Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal No. 3141 of 1986 829 From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1986 of the 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 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.

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]