- (1.) THIS Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 17-5-2004 passed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) HEARD Shri R. N. Singh and G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri B. N. Singh learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 4. The petitioner had been granted a fellowship for completing Ph. D. under the Faculty Improvement Programme. By the order dated 7-4-2004 passed by the University Grant Commission, the Fellowship awarded to the appellant for completing Ph. D. under the Faculty Improvement Programme Scheme under the 10th plan has been cancelled on the ground that on the date of submission of her application, the appellant did not possess three years' teaching experience. The learned Single Judge upheld that order and hence this appeal. Clause 3. 4 of the said Scheme, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application before us states: " (3. 4) The teacher should have at least 3 years of teaching experience on the date of submitting the application for award of teacher fellowship. "
(3.) THE language of Clause 3. 4 is very clear. It is a settled principle of interpretation that when the language of a provision is plain and clear then the plain and literal meaning should be given to it, and the Court should not stretch or distort that meaning. In Gurudevdatta v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2001 SC 1980, the Supreme Court observed: "it is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to suggest to the contrary. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver. ";