Civil Appeal No 3141 of 1986 829 From the Judgment and Order dated 631986 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras in Transferred Application No 479 of 1986
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General P Parmeshwaran and RP Srivastava for the Appellants
Harish N Salve Rajiv K Garg ND 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 ia 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 ie 5625 minimum passing marks and 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 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
APJ Appeal allowed


Summary:
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