ORDER
S.S. Jha, J.
1. The petitioner submits that the appointment order on the post of Upper Division Teacher (Physics) has not been issued to him in spite of his being selected by a competent selection committee and his representation was not considered by the respondents in spite of the orders of this Court.
2. The petitioner applied for the post of Upper Division Teacher in Physics in the respondent No. 3-school. He was interviewed along with other candidates by the selection committee of the school. The contention of the petitioner is that he was placed at serial No. 1 in the merit list. The petitioner submits that he was selected by a committee constituted under Rule 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Ashashkiya Sikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Karmachariyon Ki Bharti) Niyam, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).
3. The respondents have refused to issue appointment order to the petitioner on the ground that Rule 13(2) provides that no business shall be transacted at a meeting of the committee unless the Chairman, expert and at least two members be present thereat. Rule 13 relates to selection committee of the Secondary School and Rule 12 relates to Institutions other than Secondary School and a non-Government Educational Institute for higher education. In the Hindi version of these Rules. Rules 12 and 13 provide that the President of the body and minimum two members should be present. Hindi and English text of Rule 13 is reproduced below :-
^^13- ¼1½ izR;sd ek/;fed Ldwy ds fy, ,d p;u
lfefr gksxh ftlesa fuEufyf[kr gksaxs %&
¼d½ v/;{k] tks laLFkk }kjk uke funsZf’kr fd;k
tk;sxk] vkSj
¼[k½ lnL; &
¼,d½ laHkkxh; f’k{kk v/kh{kd ;k mldk uke
fufnZ”V O;fä(
¼nks½ izca/kd oxZ dk ,d uke fufnZ”V
O;fä(
¼rhu½ lacaf/kr fo”k; dk ,d fo’ks”kK]
tks laHkkxh; f’k{kk v/kh{kd }kjk uke fufnZ”V fd;k tk;sxkA
¼2½ lfefr ds fdlh lEesyu esa dksbZ dkedkt
rcrd ugha fd;k tk;sxk tc rd v/;{k rFkk de ls de nks lnL; mlesa mifLFkr u gksA**
“13. (1) For every Secondary School there shall be a selection Committee consisting of.-
(a) the Chairman to be nominated by the Institution and
(b) members –
(i) The Divisional Superintendent of Education or his nominee;
(ii) One nominee of the management;
(iii) One expert in the subject concerned to be nominated by the Divisional Superintendent of Education.
(2) No business shall be transacted at a meeting of the committee unless the Chairman, expert and at least two members be present thereat.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is governed by Rule 13 of the Rules. There is a definite discrepancy in Hindi version and English version of the Rules. In the English version, the presence of expert is mandatory, whereas in Hindi version presence of Chairman and two members is mandatory. Since the Official Language of the Madhya Pradesh State is Hindi, therefore, the provisions of Rule 13 should be followed. As in the selection committee, the expert was not present but Chairman and two members were present, the petitioner’s case cannot be rejected on the ground of non-compliance of
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 13.
5. From perusing the Official Gazette, dated 16th May, 1979, there is a difference in Hindi and English version of text in Rule 13(2) of the Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rules in English are translation of the Hindi rules and, as such, English translation of the Rules cannot be enforced. The original script of the Rules is in Hindi and the selection committee was duly -constituted according to Hindi text of Rule 13.
6. Article 345 of the Constitution of India provides that every State can adopt Official Language. The State of Madhya Pradesh has passed the Madhya Pradesh Official Language Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). According to Section
2 of the Act, ‘Hindi’ means Hindi the Devanagrj Script. Section 3 speaks of that Official Language for official purposes of the State is Hindi. Section
4 relates to Language to be used in Bills, etc. Section 4 provides that the language shall be Hindi from the date the State Government has issued the notification. Vide Notification No. 1281-216-XX-CC, the State Government has appointed the 1st June, 1963, as the date from which Hindi Language shall be used in all the items specified in the Schedule. The Schedule is reproduced below :-
“Schedule
(a) All Bills to be introduced or amendment thereto be moved in each House of the State Legislature.
(b) All Acts passed by each House of the State Legislature.
(c) All Ordinances promulgated under Article 231 of the Constitution of India.
(d) All orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution of India or under any law made by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State.”
From the aforesaid Schedule, it is clear that all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws, issued by the State Government under Constitution of India or under any law made by the Parliament or the Legislature of the State shall be in the Official Language, that is, Hindi.
7. By virtue of Section 4 of the Act, Hindi has been prescribed as a language to be used in all the Bills, Acts, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, as mentioned above, in the State Government, the Hindi text shall be deemed to be authenticated. English translation of Hindi Rules cannot override the original Hindi text. Looking to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, English translation cannot prevail upon the original Hindi text. If there is any conflict between English version and Hindi version of the notification in notification in Hindi shall prevail over the English version. Since Under Section 4 of the Act, the notifications are published in Hindi and English and both of them are authenticated one, the Hindi version shall prevail over English version by virtue of Section 4 of the Act. If there is any advertence in the translation in the English version, it would be just and proper that Hindi version should be followed.
8. The order, Annexure P-8, passed by the Joint Director relying upon English translation, cannot be upheld and deserves to be quashed. The Joint Director himself has written that he relies upon English translation, which necessarily means that the original text is in Hindi. In such circumstances, the text of rules, which are in Hindi can only be authentic and not the English translation. The Hindi Rules alone should have to be followed The respondents are directed that Hindi Rules alone are authentic and should be followed in case of discrepancies in Rules made in Hindi and their English version. The Joint Director has committed grave error in relying upon the English translation. In such circumstances, the order, Annexure P-8, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
9. The petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed by him, as he was selected by duly constituted selection committee under Rule 13 (Hindi text) of the Rules. As such, the Director shall consider the case of petitioner under the original text of the Rules in Hindi and grant permission for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Upper Division Teacher (Physics). The petition is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.