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

- **Citation:** [1986] 3 S.C.R. 828
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1986-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. H 3141of1986
- **Bench:** M.P. Thakkar, K.N. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/directorgeneral-telecommunication-anr-v-t-n-peethambaram-9298
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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 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. [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]

## Text

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 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. [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 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 <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 Qualifying Examination, in the context of which the controversy has arisen.
reads thus:-
"2. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination:
(i) (a)
Advanced Technical paperGeneral
(b) Advanced Technical PaperSpecial.
. (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 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 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 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
• l
order as to costs.
H
A.P.J.
Appeal allowed.