Plain language prevails in seniority rules, with hardship and administrative practice unable to rewrite clear statutory text.

The Supreme Court construed Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 as clear and unambiguous: the main provision governed inter se seniority by its stated criteria, and the proviso fixed the appointment date for direct entrants by reference to the commencement of training at the Border Security Force Academy. It reaffirmed that a proviso cannot enlarge or rewrite the main provision, hardship cannot justify departure from plain statutory language, and courts cannot add to or subtract from the rule. Administrative practice could not override the text, so seniority could not be claimed from an earlier training batch.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proviso to Rule 3 of the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 permitted the seniority of direct entrants to be fixed by reference to different training batches, and whether the rule could be construed to avoid hardship caused by the separation of officers into two batches for administrative reasons.

Analysis: Rule 3 was held to be clear and unambiguous. The main provision fixes inter se seniority according to the specified criteria, and the proviso fixes the date of appointment for direct entrants as the date of commencement of training at the Border Security Force Academy. The settled principles of interpretation relied on were that a proviso cannot enlarge or rewrite the main provision, that hardship cannot justify departure from plain statutory language, and that the court cannot add or subtract words under the guise of interpretation. The administrative practice or contemporaneous exposition could not override the clear text of the rule.

Conclusion: The proviso applied only on the facts contemplated by the rule, and the appellants could not claim seniority from the date of training of an earlier batch. The interpretation adopted by the High Court was upheld.

---