High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.03 10:23:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:5264 NAFR
Facts
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1197 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
15. There is no power provided in the statute nor any such stipulation was made in the advertisement and also in the statutory Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for providing or giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. 18. Let us also examine the issue from another angle. If rounding off is given to the appellant as sought for by him there has to be similar rounding off for a person who has missed 33% in one of the papers just by a whisker. To him and to such a person who could not get 50% in aggregate in the written test, if this rule of rounding off is offered then they would also get qualified. In that event, there would be no meaning of having a rule wherein it is provided that a person must at least have the minimum marks as provided for thereunder. Somewhere a line has to be drawn and that line has to be strictly observed which is like a Lakshman Rekha and no variation of the same is possible unless it is so provided under the Rules itself. Both the Selection Committee as also the appointing authority are bound to act within the parameters of the Rules which are statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation thereof whether by way of giving grace marks or rounding off would be acting beyond the parameters prescribed which would be illegal.” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarit Chakraborty (supra) in para 10 and 11 held as under:- “10. The aforementioned principle has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha, (2012) 8 SCC 568. The question of law involved therein was whether by applying the principle of rounding-off the eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the P.G. course in M.Sc. (Nursing) could be relaxed. After placing reliance on the Rupashree Chowdhary case (supra), this Court, in the Hemlatha case (supra), held as follows: “12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permit rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.Sc (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench 4 of the High Court erred in holding that the learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent No. 1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible.” 11. In the instant case, we have already observed that the guidelines that are framed by the Board are in consonance with the regulations framed and notified by the AICTE. The AICTE, in its regulations as noticed hereinabove, has specifically pointed out that the minimum marks that a candidate should secure, in order to be considered as eligible to appear for counseling for the purpose of admission in an Engineering college, in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, in aggregate, is 45% marks only. Since the guidelines that are framed by the Board are in consonance with the aforesaid AICTE regulations, in our considered opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in ignoring the guidelines and directing the Board to round off the marks from 44.6% to 45%.” 6. Taking into consideration the fact that such permission cannot be granted according to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above- reported matters, accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No. cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant
Arguments
Priya Mishra D/o Late Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 31 Years Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Rampark Colony, House No. D - 9, Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. University Grant Commission Through Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Higher Education, Block - 2 And 3rd Floor, Indriavati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. National Testing Agency C-20, 1a/8, Sector 62, Iitk, Outreach Centre, Noida – 201309. 4. Atal Bihari Bajpyee Vishwavidyala Through Its Registrar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 1 For State/Respondent No. 2 For Respondent No. 3 For Respondent No. 4 : None, even in the second round. : Mr. Rudrapati Tripathi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate : Mr. Avinash Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29. 01.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may issue an appropriate writ or direction, including a writ of Mandamus against the 2 erring Respondent No.1 and permit rounding off of marks to meet the eligibility criteria. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may order the Respondent No.3 to round off the score of the Petitioner to the nearest whole number and thereby convert 54.75% to 55% of marks in Masters of Law degree. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may issue any other Writ, Order (s), Direction(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition for rounding of marks secured in the Masters in Law (LLM) examination. According to them, the petitioner secured 54.75%. They would further submit that the petitioner has prayed for the round of marks to be 55%. They would also submit that according to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhanu Pratap vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3272:: 2011 AIR SCW 4573 and West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board and Others vs. Sarit Chakraborty and Others, (2015) 13 SCC 668, the same is not permissible. 3. Heard. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhanu Pratap (supra) while dealing with the same issue in para 14, 15 and 18 held as under:- “14. In the light of the records placed before us we have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. The relevant Rules have already been extracted above. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain at least 33% marks in each of the papers and at least 50% qualifying marks in the aggregate in all the written papers. The further mandate of the rules is that a candidate would not be considered as qualified in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate including viva-voce test. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to 3 be obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off as sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellant.