Dismissed

Shuchi Jain v. R R v P N L and Anr.

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2014CW/2800/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's ineligibility for a Junior Engineer post due to having 59.9% marks against a 60% requirement. Relying on the Supreme Court's mandate against rounding off marks without statutory authority, the court held the claim unsustainable and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; stay application closed; interim order vacated.

Shuchi Jain Vs R R v P N L and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2800/2005 Shuchi Jain

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

Date of Order ::: 20.03.2014

¶8

PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

Mr. Ajeet Bhandari Sr. Counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Goyal on behalf of Mr. Virendra Lodha, for the respondents.

¶10

¶11

The moot question, in the instant writ application, for adjudication is of rule of “rounding off” of numbers.

¶12

Shorn off unnecessary details, the indispensable and undisputed material facts, essential for adjudication on the question of rounding off of numbers, are: that the petitioner acquired a Degree of Engineering in Electrical Branch (AMIE), from the Institution of Engineers (India), Calcutta, in the month of September,1998. The petitioner secured 59.9% marks out of 1000 i.e. 59.9%. The petitioner submitted her application form, in response to an advertisement dated 28^th June, 2003 issued by the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (AVVNL) (respondent No.2), for recruitment on the 29 vacancies of Junior Engineers. She also applied for consideration of her candidature in response to yet another

¶13

¶14

advertisement dated 8^th July, 2003, issued by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (respondent No.1). The fact that an eligible candidate was required to possess minimum 60% of the marks in the Degree obtained, in the general category, is not in dispute. The petitioner who was short of .01% marks, for having secured 599 marks out of 1000; was declined appointment for being ineligible in terms of the advertisement, wherein a candidate of a general category, was required to possess minimum 60% marks.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts, of the writ application, emphatically argued that applying the general principle of “rounding-off” of the marks, 0.50% would normally be rounding off to the next digit and therefore, the application of the petitioner ought to have been treated as eligible since she had secured 59.9%. Though the learned counsel has pleaded that appointments have been accorded to the candidates lower in merit, but no material has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations.

¶16

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have submitted their counter affidavit specifically pleading that the petitioner admittedly secured 59.9% marks, and the minimum marks fixed for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers-I(C) were 60%. Further, no person lower in merit to the petitioner or having failed to obtain 60% marks, has been accorded appointment, on the post in question.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents reiterating the pleaded facts of the counter affidavit would further submit that the petitioner has not brought on record even an iota of evidence, to substantiate the baseless, concocted and sweeping allegations made to the effect that candidates lower in merit to her or who failed to obtain 60% marks, have been accorded appointment to the post of Junior Engineer.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record.

¶20

The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore Vs. G. Hemlatha & ors.;(2012 (8) SCC 568, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, while dealing with somewhat identical controversy, held that “rounding off” of marks to the next digit, is not permissible, in absence of any statutory provision to that effect.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court applying the verdict delivered in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary & Anr.; 2011 (8) SCC 108 in the case of G. Hemlatha & ors. (supra) observed thus:

¶22

“8.In Orissa Public Service Commission and Another v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Another (2011) 8 SCC 108 this Court in somewhat similar fact situation considered

¶23

¶24

whetherthe eligibility criteria could be relaxed by the method of rounding-off. The Orissa Public Service Commission published an advertisement inviting applications from suitable candidates for the Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009 for direct recruitment to fill-up 77 posts of Civil Judges (JD). Pursuant to the advertisement, the first respondent therein applied for the said post. She took the preliminary written examination. She was successful in the said examination. She, then, took the main written examination. The list of successful candidates, who were eligible for interview, was published in which the first respondent’s name was not there. She received the mark sheet. She realized that she had secured 337 marks out of 750 i.e. 44.93% of marks in the aggregate and more than 33% of marks in each subject. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for short “the Orissa Rules”), the candidates who have secured not less than 45% of the marks in the aggregate and not less than a minimum of 33% of marks in each paper in the written examination should be called for viva voce test. Since the first respondent thereinhad secured 44.93% marks in aggregate she was not called for interview/viva voce. The first respondent approached the Orissa High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition. The appeal from the said order was carried to this court. After considering the Orissa Rules, this court held that Rule 24 thereof made it clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. This court observed that when emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there can be no relaxation or rounding-off. It was observed that no power was provided in the statute/rules permitting any such rounding-off or giving grace marks. It was clarified that the Orissa 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 giving the benefit of rounding-off or relaxation.

¶25

¶26

In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. Judgment of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi vs. Director General, Medical Education and Training and Others (AIR 2003 All 164) and judgment of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh, Legal Assistant, Punjab Financial Corporation vs. The State of Punjab and Others ( 1997) 117 PLR 1, were cited before us because they take the same view. However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public Service Commission (supra), it is not necessary for us to discuss the said decisions.

¶27

No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder has been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.SC (Nursing). When 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 Benchof the High Court erred in holding that learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make respondent 1 eligible for admission to PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible.”

¶28

In view of the authoritative pronouncement on the issue of “rounding off” of fraction to next digit; the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The writ petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

Ordered accordingly.

¶30

In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application is hereby closed.

¶31

¶32

The interim order dated 24^th August, 2005 is hereby vacated.

¶33

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶35