Honble AGRAWAL, C.J. -This writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan seeks quashing of the judgment of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal) dated 5.8.1992 requiring it to re-convene the Departmental Promotion Committee within four months from the date of the said judgment on the finding that the selection recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee was illegal and against the provisions of the Act, Rules and Circulars. (2) For the year 1987-88, the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened to recommend the names of the officers for promotion to the selection scale of Rajasthan Administrative Service. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the names of 83 Officers who appeared in the eligibility list. Out of 27 vacancies for the year 1987-88, 14 vacancies were to be filled on seniority-cum-merit basis and 13 vacancies on merit basis. The bifurcation of the vacancies is simplified by giving the following Chart: — TOTAL VACANCIES(27) SENIORITY CUM MERIT MERIT(14) MERIT(13) GENL(9) SC/ST(5) GENL (8) SC/ST(5) (3) From the above chart, it would appear that 14 vacancies were to be filled on the seniority-cum-merit basis whereas 13 on merit basis. These vacancies were further bifurcated amongst the General and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. (4) Before the Departmental Promotion Committee, the question was about the distribution of three vacancies reserved for SC/ST to be allotted on merit basis. The Departmental Promotion Committee directed that due to short fall of 3 candidates in the reserved category which were required to be filled up on merit basis, these 3 vacancies be given to the candidates of general category. According to it, 9 vacancies of general, category to be given to it on seniority cum-merit be reduced to 6 and at the same time the total vacancies of merit quota be increased from 8 to 11. (5) Aggrieved, the State Government has preferred this writ petition. According to its case, the Departmental Promotion Committee could not touch the vacancies determined for the general category of candidates both in the seniority-cum-merit basis and also on merit basis and they should only fill up the short fall of merit quota of reserved category by taking the candidates from the reserved category from the seniority-cum-merit only. The State urged that if that thing was done, the same would be in accordance with the Rules of 1954. The State urged that if that thing was done, the same would be in accordance with the Rules of 1954. (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relevant Rule 8(4) of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954 is quoted below: — "8 (4): Appointments shall be made strictly in accordance with the rosters prescribed separately for direct recruitment and promotion. In the event of non-availability of the eligible and suitable candidates amongst Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved in the subsequent year. Such of the vacancies which remain so unfilled shall be carried forward to the subsequent three recruitment years in total and thereafter such reservation would lapse: Provided that there shall be no carry forward of the vacancies in posts or class/category/group of posts in any cadre of Service to which promotions are made on the basis of merit alone, under these Rules." (7) In order to make interpretation of the aforesaid rule easier, the State Government also issued a circular on 11.9.1978. The relevant portion of the said circular is reproduced below: — "The number of posts to be filled separately on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and merit should be determined in accordance with the Explanation below sub-rule (6) of the Rule laying down in the revised criteria of eligibility, promotion etc. Selection should first be made for filling up vacancies to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Thereafter persons should be selected on the basis of merit for filling up merit quota vacancies." (8) The normal procedure laid down in the relevant rule and the circular is to apply both the methods of selection i.e. seniority-cum-merit and merit. Since the number of vacancies for both of these methods were fixed, it could not be increased normally. But, as the merit candidates were not available, the exigency required the number of vacancies reserved for SC/ST to be filled up. That could be done only by applying the remaining method i.e. seniority-cum-merit. The normal result could be achieved by filling of the reserved vacancies from SC/ST and not by transferring them to general category. If that is not done, the whole object and purpose would be defeated. That could be done only by applying the remaining method i.e. seniority-cum-merit. The normal result could be achieved by filling of the reserved vacancies from SC/ST and not by transferring them to general category. If that is not done, the whole object and purpose would be defeated. (9) The normal rule is that the words ought to be understood according to their plain and natural signification and import, unless by such exposition a contradiction or inconsistency would arise. The interpretation which we intent giving to rule 8 (4) would serve the purpose for which that had been framed. (10) At this place, reference to Rule 28.B (6) be made which lays down: — "28.B (6): Selection for promotion to all other higher posts or higher categories of posts in the State Service shall be made on the basis of merit and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50:50." Provided that if the Committee is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for selection by promotion strictly on the basis of merit in a particular year, selection by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit may be made in the same manner as specified in these Rules..." (11) Rule 28.B (6) lays down that the total vacancies are required to be distributed in equal number between the merit and seniority-cum-merit-quota. However, this is subject to the proviso which lays down that if the selection by promotion on the basis of merit is not achievable, the selection could be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. (12) The Tribunal omitted to consider the relevant rules in their correct prospective and in ignoring the background in which they had been framed. Its interpretation that the number of vacancies of SC & ST not found fit could be shifted to the general category is not borne out from the Rules and the Circular. The rule does not permit that the vacancies be allotted to general category. To us it appears that this interpretation defeats the object of Rule 8 (4) of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954 which prohibits for vacancies to be distributed amongst the general and SC/ST candidates. That will create an anomaly and may bring about unjustified result. Such an absurdity or repugnance has to be avoided. To us it appears that this interpretation defeats the object of Rule 8 (4) of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954 which prohibits for vacancies to be distributed amongst the general and SC/ST candidates. That will create an anomaly and may bring about unjustified result. Such an absurdity or repugnance has to be avoided. (13) In Beck vs. Smith (1), Parke, B., said: "It is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." (14) We may also make a reference to another decision in Grey vs. Pearson (2), wherein the law laid down is to the following effect : — "I have been long and deeply impressed with the wisdom of the rule now, I believe, universally adopted, at least in the courts of law in Westminster Hall, that in construing wills and in deed, statutes, and all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhere to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no further." (15) The settled law is that when there is a choice of meanings there is a presumption that one which produces an absurd, unjust or inconvenience result would not be resorted to. (16) We have already emphasised above that there is no justification for the Tribunal to shift three vacancies from reserve quota of SC and ST to the general category. The method evolved was against the relevant provisions and not in keeping with the spirit of the relevant rules. If three vacancies reserved for SC/ST are filled from seniority-cum-merit quota, that would be in conformity with the rules applicable for the present purpose. (17) We are in agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge given in Writ Petition No. 5389/90 Jagdish Chandra Kanwat & Anr. If three vacancies reserved for SC/ST are filled from seniority-cum-merit quota, that would be in conformity with the rules applicable for the present purpose. (17) We are in agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge given in Writ Petition No. 5389/90 Jagdish Chandra Kanwat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (3), wherein it was observed : — "As said earlier, rule 28A has an over riding effect by virtue of its sub-rule (16) and under the proviso to rule 6 extracted above, it is the duty of the committee that if it is satisfied that suitable persons are not available for selection on the basis of merit, then the selections have to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in accordance with Rules. Therefore, in a case where the selections are to be made in the general category or reserved category on the basis of merit, and in either of the categories suitable persons is not available for selection on the basis of merit, then first exercise has to be done to find out as to whether a suitable candidate is available or not for selection on the basis of seniority-cum-merit." (18) The Tribunal has relied upon the decision given by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (4), wherein the point in dispute was with regard to filling up of the vacancies on account of non-availability of suitable candidates belonging to reserve quota on merit basis. Out of 20 persons 10 persons were to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-merit and 10 persons on the basis of merit. So far as the seats of seniority-cum-merit were concerned, they were filled up but only one candidate from SC/ST category was available on the basis of merit and 4 seats, therefore, were filled up on the basis of merit from general category. The grievance of the petitioner in that case was that 2 vacancies have to be filled up on seniority-cum-merit basis and 2 seats on the basis of merit, since suitable candidates from SC and ST were not available and those vacancies were to be filled up from general quota. The grievance of the petitioner in that case was that 2 vacancies have to be filled up on seniority-cum-merit basis and 2 seats on the basis of merit, since suitable candidates from SC and ST were not available and those vacancies were to be filled up from general quota. The Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal repelled this contention and held that while proportion of seniority-cum-merit and merit is to be maintained the unfilled vacancies of reserve Category on merit basis will not be filled up from the candidates of general category on the basis of seniority-cum- merit. From the perusal of this judgment it would be evident that neither it was agitated nor it was indispute that the seat of reserve category if could not be filled up on merit basis then whether it should go to that very category for seniority-cum merit basis. There may be a contingency where a candidate of reserve category on merit basis is not available and the seat cannot be filled up on seniority-cum-merit basis of the reserve category, in that case the said seat would go to general category to be filled up on merit basis and the judgment of Randhir Singh referred to above would apply. The interpretation of the various rules particularly Rule 8 and 28-A and the Circular dated 11.9.1978 if read together would lead to the conclusion we have arrived at above and, therefore, we are of the view that (a) if the suitable candidate on merit from reserve category is not available then the vacancy would go to reserve category to be filled up from seniority-cum-merit candidates; (b) if the candidate of seniority-cum-merit is not available as per (a) above then vacancy would go to general category to be filled up on merit basis. (19) For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The order with regard to promotion of three persons out of general quota is quashed. It will be open to the State Government to reconvene the DPC for selection of three persons from SC/ST quota on seniority- cum-merit basis and if the vacancies could not be filled on seniority-cum-merit basis then to carry forward the vacancies in manner laid down under the rules and fill up the same from the candidates of general category on merit basis. The recommendations of the DPC being contrary to the interpretation of the provisions of rule is quashed. (20) No order as to costs.