supplied or added to clause, the same would not only have wide ramifications but also lead to absurdity and create confusion. Interpretation contrary to the same shall diminish the intent of the party using it and that the phrase and/or has a definite meaning, that is to say in reference to the context in which it is used. Thus, determination of "age relaxation" qua ST has to be an interpretation consistent with the language and the overall objectives of the Statute that is, applying the age relaxation to only those persons for races such as Gorkhas, Assamese, Kumaoni, Naga, Garhwali, etc, whose average height is distinctly lower, are entitled to a relaxation of 5 cms in the minimum height required for the IPS and not to the ST candidates belonging to other regions. This has been a consistent practice followed by the respondents over the years.
8. CONCLUSION:
8.1. In the present facts of the case, we dismiss the present OA holding that the applicant belonging to "MEENA" community in the state of Rajasthan is not entitled to height relaxation in terms of Regulation 7 (c) of All India Services Act, 1951.
8.2. There is also a point of reference that the Service conditions/Regulations were framed in 1951 i.e. Regulation 7 (c) of the All India Services Act, 1951. We are now in the year 2023 i.e. 72 years ahead. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider amendment to the Rule itself by suitably rephrasing it such as "ST candidates belonging to the following races whose average height is distinctly lower". Thereafter make an exhaustive list of eligible races without using terms like "etc." It may also be advisable to update this list by including Scheduled Tribes in other regions/states which have come into existence later, such as Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and such other hilly areas or other regions wherein the average height is distinctly lower.
8.3. The said exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents, within a period of three months or before the issuance of Notification for CSE examination for the year 2024, whichever is earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
8.4. A copy of this order be circulated to the Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, North Block, New Delhi for necessary information and compliance.
9. Costs made easy.
