https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263448 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. en-us Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263448 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263448