Purposive construction of "unemployed youth" under an excise scheme includes subsistence earners who satisfy certification requirements.

The expression "unemployed youth" under an excise advertisement and governing order is to be read in its text and context, not by a rigid dictionary meaning of absolute idleness. The definition required the prescribed age, registration as unemployed with the Employment Exchange, and certification by the specified authority. A person earning only bare subsistence income, or engaged in seasonal or family work, is not excluded solely on that basis if the other conditions are met. The note also records that the required certificates had been obtained and that objections to the certification mechanism were raised too late.

---

---

Issues: Whether applicants who were engaged in seasonal or family business and earned only subsistence income could still qualify as "unemployed youth" under the excise advertisement and governing order.

Analysis: The expression "unemployed youth" had to be understood from the text and context of the advertisement and the governing excise order. The definition required the applicant to be within the prescribed age bracket, registered as unemployed with the Employment Exchange, and certified by the specified authority. The Court held that the term could not be confined to a literal or dictionary meaning of absolute idleness or total absence of income. A person who earned only bare subsistence or was engaged in seasonal or family work was not, for that reason alone, excluded from the category if the other conditions were satisfied. The Court also noted that the applicants had obtained the required certificates and that the challenge to the certification mechanism came too late and, in any event, the validity of the order itself had not been questioned.

Conclusion: The respondents were eligible to be treated as "unemployed youth" for the purpose of the selection process, and the licence could not be invalidated on the ground urged by the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The governing definition was applied contextually and purposively, and the selection in favour of the respondents was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory or administrative definition uses contextual language, it must be construed purposively in light of the object of the scheme, and a person earning only subsistence income is not necessarily excluded from the class described as unemployed.

---