1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1042/2014

Sandeep vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp. & Anr.
Date of Judgment : 04.12.2014
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.SUNIL AMBWANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K.RANKA

REPORTABLE

Mr. Dinesh Yadav, counsel for appellant.

Mr. Nitesh Bagri, counsel for respondents.
1.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2.

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.
3.

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.
4.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied

upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of U.P. and Another vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and
Others [(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.
5.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the

respondents that the the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and

Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari & 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. vs.

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 v. 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.
6.

In the present case, the petitioner-appellant did not

secure

minimum of the prescribed cut off marks.

He had

secured the marks, which were less than 05. mark, which
could not be rounded off, to the minimum of passing marks for
selections.

There is no provision in the Standing Orders, nor

any condition was stipulated in the advertisement to round off

the fraction of marks, if it was more than 0.5, to 1.0, or to give
any grace marks to bring up the candidate to the minimum

required to be selected.

No dilution in the requirement of

minimum of marks was thus permissible.

7.

We do find any error of law in the judgment of learned

Single Judge. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(J.K.RANKA),J.

(SUNIL AMBWANI),ACTING C.J.

Mohit
S/7
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Mohit Tak, P.A.