http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T.N. PEETHAMBARAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1986

BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) BENCH: THAKKAR, M.P. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  162            1986 SCR  (3) 828  1986 SCC  (4) 348        JT 1986   496  1986 SCALE  (2)471

ACT:      Telegraph Engineering  Service (Group  ’B’) Recruitment Rules 1981-Rule  2 in  Appendix III-"minimum" pass mark-What it means.

HEADNOTE:      Rule 2  in Appendix  III of  the Telegraph  Engineering Service (Group  ’B’) Recruitment  Rules 1981 was interpreted by the  appellant Department  as requiring the candidates to secure 50% minimum pass marks for the general candidates and 45% minimum  pass marks  for the  Scheduled Castes  and  the Scheduled Tribes in ’each’ of the four subjects or items.      On  a   challenge  made   by  the  respondent  to  this interpretation  by   the  Department,   the   Administrative Tribunal took  the view  that  the  requirement  as  regards securing minimum  pass  marks  in  the  examination  by  the candidates concerned  is referable to ’aggregate’ and not to ’each’ of the four subjects or items of the examination.      Allowing the appeal of the Department, this Court, ^      HELD: 1.  The ’Rule’  does not  employ  the  expression ’aggregate’. Injection  of the  word ’aggregate’ in the Rule in the  disguise of  interpretation would  be self defeating and lead to absurd results and accordingly would be contrary to well  established canons of construction, not to speak of a common-sense-oriented approach. [830E-F]      2. The  interpretation propounded by the Tribunal would result in havoc and have a catastrophic consequencs. [830D]      3. Since  the Rule does not specify a different passing standard for  ’each’ subject, the prescribed minimum passing standard must  be the  yardstick to  apply to  each  of  the subjects or  items. Minimum must mean the minimum in ’each’, as much as, minimum in ’aggregate’. [830F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3141 of 1986 829      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  6.3.1986  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Central  Administrative   Tribunal,  Madras  in  Transferred Application No. 479 of 1986.      G.  Ramaswamy,   Additional   Solicitor   General,   P. Parmeshwaran and R.P. Srivastava for the Appellants.      Harish N.  Salve, Rajiv  K. Garg,  N.D. Garg and Mr. N. Safaya for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      THAKKAR, J.  ’Fails’ in  one subject,  but ’passes’ the examination. It  is not  a tounge-in-the-check  remark, for, passing an examination does not mean passing or securing the minimum passing marks in each subject or item of examination provided the  candidate secures the minimum passing marks in aggregate, and  he is  entitled to  be  declared  as  having passed   the    examination   according   to   the   Central Administrative  Tribunal  (Tribunal  hereafter),  Hyderabad, which has  upheld the aforesaid proposition canvassed by the respondent. The  validity of  this view  is in  focus before this Court in the present appeal by Special Leave.      Rule 2  in Appendix  III of  the Telegraph  Engineering Service (Group  ’B’) Recruitment  Rules, 1981,  for  limited Departmental Qualifying Examination, in the context of which the controversy has arisen. reads thus:-           "2. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination:           (i)(a) Advanced Technical paper- . . . 100 marks                  General           (b)    Advanced Technical Paper- . . . 100 marks                  Special.           (c)    General Knowledge and     . . . 50 marks                  Current Affairs           (d)    Assessment of             . . . 75 marks                  Confidential Reports           (ii) (a) The minimum pass marks in the examination           shall be  50% for  general candidates  and 45% for           Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates." 830      This rule  was interpreted  by the concerned Department as requiring the candidates to secure 50% minimum pass marks for the  general candidates  and 45%  minimum pass marks for Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes in "each" of the four subjects or  items. The Tribunal has taken the view that the Department was  wrong in  so interpreting  the Rule  and has formed the  opinion that  on a true interpretation, the rule requirement as  regards securing  minimum pass  marks in the examination by  the candidates  concerned  is  referable  to "aggregate" marks  and not  to each  of the four subjects or items of  the examination.  It has  been overlooked  by  the Tribunal that  the ’Rule’  does not  employ  the  expression ’aggregate’, and  that it  is impossible  to inject the said word in  the rule  in the  disguise of interpretation, as it would lead  to absurd results. An illustration will make the ’obvious’ point  ’more obvious’.  The illustration  might be viewed in  the scenario of a medical degree examination. Can one who secures zero, say in surgery, but secures high marks in the  other papers, so that the minimum aggregate standard is attained,  be declared  to have  passed the  examination? Such an  interpretation  would  result  in  havoc  and  have catastrophic consequences. Examining the examination rule in the  present   context,  the   nihilist  result  is  equally conspicuous. Say,  a candidate  secures zero  in  the  first paper of  ’Advanced Technology (general), or second paper of Advanced Technology (Special), but secures full marks in the rest of  the subjects  (or items). He would be securing (0 + 100 +  50 +  75) or  (100 + 0 + 50 + 75) (= 225 i.e. 56.25%) minimum passing  marks and  would be entitled to be declared as  having   passed  and   having  become  entitled  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

outflowing preferential  treatment.  Similar  would  be  the outcome also  in a  case where  a  candidate’s  Confidential Record is  bad and  he earns no points in that item. Such an interpretation would  thus be  self-defeating  and  lead  to absurd results,  and accordingly, would be contrary to well- established canons  of  construction,  not  to  speak  of  a common-sense-oriented approach.  Since  the  rule  does  not specify a different passing standard for ’each’ subject, the prescribed minimum passing standard must be the yardstick to apply to  each of  the subjects  or items. Minimum must mean minimum in  each, as  much as,  minimum  in  aggregate.  The Tribunal should not have therefore upset the decision of the concerned Department  and  imposed  on  the  department  the mistaken interpretation propounded by it. In the result, the decision of the Tribunal must be reversed.      The appeal  is, therefore,  allowed accordingly.  There will be no order as to costs. A.P.J.                                       Appeal allowed. 831