Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Manish Mathur dismissed a petition challenging the application of English language rules over their Hindi translation. The Court held that in the event of any conflict between the vernacular and English versions of statutory rules, the English version would prevail in terms of Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India. The petition, which sought inclusion of the petitioner’s candidature in a recruitment list on the basis of the Hindi version of rules, was dismissed at the admission stage. The Court directed that the authoritative text in such matters is the English version and accordingly refused to extend any benefit under the Hindi translation relied upon by the petitioner.

The petition arose from a challenge to recruitment proceedings for the post of “cutting swing” scheduled on 29 July 2025. The petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction to the concerned authority to permit her participation and inclusion of her name in the impugned list for consideration. The petitioner based her claim upon the provisions of the U.P. Audhyogik Shikshan Sansthan (Anudeshak) Sewa Niyamavali 2014, specifically paragraph 16(3)(ka).

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Domicile Rule Requiring Four-Year Continuous Study in State | Limited Relaxation Granted for Children of Government, Defence and PSU Employees

According to the petitioner, marks obtained in the high school and I.T.I. certificate examinations were required to be considered in a prescribed manner. The Hindi version of the rules was produced before the Court to substantiate the argument. The Hindi version provided that for recruitment, evaluation of candidates should include fifty percent of marks obtained in high school, twenty percent of marks obtained in National Trade Certificate or Diploma examinations, and fifteen percent from CUS/POT tests, along with interview marks.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that under paragraph 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version, the marks obtained in the National Trade Certificate or National Apprenticeship Certificate examination were to be awarded as twenty percent weightage. It was contended that this provision entitled the petitioner to be considered for inclusion in the recruitment list.

The respondents, represented by learned counsel, refuted these claims. They submitted that the petitioner’s candidature was not considered as there was no such provision in the advertisement issued in November 2015 for the said post. The respondents argued that the advertisement was consistent with the English version of the rules, known as the UP Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014.

The English version of Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) prescribed that twenty percent weightage would only be given for marks secured in the National Trade Certificate Test or the National Apprenticeship Certificate Test, or alternatively, twenty percent of the marks secured in a Diploma or Degree examination. This, the respondents argued, made it clear that the benefit claimed by the petitioner under the Hindi version could not be granted.

The respondents further submitted that in case of any conflict between the Hindi and English versions of statutory rules, the English version would prevail by virtue of Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India. Counsel relied upon judicial precedents including Prabhat Kumar Sharma versus Union Public Service Commission and others (2006) 10 SCC 587 and the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ram Rati and others versus Gram Samaj Jehwa, AIR 1974 Allahabad 106 (FB).

The petitioner, on the other hand, cited decisions including Commissioner of Trade Taxes versus Associated Distributors Limited, Civil Appeal No. 6636 of 2002, and Ram Surat Mishra versus State of UP and others, writ petition No. 8 (S/B) of 2010. It was contended that these judgments supported reliance upon the Hindi version in the present case.

The Court carefully considered the statutory provisions and submissions of both sides. Particular attention was given to the language used in Rule 16(3) of both the Hindi and English versions. The Court noted the clear dichotomy between Rule 16(3)(ka)(Da) of the Hindi version and Rule 16(3)(a)(ii) of the English version. The Hindi version required consideration of marks from both the National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate examination and diploma/degree examination, whereas the English version prescribed an alternative between them.

The central question framed by the Court was whether the Hindi or the English version of the rules would prevail in such circumstances. In examining this issue, the Court turned to Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India.

The Court recorded that Article 348(3) explicitly provides for the authoritative text in English language. It stated: “a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.”

Upon examining the precedents cited, the Court observed that the Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma (supra) had already settled the matter. It recorded: “By operation of sub-article (3) thereof with a non obstante clause, where the legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English language … a translation of the same in the English language … shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article.” The Court further noted the observation that the authoritative text is in English and defects in translation cannot alter the position.

The judgment also referred to the decision in Nityanand, noting the Supreme Court’s view: “Court would take judicial notice of Acts of Parliament and would interpret the Schedule in the light of the English version being an authoritative text of the Act.”

In reiterating the principle, the Court observed: “In the considered opinion of this court, Clause 3 of Article 348 of the Constitution of India therefore clearly prescribes an aspect that in case of any dichotomy between the vernacular language and English language, it is the English language which will be considered to be authoritative.”

The Court also relied upon the Full Bench decision in Smt. Ram Rati (supra), which held: “Thus, when there is a conflict between the English version of a statute of a State Legislature and its Version in a local language, the version in English language will prevail over the version in the local language.”

On the other hand, the Court observed that the authorities relied upon by the petitioner did not deal with Article 348(3) of the Constitution. It recorded: “a perusal of same would make it evident that while in the case of Associated Distributors Limited (supra), no reference pertaining to Article 348 of the Constitution of India has been made, in the case of Full Bench of this court in the case of Ram Surat Mishra (supra), only Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 348 have been adverted to … but again there was reference neither to Clause 3 of Article 348 nor of the earlier Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Smt. Ramrati (supra).”

The Court concluded that the respondents’ reliance on authoritative precedents was correct. It held that both the constitutional provision and judicial precedents supported the conclusion that the English version must prevail.

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court Quashes DRT Order Granting Extension Under OTS | DRT Has No Jurisdiction to Modify Settlement Terms Through Application Filed After Disposal of Matte

The Court issued its judgement with clarity. It recorded: “In view of aforesaid facts & circumstances, it is quite evident that not only in terms of Article 348(3) of Constitution of India, but also in terms of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Full Bench decision of this court, it would be the English version of any Hindi translation of a bill or order or service regulations which would prevail.”

The Court further stated: “In such circumstances, twenty percent of the percentage of marks secured in the National Trade Certificate Test/National Apprenticeship Certificate Test would prevail.”

Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court ordered: “In view of aforesaid, since petitioner is seeking benefit of Hindi version, the petition fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Ankit Pandey, Prabhat Kumar

For the Respondents: Gaurav Mehrotra, C.S.C., Utsav Mishra

Case Title: Maya Shukla @ Maya Mishra versus Secy. / Examination Controller Lower Subordinate Service Selection Commission Lko. And 2 Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:46933

Case Number: WRIT - A No. - 8383 of 2025

Bench: Justice Manish Mathur