Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) THE appellant holds a degree in M.Sc. (Physics) from the Annamalai University earned through the Distance Education Mode. He secured 717 marks at the examination. This brings his percentage at 58.8%. Had he got three more marks his score would have totalled 720 thereby aggregating 60% in post graduation which in turn would quality him for consideration for regular appointment as a lecturer in a college. He sought in the writ petition a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Annamalai University to adopt procedure of moderation of marks and add three grace marks to his grade bringing it to 60%. The alternative prayer was for a direction that he be permitted to reappear in an improvement examination to help advance his teaching career with a view to secure regular employment.
(2.) THE appellant, however, was not able to demonstrate before the learned Single Judge that there was any rule at Annamalai University which made provision for moderation of papers and marks which could help him to bridge the gap. In the absence of rule, the claim has been rejected. Reliance placed on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh and another v. V.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another; : 2007 (1) S.C.T. 754 : (2007) 3 SCC 720 to the facts of this case was found misplaced. In this intra -court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent, the appellant still depends on the aforesaid decision. In the absence of a rule of moderation or award of grace marks, it is not possible to grant any relief to the appellant. In Sanjay Singh case (supra), the Commission had itself resorted to the 'scaling system' of moderation of marks and the issue raised was whether the course adopted was contrary or prohibited by rule. Such an issue does not arise in this case. Before parting, we may add that grace marks and moderation cannot be lightly dealt with and bestowed, worked or added to change merit position in a world of razor sharp competition. Merit position cannot be seen as a mere personal right of a competitor, though it may be personal achievement or lack of it. This is not far to see as it has public law element in it, amidst a sea of valuable third party rights emerging, jostling and elbowing each other to secure precious public appointments and free and paid seats in educational institutions in the dreary war of attrition, each aspirant clinging to decimals and fractions. It is very serious business. Not even rounding off is permissible or contemplated by law to alter the class or division itself, say from Second to First in matters of public appointment etc., unless statutory rule permits to the contrary, the validity of which would also have to be tested in the event of judicial review. We see the futility of the hapless prayers made in the petition and pressed twice over before this Court with unrequited hope. We are afraid the matter cannot be stretched further. No ground for interference is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine. No costs.;