State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)

WA, 613 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 25, 2018

Law Laid Down -

1. The context in which other judgments are rendered interpreting a word appearing in a statute are not relevant for the purpose of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967. The provisions of the Act, as amended by Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Dwitiya Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1998 are required to be interpreted keeping in view the language, context, object and purpose of the Statute in question.
2. The amendments in the Act so as to extend the age is a beneficial provision for a class of employees, who are teachers. The 'Teacher', as per the explanation, has been given widest possible connotation - not restricted to teachers in Government schools or colleges or different ranks and status but all teachers from the lowest to the highest rank.
3. The expression “Government Educational Institutions” in the explanation in the Amending Act cannot be given a restricted meaning, as the expression used is “Teacher engaged for the purpose of teaching including technical or medical educational institutions”. The expression Technical Educational Institution will receive wide connotation that will include the women training institutes or other vocational training institutes to make the enrolled candidates self-reliant, therefore, such institutes would satisfy the test of being technical institutes.
4.  If two statutes dealing with the same subject use different language then it is not permissible to apply the language of one statute to other while interpreting such statute.
5. That, while interpreting an expression in the statute recourse should not be made to the scientific meaning of the terms or expressions used but to their popular meaning, that is to say, the meaning attached to them by those dealing in them. This is what is known as “common parlance test”.
6. That, having regard to beneficial object which the legislature had in view, it should receive a liberal interpretation.
7. In view of the dictionary meaning of the word “educational institution”, and keeping in view that object of National Cadet Corps is to develop leadership, character, comradeship and to create a force of disciplined and trained manpower and to develop officer-like quality in students, therefore, we find that the training of the students by the Instructors in the NCC and in weaving would be a “Teacher” for the purpose of the Act.

State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma