MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) ALTHOUGH listed for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties and in view of a short question involved, the matter has been heard finally.
(2.) THE only question involved in this writ petition is about rounding up of the marks for the purpose of admission to LL. B Ist year. THE petitioner has obtained a graduation degree of Bachelor of Arts in the year 1997, and as per the marks obtained by her in graduation i. e. , 807 out of 1800, her percentage comes to 44. 83. However, for the purpose of admission in degree course of Bachelor of Law (LL. B ). , minimum 45 per cent are required. 45% of 1800 comes to 810, whereas the petitioner has obtained 807 marks. THE petitioner submitted application form to the respondent University for admission to LL. B Course on 11. 7. 2005 and according to the petitioner, if rounding up is permitted, then her percentage of 44. 83 could definitely be taken as 45% and there is no reason why she should be deprived of admission to LL. B Course as she is otherwise eligible. The respondents in their submissions as made in the application for taking documents on record have attempted to say that the criteria of minimum 45% marks is fixed by the Bar Council of India and the University cannot relax the same. The criteria so fixed by the Bar Council in Rule 1 (1) (a) as quoted in the letter dated 19. 9. 1997 (Annexure R/1) placed on record by the respondents reads thus:-      " If there is entrance test, the percentage should be 40 but if there is no entrance test, the percentage should be 45 for LL. B admission. " Further, according to the respondents, rounding up could only be of the marks and not of percentage and, therefore, also the submissions of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The respondents have also raised an objection that the petitioner has approached this Court very late and the admissions commenced in the month of July, 2005 itself and now in the month of December, 2005 she wanted admission. So far the petitioner having chosen to approach the Court late, it cannot be denied that the petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 19. 11. 2005 and, obviously, therefore, by the time the petition was filed, much part of the academic sessions had already passed by. However, so far the predicament of the petitioner of percentage of marks is concerned, it cannot be gainsaid that her percentage of graduation of 44. 83 would remain the same and even if she would otherwise be eligible to get admission in LL. B Ist year, if the University proceeds on this assumption that the marks had to be 45% or above and for that purpose, rounding up of the fraction after 44% is not permissible, then the position for the petitioner would always remain the same. Therefore, the matter deserves to be considered on merits. Learned Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Arora appearing for the petitioner has placed before the Court an order dated 20. 10. 2005 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5818/2005: Budha Ram vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. , passed in precisely similar circumstances wherein the candidate had secured 44. 61% marks and this Court directed that the petitioner's marks be treated as 45% for the purpose of admission to the LL. B Course after rounding up the marks from 44. 61% to 45%. Learned Counsel Mr. Rakesh Arora further submitted that the said matter was taken in special appeal by the respondent-University and D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 30/2006: Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. vs. Budha Ram Choudhary, has been rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 12. 1. 2006.
(3.) IT is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Division Bench has rejected the contention of the University about a pseudo- distinction sought to be drawn between shortage of "marks" and shortage of "percentage" as ill-conceived. The Hon'ble Division Bench has further rejected the contention of the University in relation to the academic standards fixed by the Bar Council of India and it has clearly been held that by simply directing rounding up of the marks, the learned Single Judge has not compromised on the norms fixed by the Bar Council. The Hon'ble Division Bench held,-      " Counsel also submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge amounts to interference with the academic standards fixed by the Bar Council of India. We do not find merit in this submission either. System of rounding off is well-accepted norm of assessment. The learned Single Judge simply directed rounding off of the marks without compromising with the norm fixed by the Bar Council. " Having regard to the aforesaid decision of this Court, the submissions sought to be made by the respondents in their reply and so also in the additional affidavit are of no avail and deserve to be rejected. As a necessary consequence, prayer of the petitioner for permitting rounding up of the marks deserves to be granted. As a result of the aforesaid, following the order passed by this Court in Budha Ram Choudhary (supra), this writ petition is allowed; and it is directed that the petitioner's marks may be treated to be 45% for the purpose of admission to LL. B Course after rounding up the marks from 44. 83% to 45%. No costs. . ;