- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner -appellant appeared in the selections for the post of Artisan Grade -II Electrician A.C. for the vacant posts in his category, held under the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965. He did not secure 30 marks in the Trade Test, which was the minimum passing marks in the selections, and thus, he was declared unsuccessful.
(2.) THE writ petition giving rise to this Special Appeal was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he had secured 29.5 marks in the trade test, which should have been rounded off to 30, for consideration in the selections. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was declared unsuccessful, as he could not secure minimum of the prescribed 30 marks in the trade test. He observed that there is no provision of rounding off the marks obtained by the petitioner in the trade test.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors., : (2005) 2 SCC 10, in which it was held that where any application of prescribed percentage to reserved category is raised, it should be rounded off to full. The Supreme Court held that the rule of rounding off is based on logic and common sense and, if part is one -half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half, then its value shall be ignored. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors., (supra) had applied the principle of rounding off to the posts. The principle is not applicable to the minimum prescribed marks, as the acceptance of a fraction of the marks -less than the minimum would amount to lowering down the standards fixed for selections. He has relied upon Orissa Public Service Commission and Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr., : (2011) 8 SCC 108, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (JD) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deals with the criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24 reads thus: "24. Determination of number of candidates for interview. -The Commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than forty -five per centum of marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty -three per centum of marks in each paper in the main written examination." 10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it crystal 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% of marks in the * aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules pertaining 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 giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. 11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society us. M. Tripura Sundari Devi. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p.658, para 6) "6........when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement." ;