DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR. versus T.N. PEETHAMBARAM

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 19-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
DIRECTORGENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR. 
v. 
T.N. PEETHAMBARAM 
SEPTEMBER 19, 1986 
[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 
(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. 
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. 
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 
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 
• 
-+ 
r/. 
D.G.,TELE. v. T.N. PEETHAMBARAM [THAKKAR, l.] 
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 examina-
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 
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-
fying Examination, in the context of which the controversy has arisen. 
reads thus:-
"2. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination: 
(i) (a) 
Advanced Technical paper-
General 
(b) Advanced Technical Paper-
Special. 
. (c) 
General Knowledge and 
Current Affairs 
( d) 
Assessment of 
Confidential Reports 
100 marks 
100 marks 
50 marks 
75 marks 
(ii) (a) The minimum pass marks in the examination 
shall be 50% for general candidates and 45% for 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates." 
A 
B 
c 
D· 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11986] 3 S.C.R. 
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 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 
absurd results. An illustration will mak

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.