JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Binodanand Mishra, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Md. Nadim Seraj, the learned counsel for the respondent/Lalit Narayan Mithila University. The State is represented by Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, the learned AC to AAG-15. 2. The petitioner has not been promoted to the Class-III post on the ground that he has not secured 45% marks in each of the papers in the examination for the purposes of promotion. 3. Mr. Mishra has drawn the attention of this Court to the Rule framed in this regard with respect to departmental examination. 4. The relevant clause reads as hereunder: foHkkxh; ijh{kk ¼1½ fo'ofo|ky; rFkk egkfo|ky; ds dfeZ;ksa ds lsok lEiqf"V ,oa ÁksUufr ds fy, fo'ofo|ky; Lrj dk foHkkxh; ijh{kk dk vk;kstu fo'ofo|ky; }kjk o"kZ esa nks ckj fd;k tk;sxkA ¼2½ fo'ofo|ky; ds foHkkxh; ijh{kk dk ikB~;Øe fuEuor~ gksxk%& ¼d½ foHkkxh; ijh{kk nks i=ksa esa gksaxsA ÁR;sd Á'u i= ,d&,d lkS iw.kkZd ds gksaxsA foHkkxh; ijh{kk esa mŸkh.kZrk ds fy, de ls de 45 Áfr'kr vad ÁkIr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼[k½ ÁFke i= & fgUnh fVIi.kh Ák:i.k dk Kku] foRr ,oa ys[kk] Ø;] lsok fu;ekoyh] dk;kZy; Áca/ku] LFkkiuk ,oa ctV rFkk dEI;wVj ls lacaf/kr KkuA ¼x½ f}rh; i= & fo'ofo|ky; vf/kfu;e esa fufgr Áko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa ifjfu;eksa@fofu;eksa@ v/;kns'kksa@fu;eksa ds lkFk&lkFk fo'ofo|ky; f'k{kk ls lacaf/kr fuxZr i=ksa] jkT;kns'kksa rFkk ladYiksa dh tkudkjh ls lacaf/kr Á'u iwNs tk;saxsA 5. The petitioner had appeared in the departmental examination in both the papers and obtained an aggregate of more than 45% marks. However, he has not been given promotion on the ground that in one of the papers, he has scored only 34 marks. 6. Md. Nadim Seraj, the learned counsel for the respondent/University has submitted that the Rule is absolutely clear in as much as for a person to pass in the examination, he ought to have 45% marks in all the papers in which he appears. 7. This gloss over the concerned Rule is the issue in dispute. 8. The Rule clearly says that the departmental examination shall be of two papers, each of hundred marks. There is some vagueness in the following statement in the concerned clause which says that for a person to pass in the departmental examination, he has to obtain a minimum of 45% marks. The clause does not specify that a candidate has to obtain minimum of 45% in all papers. 9. Mr. There is some vagueness in the following statement in the concerned clause which says that for a person to pass in the departmental examination, he has to obtain a minimum of 45% marks. The clause does not specify that a candidate has to obtain minimum of 45% in all papers. 9. Mr. Mishra, therefore, contends that some requirement, which is not there in the Rule, cannot be read into it as the Rule has been framed by the Government which has been implemented by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. 10. Mr. Mishra has further submitted that for about three decades, the petitioner has been rendering his services in the University to the satisfaction of all and prior to the introduction of the Rule referred to above the promotions to the post in Class-III was only based on seniority. Later, with the introduction of Rule, the principle was changed from mere seniority to seniority-cum-merit. Mr. Mishra is very specific in his assertion that the principle of promotion in this case is not merit-cum-seniority but seniority-cum-merit. In that case, he submits that the concerned clause of the Rule be read in its literal terms which would mean that a person has to obtain 45% marks in overall and not in each of the papers. 11. In support of this argument, Mr. Mishra has relied on the logic that the scheme of promotion is seniority-cum-merit and the post on which the petitioner is to be promoted is a Class-III post. In that view of the matter, reading a more onerous and difficult condition in a Rule which is ambiguous, to say the least, would be counter productive. He further submits that in other Universities, the Rules are framed in similar terms but so far as its implementation is concerned, the minimum percentage of marks for passing is always construed as such percentage in overall and not in specific/ each of the papers. 12. On these two grounds, Mr. Mishra has contended that he deserve to be considered for promotion on seniority-cum-merit principle. 13. As opposed to the aforesaid contention, Md. 12. On these two grounds, Mr. Mishra has contended that he deserve to be considered for promotion on seniority-cum-merit principle. 13. As opposed to the aforesaid contention, Md. Nadim Seraj, the counsel for the respondent/University has submitted that for effective administration of official work, even if it is ministerial, competence in each of the aspects of administration would be required and, therefore, the examination scheme is designed in such a manner that a candidate is tested on all aspects including his computer knowledge and about the circulars of the University. All the files are processed for further deliberation and action by people holding Class-III posts. In that case, it would be rather difficult for the University to give that kind of interpretation to the Rule as it would only promote incompetence and nothing else. 14. After having heard the counsel for the parties and after having perused the concerned clause of the Rule, it becomes very clear that the Rule only prescribes that for passing in a departmental examination, a minimum of 45% marks is required. There is no specific requirement under the Rules that such marks have to be obtained by a candidate in all the papers in which he/she appears. In such view of the matter, giving any other interpretation to the Rule would be putting such candidates to unnecessary difficult situation. 15. True it is that there cannot be any premium on incompetence but one cannot loose sight of the fact that the basic principle of promotion in this case is seniority-cum-merit and not vice versa. 16. With this background facts, it would be rather harsh to read the Rule in the manner in which it has been read and consequently the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 17. Apart from this, what strikes this Court is that a Rule has to be interpreted in such a manner that it causes no ambiguity in seniority-cum-merit scheme of promotion. If there is no specification with respect to a candidate requiring him to pass in all papers, it would be rather unsafe to read such requirement in a properly worded Rule. 18. Apart from this, there is no minimum pass marks prescribed for each paper and in that view of the matter, raising the threshold of passing marks to number 45 would be asking for more than what is required for a Class-III post. 19. 18. Apart from this, there is no minimum pass marks prescribed for each paper and in that view of the matter, raising the threshold of passing marks to number 45 would be asking for more than what is required for a Class-III post. 19. Be that as it may, this Court is not observing anything on the issue of the competence of the Government or the University to frame Rules with respect to promotion, but is only interpreting the Rule as it has been framed. 20. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. 21. The petitioner deserves to be considered accordingly, if he satisfies other conditions. 22. It would only be appropriate for the University to move a proposal for making amendments in the Rule, if so desired, and the Government also would be under an obligation to look into such proposal and decide accordingly and make necessary amends.