Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
The Coordinator Pre B.A B.Ed/ Bsc B.Ed ... vs Chanchal Jalwaniya Daughter Of Jugraj ... on 9 May, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Prakash Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1348/2018
The Coordinator Pre B.a B.ed/ Bsc B.ed And Ptet 2018, Maharishi
Dayanand Saraswati University Pushkar Road, Ajmer.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chanchal Jalwaniya Daughter Of Jugraj Jalwaniya, Aged About 20
Years, Resident Of Ramdev Colony Jodhpur Road Barr, Barr, Pali
Rajasthan 306105 At Present Residing At 6/185 Sfs Agarwal Farm
Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Principal Icg College, Mansarovar, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan Through The Additional Chief Secretary Higher
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.A. Katta with
Mr. Mihir Katta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pardeep Mathur
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Judgment
09/05/2019
1. The appeal is by the Coordinator, Pre B.ed/ PTET 2018 questioning the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judges' findings and directions. The respondent/ writ petitioner had complained that despite her securing 44.5% marks in the Bachelor degree level education, applying the principle of law deducible in law pertaining to rounding-off, PTET rejected her candidature. The relevant stipulation in the rules for admission to the B.Ed. Course states as follows:-
"There will be a Pre-Teacher Education Test hereinafter called PTET-2018 for admission to B.Ed. Colleges of Rajasthan. On-line Application Forms for the same are being invited by Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:21:07 AM) (2 of 4) [SAW-1348/2018] University Ajmer. Candidates securing at least 50% marks in aggregate in the Bachelor's/ Master's Degree examination of Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer or any other University recognized as equivalent to and fulfilling the other requirements for admission to B.Ed. Course prescribed hereinafter will be eligible to apply for admission to B.Ed Course through PTET. However Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes as well as physically challenged and Widow or Divorcee women candidates of Rajasthan having at least 45% marks is aggregate in the Bachelor's/ Master's degree level examination will be eligible to apply for admission. No relaxation in the minimum percentage (not even 1 mark) as required above will be given to any candidate. Candidates who have passed Graduation through Correspondence Course from any University by taking only one University Examination or have not studied through 10+2+3 scheme 0r 10+1+3 (old scheme) are not eligible to appear in PTET."
2. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner/respondent had not secured 45% marks but rather secured 44.5% marks at the bachelor degree level of education. This led her to approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the course of the proceeding, the writ petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as State of U.P. And Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari And Others, (2005) 2 SCC 10. It was contended that the rule of rounding-off is one of common sense and applying the principle underlying, if a part is one half or more, its value would be increased to one and if a part is less than half, its value would be ignored. The writ petitioner, therefore, urges successfully on the strength of the decision in State of U.P. And Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari And Others (supra) that in her case since the qualifying criteria of 45% was met with on application of rounding-off, her candidature should have been accepted and processed further. Learned Single Judge accepted the submission and issued the direction that were sought.
3. The appellant Coordinator, PTET argues that the impugned judgment is contrary to at least two rulings of this Court, especially University of Rajasthan through its Registrar, Jaipur vs. Anil Pandey And Anr., (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1504/2018) and the judgment reported as Dr. Rajiv Mangal vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences And Anr., AIR 2007 Rajasthan 186.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:21:07 AM)(3 of 4) [SAW-1348/2018]
4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner urges that the principle undertuned in State of U.P. And Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari And Others (supra) clearly prevails and applies in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the applicability of rounding-off, in different situations can lead to different outcomes. In a case of recruitment or admission or entrance examination, the principle of rounding-off cannot be applied. However, in the case of considering candidature or applicants' eligibility based on the stipulation in the relevant rules, even though she might be otherwise merited, having regard to the performance in the entrance examination/ admission procedure, rounding-off rule should apply.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Rajiv Mangal vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences And Anr., AIR 2007 Raj. 186 & 2007(2) ILR (Raj.) 496 in the opinion of this Court is decisive. In that judgment, the Division Bench had ruled as follow:-
"19. The Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Mridul Dhar (minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. of course was concerned with the question of all- India quota of MBBS/BDS courses, but while dealing with that issue, also issued directions in the matter of granting admission to the effect that the merit determined by competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision like grant of marks by mode of interview or any other mode. Surely, the rule of rounding off, if applied to the marks obtained or determined in the competitive examination shall be one of the modes that may result in tinkering with the competitive examination which is not permissible. When the Supreme Court says that the merit determined by the competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision of any other mode, the Court, by applying interpretative process, cannot provide a mode that would result in tinkering with the merit determined in the competitive examination. The merit determined in the competitive examination for admission to the post-graduate medial sciences examination is solemn and cannot and must not be allowed to be tinkered with by applying an equitable rule of rounding off."
6. In a recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Taniya Malik vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi, 2018 (14) SCC 129, the Court had considered the applicability of the so-called rounding-off rules in the context of eligibility criteria in relation to qualifying examination in several situations, including qualifying examination. In that context, it examined and applied the rulings in previous decisions such as Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. G. Hemlatha And Others, (2012) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:21:07 AM) (4 of 4) [SAW-1348/2018] 8 SCC 568 and Orissa Public Service Commission And Anr. vs. Rupashree Chowdhary And Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 108.
7. The Court after quoting the relevant extracts in Rupashree Chowdhary (supra), stated as follows in Taniya (supra):-
"20. With regard to question as to rounding off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate.
22. Thus the principle of rounding off method could not be applied in view of requirement to obtain minimum aggregate marks to be called for interview in the instant case."
8. This Court is not persuaded by the submissions of the writ petitioner. Accepting it and allowing the impugned judgment would mean that candidates who secure marks which are less than what is stipulated as eligibility norm can nevertheless, on some grounds or rationate outside of the rules or the relaxation norms be considered.
9. The starkness of such consequence is apparent from the fact that between 44.5 and 45, there may be several candidates far more merited than the writ petitioner who may be kept out. This in turn would mean that the writ petitioner would be granted relief only for having approached the Court; clearly violative of the non discrimination principle underlying Article 14 of the Constitution. Furthermore, in the absence of the rule permitting such relaxation or rounding-off, the Court cannot of its own accord carry out an exception.
10. For the above reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Following the decision in Rajiv Mangal and Anil Paandey (supra) referred to earlier, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is according dismissed.
11. Application No. 33846/2019 is disposed of.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
Simple Kumawat /12
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 12:21:07 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)