Supreme Court of India
DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR. versus T.N. PEETHAMBARAM
- Decided
- 19 September 1986
- Judges listed
- M.P. THAKKAR
Citations
- Official
- [1986] 3 S.C.R. 828 · 1986 INSC 196
- Also cited as
- (1986) 4 SCC 348
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
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.
p. 829, margin C
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:-
p. 829, margin C
"2. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination: (i) (a) Advanced Technical paper- 100 marks
p. 829, margin E
General (b) Advanced Technical Paper- 100 marks
p. 829, margin F
Special. . (c) General Knowledge and 50 marks
p. 829, margin F
Current Affairs ( d) Assessment of 75 marks
p. 829, margin F
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." 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 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.
pp. 829–830, margin G
The appeal is, therefore, allowed accordingly. there will be no order as to costs. A.P.J. Appeal allowed.
p. 830, margin G