*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:3rd February, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 18076/2006
JITENDRA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pardeep Gupta & Mr. Suresh
Bharti, Advocates.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Latika Chaudhary & Mr. Mohd.
Zaman Khan for Ms. Avnish
Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner passed his class Xth examination in the year 1995; on the basis of the said qualification, the petitioner in the year 1997 secured admission in the three year diploma course in Architectural Assistantship in the respondent no.3 Chhotu Ram Rural Institute of Technology affiliated to W.P.(C) 18076/2006 Page 1 of 6 respondent no.2 Board of Technical Education, Delhi. Though in the petition a number of details with respect to the passing/clearing of various semesters/papers of the course by the petitioner are stated but the controversy now is in a narrow compass. The petitioner on completion of course, as per the counter affidavit of the respondents also, has secured aggregate 1157 out of 2320 marks i.e. 49.870%. The Rules of the Board of Technical Education provide that any score less than 50% will not entitle the student to the diploma. The question which thus arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to rounding-off of his score of 49.870% to 50% which would entitle him to the diploma aforesaid.
2. Attention of the counsels on 14th January, 2011 was invited to the judgment dated 23rd November, 2010 of this Bench in W.P.(C) No.12475/2009 titled Aditya N. Prasad v. University of Delhi. The counsels had then sought time to examine the said judgment.
3. The counsels have been heard.
4. In Aditya N. Prasad, apparently conflicting judgments of Single Judges of this Court, dated 9th February, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.2877/2003 titled Dr. Ravinder Singh v. Medical Council of India and dated 23rd W.P.(C) 18076/2006 Page 2 of 6 March, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.1945/2010 titled Kumari Anamika v. The Principal, Daulat Ram College (W) were noticed. While in Dr. Ravinder Singh, the Court had directed 49.7% marks obtained by the petitioner in that case as equivalent to 50% by applying principle of rounding-off, in Kumari Anamika 44.7% was not allowed to be read as 50%. On analysis of the apparent conflict, it was observed that the judgment in Kumari Anamika turned on the facts of that case; the petitioner therein had misrepresented her marks and sought admission representing that she had 50% marks; it was also found that the prospectus in that case contained a provision prohibiting rounding-off. It was thus held that where there was no express provision against rounding-off, the same was permitted in terms of the judgment in Dr. Ravinder Singh. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Selin Mary Mammen v. Mahatma Gandhi University 2008 (17) SCC 615 wherealso the principle of rounding-off was applied inspite of prohibition against rounding-off contained in the Rules, though with reference to Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However in Aditya N. Prasad it was held that the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights 2010 (3) SCC 571 and in other judgments had held that W.P.(C) 18076/2006 Page 3 of 6 the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India were as wide as the power under Article 142.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has also invited attention to State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta (1997) 11 SCC 410 wherealso the Supreme Court refused to interfere whether 32.5% had been rounded-off to 33%. I may mention that the matter of rounding-off was also subject matter of Tarun Kapoor v. UOI MANU/DE/3749/2010 pronounced after Aditya N. Prasad.
6. The documents relating to the respondents on record in the present case do not show any prohibition against such rounding-off. The counsel for the respondents has however contended that since the Rules provide that any score less than 50% will not entitle a student to diploma, the same is a prohibition against rounding-off also. I am unable to agree. Merely providing the pass percentage would not tantamount to a prohibition against rounding-off.
7. The counsel for the respondents has next contended that there would be several other students also who have similarly been denied the diploma. Even if that be so, once it has been held that the principle of rounding-off can be applied, merely because there may be other students also would not W.P.(C) 18076/2006 Page 4 of 6 disentitle the petitioner to the relief.
8. The counsel for the respondents has next contended that as per the Rules, a student scoring more than 70% is entitled to a distinction, the score of above 60% is given first division and score between 50% to 60% is given the second division. She has argued that if said rounding-off is to be permitted, the same would create chaos and lead to claims for distinction and change in division also. Again the same would not disentitle the petitioner to the relief and Court would consider the issues as and when arise for consideration.
9. It may also be noticed that the present is not a case where any other person would be affected as in the case of admission. The petitioner is merely claiming the diploma on the basis of rounding-off.
10. The petition therefore succeeds. The respondents are directed to issue diploma to the petitioner within 60 days of today. The counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner is not pressing for the relief of damages, also claimed in the petition. Before parting with the case it may be observed that since this Court has not considered the matter from the aspect of allocation of division or distinction, the present order be not W.P.(C) 18076/2006 Page 5 of 6 treated as a precedent for the said purposes.
11. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Dasti under the signatures of court master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 03, 2011 pp W.P.(C) 18076/2006 Page 6 of 6