When English Prevails: Vijaytha Legal Associates on Constitutional Clarity in Discrepancies

This article examines the recent W.P. No. 3673/2023 High Court ruling, which upheld the supremacy of the English version of Central regulations over Hindi versions, as per Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India. It explores a case where a teacher’s eligibility was disputed due to this linguistic discrepancy. Vijaytha Legal Associates offers insights into this critical legal principle and its implications for interpreting statutory texts.

Justice: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

Factual Background

W.P. No. 3673/2023 addresses a fundamental principle of legal interpretation in India: the supremacy of the English version of Central regulations in the event of a discrepancy with their Hindi counterparts, as mandated by Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner in this case had participated in the Middle School Teaching Eligibility Test, 2018, for the post of Middle School Teacher. Upon the announcement of the results, the petitioner faced disappointment, having been deemed ineligible because she fell short of securing 50% or more marks in her graduation. However, the petitioner had obtained 50% marks in her M.A. (Master’s degree) and had completed her B.Ed. from a recognized institution. She contended that her rejection was illegal and sought the quashing of the impugned orders, along with the issuance of an appointment order. Understanding such nuances is crucial, and Vijaytha Legal Associates specializes in navigating these intricate legal challenges.

Clarification by the Respondent

The respondent, comprising the State of Madhya Pradesh School Education Department and Others, clarified that to be eligible for admission to the B.Ed. program, a candidate must have secured at least 50% marks in graduation. The petitioner was also aggrieved by a clarification dated September 17, 2021, which opined that a candidate must have obtained 50% in graduation before obtaining the B.Ed. degree.

Arguments

Petitioner's Arguments:

The petitioner presented several compelling arguments:

• The NCTE Notification dated 28.11.2014 explicitly allowed eligibility for B.Ed. if a candidate had 50% marks either in their Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the relevant subject.
• Furthermore, the advertisement for the recruitment itself required only 45% marks in graduation, not 50%, a criterion that the petitioner met.
• Crucially, the English version of the NCTE Regulation, 2014, clearly permitted eligibility with 50% in either graduation or post-graduation. However, the Hindi version notably omitted the phrase “master’s degree,” thereby creating confusion.
• The petitioner highlighted Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, which stipulates that the English version of Central laws prevails in cases of such discrepancies.

Respondent's Arguments:

The respondents countered by stating that the eligibility criteria under the NCTE Regulation of 2014 required 50% marks only in graduation, not in post-graduation. They exclusively referred to the Hindi version of the regulation, which, in their interpretation, mentioned graduation as the sole qualifying degree.

High Court’s Findings

After meticulously considering both arguments, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh found a significant discrepancy between the English version of the regulations provided by the petitioner and the Hindi version produced by the respondent. Notably, the Hindi version of the 2014 Regulation indeed omitted the mention of a master's degree, which was unequivocally included in the English version.

According to the authoritative English version, as explicitly stipulated by Article 348, a candidate must possess either a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree with at least 50% marks. The High Court further noted that the advertisement for the position required only 45% in graduation along with a B.Ed. from a recognized institution—a criterion that the petitioner clearly met.

The Court emphasized that as per Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India, the authoritative texts of all orders, rules, regulations, and bye-laws issued under the Constitution or any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of a State must be in English. Since the NCTE Regulation of 2014 is a Central Government regulation, in cases of discrepancies, the English version unequivocally takes precedence. The High Court concluded that the respondents had made an error by relying solely on the Hindi version and had, therefore, unjustly rejected the petitioner. Navigating such governmental discrepancies requires sharp legal acumen, a specialty of Vijaytha Legal Associates.

High Court Ruling

The Court ruled that the impugned result and the clarification dated September 17, 2021, were quashed concerning the petitioner. The Respondents were directed to issue the appointment order to the petitioner for the post of middle school teacher, along with all consequential benefits, excluding pecuniary benefits. This ruling reinforces the constitutional mandate for clarity in legal texts. For similar matters requiring careful interpretation of regulations, clients can confidently approach Vijaytha Legal Associates.