1986 (9) TMI 420 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of examination rules regarding minimum passing marks in each subject vs. aggregate marks

In this case, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of the examination rules concerning the requirement of minimum passing marks in each subject versus aggregate marks. The appellant challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) which upheld the view that passing an examination does not necessitate securing minimum passing marks in each subject, as long as the candidate achieves the minimum passing marks in aggregate.

The controversy arose in the context of Rule 2 in Appendix III of the Telegraph Engineering Service (Group 'B') Recruitment Rules, 1981, for the Limited Departmental Qualifying Examination. The rule stipulated different subjects with varying marks allocation and set the minimum pass marks at 50% for general candidates and 45% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The Department interpreted this rule to require candidates to secure the minimum pass marks in each subject. However, the Tribunal disagreed and opined that the rule referred to aggregate marks rather than individual subject marks.

The Court analyzed the implications of interpreting the rule in either manner by providing an illustrative example involving a medical degree examination. The Court emphasized that since the rule did not specify a different passing standard for each subject, the prescribed minimum passing standard should apply to each subject or item. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in overturning the Department's decision and imposing its interpretation, which would lead to absurd results and contradict established principles of interpretation.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, reversing the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing that the minimum passing standard should be applied to each subject or item, not just in aggregate. The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting rules sensibly and in line with established legal principles to avoid impractical outcomes.