DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR.versusT.N. PEETHAMBARAM

A
      DIRECTORGENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR.
                          v.
                 T.N. PEETHAMBARAM

                           SEPTEMBER 19, 1986
B
                  [M.P. THAKKAR & K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

        Telegraph Engineering Service (Group 'B') Recruitment Rules
    1981-Rule 2 in Appendix 111-"minimum" pass mark-What it means.              .;.(
                                                            '
          Rule 2 in Appendix Ill of the Telegraph Engineering Service
c   (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 sub-
    jects or items.
D
          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 examina-
    tion by the candidates concerned is referable to 'aggregate' and not to
    'each' of the four subjects or items of the examination.
E
         Allowing the appeal of the Department, this Court,
                                  '
          HELD: 1. The 'Rule' does not employ the expression 'aggre-
    gate'. Injection of the word 'aggregate? in the Rule in the disguise of
    interpretation would be self defeating and lead to absurd results and
                                                                                       >
F   accordingly would be contrary to well established canons of construc-
    tion, not to speak of a common-sense-oriented approach. [8JOE-F]

          2. The interpretation propounded by the Tribunal would result
    in havoc and have a catastrophic consequencs. [8300 I                       ,J.
G         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]

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil                    Appeal   No.
H   3141of1986                                                                   •
                  D.G.,TELE. v. T.N. PEETHAMBARAM [THAKKAR, l.]

             From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1986 of the Central             A
       Administrative Tribunal, Madras in Transferred Application No. 479
       of 1986.

            G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeshwaran
       and R.P. Srivastava for the Appellants.                                     B
             '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 examina-        c
       tion! It is not a tounge-in-the-check remark, for, passing an examina-
       tion 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 <he Central
                                                                                   D·
       Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal hereafter), Hyderabad, which h·as
       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 Quali-
                                                                                   E
       fying Examination, in the context of which the controversy has arisen.
       reads thus:-

                   "2. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination:
                                                                                   F
               (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                                             G
                                                                     75 marks
                         Confidential Reports

r/.                 (ii) (a) The minimum pass marks in the examination
                    shall be 50% for general candidates and 45% for
                    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates."
                                                                                   H
    830                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             11986] 3 S.C.R.

A   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
B   rule requirement as regards securing minirnum pass marks _in the ex-
     amination 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
c    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
D    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
E    would be entitled to be declared as having passed and having become
    ·entitled to the 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
F     common-sense-oriented approach. Since the rule does not specify a
      different passing standard for 'each' subject, the prescTibed 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 depart-
G    ment 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        • li
     order as to costs.

H    A.P.J.                                                  Appeal allowed.