JUDGMENT : Alpesh Y. Kogje, J. 1. This group of petitions is filed by Union of India through the Department of Post, Ministry of Communications & IT and the respective local divisions. All these petitions are challenging order dated 21.04.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the respective Original Applications. The Tribunal though rendered the order separately in the respective Original Applications, the subject matter and the issues are identical in each of the applications. 2. With consent of all the parties, all the four petitions are taken up together and the facts are taken from SCA No. 10463 of 2015. 3. An advertisement was published on 12.08.2012 for filling up post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant by direct recruitment for the year 2011-12 in all leading newspapers. The applications of the candidates were processed, examination was conducted as per the norms and guidelines of the Central Government and result was declared by way of publishing merit list. 3.1 For Gujarat Circle Chief Post Master General, list of provisionally selected candidates was prepared in which 8 candidates were included, which included name of respondent No. 1, who was issued letter dated 15.10.2013 for the purpose of pre-appointment process, where she was informed that she has been allotted to Gondal division. 3.2 The respondent accordingly remained present for pre-appointment process along with original documents for the purpose of scrutiny and verification. During this scrutiny, the Department found that the respondent had passed HSC examination during March 2005, but she had not opted for English as compulsory subject and subsequently, in the examination conducted in March 2006, she cleared English as single subject in the HSC examination. 3.3 The Department therefore found that the respondent was not meeting with the qualifying criteria as the Recruitment Rules in force required the candidate having passed 10 + 2 with atleast 60% from recognized University or Board with English as compulsory subject. As the respondent had cleared English language as a subject in subsequent examination, for which separate mark sheet with single subject was issued, the Department treated her as not possessing qualifying criteria and hence, issued order dated 03.12.2013 indicating the reasons for which the name of the respondent was deleted from the list of provisionally selected candidates. As the respondent had cleared English language as a subject in subsequent examination, for which separate mark sheet with single subject was issued, the Department treated her as not possessing qualifying criteria and hence, issued order dated 03.12.2013 indicating the reasons for which the name of the respondent was deleted from the list of provisionally selected candidates. 3.4 This decision was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2015 quashed the impugned communication dated 03.12.2013 and directed the Department to complete the pre-appointment formalities after considering the case of the applicant to issue appointment order. It is this order which the Department has challenged. 4. Heard learned Advocates Shri P.Y. Divyeshvar and Shri Niral Mehta for the petitioners and Shri Anand Gogia, Ms. Kajal Kalwani, Shri Ketan Dave and Ms. Sunita Chaturvedi for the respondents. 5. Learned Advocate for the Department drew attention of this Court to the Department of Posts (Postal Assistants & Sorting Assistants) Recruitment Rules, 2002, wherein the qualifying criteria under Schedule-6 for the particular post were laid. He submitted that for the purpose of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant, educational qualification provided for direct recruits is 10 + 2 standard or 12 pass with atleast 60% marks from recognized University/Board of School Education Board of Secondary Education with English as a compulsory subject (excluding vocational streams), 55% for Other Backward Classes and 45% for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. He submitted that this qualifying criteria was known to the respondents even when they had applied for the post in response to the advertisement. The advertisement issued in Hindi also consisted qualifying criteria clause, which indicated English to be a compulsory language. The respondent herein when appeared first time in higher secondary examination in March 2005, she had opted for Gujarati (HL) and Hindi (LL) as two languages along with other subjects, but did not take English as a subject. Thereafter, in March 2006, the respondent appeared one subject, i.e. English (LL) and the mark sheet issued by the HSC Board indicated that the petitioner has received 38 marks out of 100 in English (LL). He therefore submitted that as the first mark sheet of the respondent does not reflect English language as one of the subjects, the respondent is not possessing qualifying criteria of having passed HSC with English as compulsory subject. He therefore submitted that as the first mark sheet of the respondent does not reflect English language as one of the subjects, the respondent is not possessing qualifying criteria of having passed HSC with English as compulsory subject. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with. 5.1 He further submitted that in absence of any challenge to the Recruitment Rules prescribing the qualifying criteria, it was not open for the Tribunal to interfere with the decision of the Department, which had correctly interpreted the requirement of English to be a compulsory subject and it was known to the candidates before they appeared in the examination. In absence of challenge and in absence of setting aside the Rules prescribing qualifying criteria, the Tribunal ought not to have directed Department to proceed with the formalities and grant appointment to the respondent. 6. As against this, learned Advocates for the respective respondents have made submissions in support of the decision of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondent was indeed meeting with the qualifying criteria as she had passed HSC examination through GSHSEB in the examination conducted in March 2005 securing 76% with Gujarati, Hindi, Sanskrit, Logic, Sociology and Psychology as subjects and in the next year, i.e. 2006, she appeared in the subject of English (LL) from the same Board and passed examination. Therefore, as on date of making application, the respondent was having requisite qualification of 10 + 2 with 60% marks and English as a subject. Therefore, the decision of the Department in subsequently holding her to be disqualified was unwarranted. 6.1 It is submitted that nowhere in the advertisement or even the Recruitment Rules, it is prescribed that candidate with two mark sheets will be considered to be disqualified. It is submitted that the co-candidates who are selected and given appointment had also opted for English (LL) as one of the optional subjects when such co-candidates had appeared in the HSC examination at the first instance. Therefore, syllabus of English subject which was cleared by those successful candidates is the same and identical as that which is cleared by the respondent. The respondent therefore cannot be discriminated and considered as disqualified. 7. Therefore, syllabus of English subject which was cleared by those successful candidates is the same and identical as that which is cleared by the respondent. The respondent therefore cannot be discriminated and considered as disqualified. 7. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the record, the Recruitment Rules framed under notification dated 03.11.2011 in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India prescribes in the Schedule the qualification for the post of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant which is as under:- "(i) 10 + 2 standard or 12th pass with at least 60% marks, from recognized University/Board of School Education Board of Secondary Education with English as a compulsory subject (excluding vocational streams), 55% for Other Backward Classes and 45% for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. (ii) Should have studied local language of the State or Union Territory of the concerned Postal Circle or Hindi as a subject at least in Matriculation or equivalent." 8. The advertisement issued for the post (Annexure-A3, page No. 92), which is in Hindi language, in para-5 prescribes educational qualification, wherein English is shown to be one of the subjects as "Anivarya". The mark sheets and the certificates produced on record indicate that in March 2005, the respondent had appeared in all 6 subjects, securing 76%, which did not contain English language. However, in the examination conducted in March 2006, the respondent appeared in Board examination for the subject of English (LL) and secured 38 marks out of 100. 9. With these facts, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the provisions of the Recruitment Rules as under:- "13. We may note that the requirement of the rules is that a candidate who seeks selection and appointment to the post of Postal Assistant must have passed 10+2 standard (in the instant case, HSC examination) with English as a compulsory subject. On perusal of the Recruitment Rules (supra), we find that the term 'compulsory subject' is not all defined. The Rules also do not specifically state that which of the language studied by the candidate at HSC level has to be treated as a compulsory subject, i.e. whether the first language or the second language? As per the affidavit of the Secretary, Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarati is the compulsory subject. The Rules also do not specifically state that which of the language studied by the candidate at HSC level has to be treated as a compulsory subject, i.e. whether the first language or the second language? As per the affidavit of the Secretary, Gujarat Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Board, Gandhinagar, Gujarati is the compulsory subject. On perusal of the HSC certificate at Annexure-A-2, we find that the maximum marks allotted to each subject including language subject if 100. The minimum marks to get exemption in each subject is 35. The maximum marks allotted to the English (second language) at Annexure A-2(i) (page 23 of the paper book) is also 100. The requirement of the rule is that one must have passed HSC with English as a compulsory subject. It means that amongst all the subjects prescribed by a Board/University for pass in 10+2 standard, English shall be necessary one of the subjects. There cannot be any other meaning for the reason the term "compulsory subject" is neither defined in the rules or explained away by the secretary of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board in his affidavit. It is not in dispute that the applicant has passed English as a subject at the HSC level. Therefore, the question to be reconciled is whether a 'Pass' in English subject in an examination conducted by the same very Board subsequently for such those students who passed HSC without English as a subject requires to be excluded/discarded from the context of the requirement of the Rule. At this juncture, we again refer to the relevant portion of the rules which reads as: "(i)10 + 2 standard or 12th pass with at least 60% marks, from recognized University/Board of School Education Board of Secondary Education with English as a compulsory subject (excluding vocational streams), 55% for Other Backward Classes and 45% for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes." On reading of the above, one can observe that the rule makers specifically excluded the vocational streams. In view of the exclusion of vocational streams, which, for certain other purposes is treated as 'Pass" in 10+2, if it is the intention of rule makers not to allow a candidate who has passed English subject as a second language at 10+2 level, subsequently in an examination conducted by the very same Board, but not passed English along with other subjects at 10+2 standard, then there would have been a specific exclusion to such qualification in the rules. As already observed, the word "compulsory subject" is not defined under the rules. The only difference is that the applicant has not passed English subject for the purpose of passing HSC, but, passed the same without there being a requirement." 9.1 The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to apply the principles laid down by the Apex Court with regard to discerning the intention of the statute and held as under in para-14:- "14. It is a settled principle of law that if obvious intention of statue gives rise to obstacles in implementation, the Court must do its best to find ways to remove those obstacles so as to avoid absurd results. We may gainfully refer to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SC 1714 . The relevant portion at paragraph 27 is as under: "27. xxxxx xxxxx it is a well known Rule of construction that the provisions of a statute must be construed so as to give them a sensible meaning. The legislature expects the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void). Principle also means that if the obvious intention of the statute gives rise to obstacles in implementation, the court must do absurd results. It is a well settle principle of interpretation of statutes that a construction should not be put on a statutory provision which would lead to manifest absurdity, futility, palpable injustice and absurd inconvenience of anomaly." In the case on hand, we find that the obstacles is apparent for the reason that the term "compulsory subject" is not defined. It cannot be said that prescription of passing 10+2 standard (HSC Examination) with English as a compulsory subject has no nexus with that of the object sought to be achieved. It cannot be said that prescription of passing 10+2 standard (HSC Examination) with English as a compulsory subject has no nexus with that of the object sought to be achieved. Normally, the postal addresses are written in English language particularly when the correspondences are exchanged from one State to other State. Bearing this in mind, the rule makers has prescribed English as a compulsory subject. But a plain reading of the rule which occupies the field of Recruitment Rules to the post of Postal Assistant, makes it clear that the intention of the rule maker is that a candidate must have compulsorily passed English as a subject at 10+2 standard level and not that a 'Pass' in English along with all other subjects. It makes no difference. We are conscious of the rule of interpretation that legislature never wastes its words or says anything in vain. A construction rejecting words of a statute is not to be resorted to. But at the same time, if there are compelling reasons, it is necessary that the words used by the rule makers/legislature is required to be modified while interpreting such rules with a view to achieve the object." 10. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the fact that the advertisement issued and which is called in question for the purpose of Gujarat Circle and is for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, the requirement of English as language in the Board examination would be for no other purpose but for working knowledge of English so as to attend the nature of work which may be allotted to the candidates who are to work as Postal Assistant. If strict interpretation as is canvassed by the learned Advocate for the Department is accepted then it will amount to debarring all the students who have studied in vernacular medium with English not as a compulsory subject but as an optional subject. This, in the opinion of this Court, could not be the intention of the Recruitment Rules, which would en masse prevent a section of eligible candidates. 11. Therefore, this Court holds that the Recruitment Rules prescribing English to be a compulsory language for the purpose of qualifying criteria for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant is not the requirement of the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement issued. 12. 11. Therefore, this Court holds that the Recruitment Rules prescribing English to be a compulsory language for the purpose of qualifying criteria for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant is not the requirement of the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement issued. 12. This Court is lead to believe the aforementioned position to be so even from the position taken by the Department by not denying the contention of the respondents that the successful co-candidates have cleared HSC examination with one vernacular language as compulsory and English (LL) as a subject in their HSC examination. Over and above this, in absence of no specific Rules to disqualify a candidate with two mark sheets of HSC Board, the respondent candidates must necessarily be held at par with the co-candidates who have cleared HSC Board Examination at the first instance with one vernacular language English (LL). 13. Perusal of the impugned judgment does not indicate any absurdity or interpretation which would be impermissible or which would result in any disadvantage to the Department or cast any discrimination or favouritism with regard to appointment. 14. No interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal. The petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed