Jitendra Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 633 Del

               *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

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

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

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

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

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