- (1.) R. A. Sharma, J. Petitioner in both writ petitions appeared in the Combined State and Upper Subordinate Services Ex amination, 1992 hereinafter referred to as the Examination), conducted by the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commis sion) with Sanskrit as the optional subject. There are two papers in Sanskrit, the ex aminations of which-were held in the morning and afternoon session of the same date (4-5-1995 ). Petitioners in writ petition No. 7928 of 1996, having failed in the Examination, have filed the writ peti tion praying for writ of certiorari to quash the select list of the written examination. Writ of mandamus commanding the Com mission to award proper marks to the petitioners in the Sanskrit second paper, has also been claimed. The petitioners in the other writ petition No. 16862 of 1996 not having secured satisfactory marks in the Sanskrit second paper have filed the writ petition for writ of mandamus direct ing the Commission to award appropriate marks to two questions of the said paper and add the same to the aggregate and amend the merit list accordingly.
(2.) THE Commission has filed a counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 7928 of 1996. Learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions have agreed that the counter-affidavit filed by the Commis sion in writ petition No. 7928 of 1996 is sufficient to dispose of both the petitions and it is not necessary for the Commission to file another counter-affidavit in the other writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sole grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions is against non-award ing of any mark to two questions of Sanskrit second paper. The fact that two questions of all the petitioners have not been awarded any mark is admitted by the Commission. It has, however, justified its action on the ground that the petitioners did not attempt five questions from all four sections of the question paper inspite of the Note contained therein on account of which two questions of Section A were not awarded any mark. In this connection the Commission has produced the relevant record and has also submitted a chart containing the requisite informa tions before this Court, from perusal of which it is apparent that all the petitioners in both the writ petitions, except Sri Jai Singh Yadav, who is petitioner No. 3 in writ petition No. 7928 of 1996, have at tempted all four questions of Section A and question No. 13 of Section D. They have not attempted any question from Sections B and C. Jai Singh Yadav has attempted six questions (four questions from Section A, question No. 12 of Section C and question No. 13 of Section D ). All these petitioners have, therefore not been awarded any mark for questions No. 3 and 4 of Section A. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that they could not attempt the questions from all Sections because of the vague and misleading Note contained in Sanskrit second paper for which they cannot be punished. Sanskrit first paper contained a Note both in Hindi and English. The Note in English is reproduced below: "note.- Candidates should attempt ques tion Nos. 1 and 13 and not more than three of the remaining ones, selecting atleast one ques tion from each section. All questions carry equal marks. " This question paper consists of four sections viz. A, B, C and D. Sections A, B and C contain four questions each whereas Section D consists of only one questions, namely, question No. 13. Question No. 1 of Section A and question No. 13 of Sec tion D being compulsory, every candidate was required to attempt them. As regards the remaining three questions a candidate was to select atleast one question from each Section. The petitioners have no grievance against the Note contained in first question paper. Their grievance is confined to the Note contained in second paper, which is reproduced below: "note.- (1) Candidates should attempt five questions from all the sections, of which questions No. 1 and 13 are compulsory. (2) All questions carry equal marks. "
(3.) LIKE the first paper second ques tion paper also consists of four Sections viz. A, B, C and D. Sections A, B and C consist of four questions each whereas Section D consists of only one question, namely, question No. 13. Questions No. 1 and 13 have been made compulsory in this paper also. The Note in the second paper is also clear, according to which every can didate should attempt five questions from all the Sections of which questions No. 1 and 13 are compulsory. While the Note contained in first paper states that the candidate has to select atleast one ques tion "from each section", the Note con tained in second paper says that the can didate should attempt five questions "from all the sections". Though there is change of language in the Notes contained in the two question papers, but their meanings are absolutely clear. The word "each" has been defined in The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary-Delux Encyclopaedic Edition, as "every one of two or more". The Word "all" has been defined in the same diction ary as "the whole quantity of, the whole sum or number of, Every one". Words and Phrases Legally defined, Third Edition has cited the following extract from an English decision for explaining the meaning of "all": "i do not think it an exaggeration to say that the word "all" in a statute is extremely recal citrant, and if the meaning is to be cut down so as to exclude certain things which might otherwise be included by it, that must be done in the clearest possible language. The proper way of construing a word like "all", is to say that it means "all", and does not mean "some", unless one finds a compelling context which forces one to place some limitation on the word, Re Wellsted's Will Trusts, Wellsted v. Hanson (1949) Ch 296 at 306, per Lord Greene MR". (Emphasis supplied ). According to Stroud's Judicial Dic tionary Vol 1 (fifth edition) "all" is equivalent to "each and every". Therefore, when the Note contained in the first paper says that a candidate must attempt atleast one question from each section it means that the questions must be attempted from all the sections of the question paper. When Note w the second paper states that five questions should be attempted from all the sections, it means that from each section atleast one question must be at tempted. Inspite of the change of language in the Notes contained in the two question papers, there is not ambiguity or. vague ness about their meaning and they carry the same message i. e. every candidate should attempt five questions from all the sections i. e. atleast one question from each section. Meaning of the Note contained in the second paper being clear, nobody can help the petitioners if they have failed to understand the obvious. As the petitioners did not attempt questions from all sections in spite of the direction contained in the Note, the Commission was justified to award marks to only two questions of Sec tion A and ignore the remaining questions of the said Section. No exception can be taken to the impugned action of the Com mission. Both these writ petitions lack merit and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. .;