Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmalendu vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 21 January, 2013
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia
LPA No.44 of 2013 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.44 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: January 21, 2013
Nirmalendu
Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. R.K.Bagga, Advocate for the appellant.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. The appellant-petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2012 whereby her writ petition was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts, necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The State of Haryana through the Board of School Education, Haryana issued prospectus for the Haryana Teachers Eligibility Test 2011 (HTET) for selection of teachers for Classes first to eight and for Lecturers. The last date for submission of applications was 12.8.2011. The pattern of question paper of HTET 2011 was Multiple Choice Questions with a total number of 150, each carrying one mark and the duration of examination was one and a half hours. The qualifying marks for the HTET 23011 were 60% i.e. 90 marks out of 150 for general category and Backward Class category. It was also specifically mentioned in the prospectus of HTET 2011 on page No.8 that relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying marks at Post Graduate level LPA No.44 of 2013 (O&M) 2 was admissible to Scheduled Caste and differently able candidates. The appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category. She being eligible and fulfilling all the essential qualifications and conditions submitted her application form on 1.8.2011 for the post of Lecturer. She was issued Roll Number on 22.10.2011. On 5.11.2011, the appellant took the HTET examination for PGT level in the year 2011 and she got 82 marks out of
150. According to the appellant, there was no provision for fraction in marks and if relaxation of 5% marks i.e. 08 marks was given to her, then she could have been considered as HTET qualified because she belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The said benefit was not given to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached respondent No.2 many times but no response was received. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court through CWP No.14417 of 2012 which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2012 impugned herein. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The appellant has claimed that in the prospectus, there is a provision of 5% relaxation in marks in the qualifying examination. According to the counsel, since total marks were 150, therefore, by giving relaxation of 5%, the marks work out to be 7.50 and in such a situation, after adding the same to the marks obtained by the candidate it should have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. Reliance was placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, AIR 2005 SC 658, Gujarat High Court in Virenbhai Jayantibhai Jani v. B.Ed. Centralised Admission Committee 2009-2010 and others, 2010(5) SLR 432, this Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and others, 1989(2) Current Law Journal 596, Kamal Prabha Sharma v. The Maharshi Dayanand LPA No.44 of 2013 (O&M) 3 University, 1992(3) SCT 21, Miss Raman v. Punjabi University, Patiala, 2001(3) SCT 1030 and Bombay High Court in Kum. Harsha v. State of Maharashtra, 2009(4) ALL MR 842 in support of his contention.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention.
5. In the present case, the appellant is seeking that on the basis of 5% relaxation being permissible, it would come to 7.5 marks as the total marks being 150. After adding the aforesaid 7.5 marks, the total marks should have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. Unless there is any provision in any statute or rule framed thereunder which may permit rounding off of marks, where eligibility criteria has been laid down for qualifying examination, the same would not be permissible. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to refer to any statute or rule so as to substantiate that the same was permissible under any provision of law. Moreover, in case the contention of the appellant was accepted, the same would have resulted in enhancing the reservation to 8 marks which would have exceeded 5% as provided under the rules. The benefit of rounding off was, thus, rightly declined to the appellant.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while negating similar contention in Orissa Public Service Commission and another v. Rupashree Chowdhary and another, AIR 2011 SC 3276 held as under:-
"13.When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e.,they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the LPA No.44 of 2013 (O&M) 4 aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.
14.The High Court, in our considered opinion, has also committed an error apparent on the face of the records by allowing two more persons, who secured marks between 44.5% and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even parties before it and who had not even shown interest subsequently to be appointed subsequent to the declaration of the results of the examination but despite the said fact the High Court directed them also to be called for the interview only on the ground that they have secured more than 44.5% of marks but less than 45% marks in the main written examination in aggregate."
7. Identical issue was repelled by the Apex Court in The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G.Hemlatha and others, 2012(4) SCT 157 with the following observations:-
"10. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder has been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.SC (Nursing). When eligibility criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in holding that learned Single Judge was right in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make respondent 1 eligible for admission to PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible."
8. Adverting to the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Pawan Kumar Tiwari's case (supra), it may be noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering a case relating to total number LPA No.44 of 2013 (O&M) 5 of posts which on calculation came to 46.50. It was directed to be rounded off to 47. That was a case of calculating the number of posts of reservation and not the rounding off the marks for determining the eligibility of a candidate.
9. In so far as reliance upon the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in Virenbhai Jayantibhai Jani's case (supra), this Court in Rakesh Kumar, Kamal Prabha Sharma and Miss Raman's cases (supra) and Bombay High Court in Kum. Harsha's case (supra), suffice it to notice that the said pronouncements being prior in point of time to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.Hemlatha's case (supra) and contrary thereto would not advance the case of the appellant.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Mittal)
Judge
Janaury 21, 2013 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia)
'gs' Judge