N.K. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated March 14, 2000 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed Civil Writ Petition 12200 to 1999 filed by the appellant. Facts giving rise to this appear which are not in dispute lie in a narrow compass and these may first be noticed.
(2.) ADMISSIONS for the academic year 1999 -2000 to the second year (IIIrd semester) of 4 -Year B.E./B.Tech. Degree courses in Diploma Holders under Lateral Entry Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the course) to various Government/private Engineering and Technical colleges/institutes in the State of Haryana were made on the basis of a Lateral Entry Entrance Test (for short the entrance test) which was conducted by C.R. State College of Engineering, Murthal (Sonepat). This college had issued a prospectus prescribing the conditions of eligibility for admission to the course. The entrance test was open to the candidates who were otherwise eligible as per the eligibility conditions mentioned at para C -3.1 of the prospectus. All the eligible candidate desirous of admission to the course were required to take the entrance test, Para C -3.1 of the prospectus with which we are concerned in this appeal is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference : - "C -3.1 Eligibility for admission I. Candidate must have passed diploma course of a duration of three years (or more) in relevant discipline as per para C -2 from Haryana Board of Tech. Education or its equivalent with atleast 60% marks in aggregate. II. He/she must be a valid resident of Haryana. The eligibility for admission will be decided on the 'last day of submission of application form for admission i.e. 26.8.1999." The petitioner has passed his diploma course of a duration of three years in Computer Science and Engineering in the supplementary examination held in the year 1998 by the Board of Technical Examinations, Department of Technical Education, Government of Kamataka, He studied for this diploma course in Cauvery Polytechnic, Gonikoppal, District Coorg in the State of Karnataka. There were ten subjects in the diploma course including Project Work, Elective Lab, C. Lab, RDBMS Lab and each subject had a maximum marks of 100. He joined the diploma course in the 1994 -95 batch. Having passed the first two years of the diploma course, he appeared in the third year annual examination in the year 1997 but could not clear three subjects in which he was required to re - appear. He appeared in those subjects in the supplementary examination held in the year 1997 and passed in two out of the three subjects. He again appeared in the supplementary examination for the third year diploma in 1998 and cleared the third subject as well. He obtained 602 marks out of a total of 1000 and was declared to have passed the diploma course in second class. A consolidated statement of marks obtained by the petitioner was issued to him on 16.7.1999. In this statement the marks obtained by him in each paper are mentioned but against the column of grand total the total marks obtained by him have not been shown which on totaling come to 602 out of 1000, as already observed. He appeared in the entrance test conducted by respondent No. 3 which was held on 8.8.1999. Result of this test was declared on 14.8.1999 and he ranked 23rd in the merit list. He sought admission to the course in the discipline of Computer Science and Engineering in which there were in all 83 seats. Out of these, 43 seats were 'free seats' and the rest were 'payment seats'. He was refused admission on the ground that he had not obtained 60% marks in the diploma course. The action of the respondents in refusing admission was challenged by him in CWP 12200 of 1999. The respondents sought to justify their stand by contending that since the petitioner had passed the diploma course in 'second class' he must be deemed to have obtained less than 60% marks in the said course and, therefore, in terms of para C -3.1 of the prospectus he was not eligible for admission. It was also contended that the aggregate of the marks obtained by the petitioner in all the three years of the diploma course had to be taken into consideration for determining the percentage of marks obtained by him in the said course and when it is so done his percentage is less than 60%. For this reason as well, according to the respondents, the petitioner was not eligible. The learned Single Judge considered both the contentions of the respondents and upheld the first. The learned Judge observed that it is common knowledge that students who secure marks between 50 to 60% are placed in the 'second division' and those who secure above 60% are declared to have passed the examination in 'first division' and since the petitioner was declared to have passed the diploma course in second class it should be presumed that he obtained less than 60% marks. The second contention of the respondents that the aggregate marks of all the three years of the diploma course were to be considered was rejected by the learned Single Judge. It was observed that prior to 1996 -97 the office of the Director, Technical Education, Haryana was considering the marks of a candidate obtained by him only in the 5th and 6th semester examination of the diploma course to determine his percentage and it was only on 30.10.1996 that the Examination Committee of the department decided to take into consideration the marks of all the three years for determining that percentage. This decision was specifically made effective with effect from the 1996 -97 batch of students. The learned Single Judge found that since the petitioner had joined the diploma course in the year 1994 -95 i.e. prior to the year 1996 -97 the decision taken by the respondents on 30.10.1996 was not applicable to him. Since the first contention of the respondents was upheld, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. We have heard counsel for the parties. The only question that now survives is whether the petitioner was eligible for admission in terms of para C -3.1 of the prospectus which has been reproduced in the earlier part of our order. A perusal of that para makes it clear that candidates had to pass diploma course of a duration of three years in the relevant discipline with at least 60% marks in aggregate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner passed the diploma course the duration of which is three years. He has also passed in the relevant discipline which is mentioned in para C -2 of the prospectus. The only question is whether he has obtained 60% marks in the aggregate or not. The consolidated statement of marks which is Annexure P -4 with the writ petition leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner has obtained 602 marks out of a total of 1000 and this percentage is more than 60. It is true that against the column of 'grand total' the total marks obtained by the petitioner had not been mentioned but this does not mean that he had not obtained more than 60% marks. The marks obtained by him have been mentioned against each subject and when these are totaled the percentage is more than 60. To say that since the petitioner passed the diploma course in second class he should be deemed to have obtained less than 60% marks is not correct. The requirement of para C -3.1 of the prospectus is not the class or division which a candidate was required to obtain in a diploma course. He was only required to obtain at least 60% marks therein which the petitioner has to his credit. There is no requirement that he should pass the diploma examination in first division. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner must be deemed to have obtained less than 60% marks because he was declared pass in second class. He passed the diploma course in second class because he did not clear all the papers in first attempt and according to the rules of respondent No. 5 such candidates are placed in second class even though they may obtain marks more than 60%. In this view of the matter, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained.
(3.) THE learned Assistant Advocate General urged that the petitioner is ineligible because the total of the marks obtained by him in all examinations of the three years diploma course are less than 60%. That is so but as per the rule prevailing for the students of 1994 -95 batch the aggregate marks of the 5th and 6th semester examination alone were to be considered for determining the percentage of the candidate . The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the decision of the Examination Committee which was taken on 30.10.1996 would not govern the case of the petitioner as he had joined the diploma course in the year 1994 -95. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contention that the total marks of three years had to be considered for determining the percentage of the petitioner. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside and it is held that the petitioner is eligible for admission to the course. The provisional admission granted to him under the interim orders of this court will now be regularized. There is no order as to costs.;