Delhi High Court
Savita vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 30 April, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~58.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2775/2013
% Judgment dated 30th April, 2013.
SAVITA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.R.K. Saini and Ms.Minal Sehgal,
Advs.
versus
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Atul Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
Ms.H.Hnunpuii, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. By the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to round of the
percentage of marks obtained by her in the Central Teacher Eligibility
Test (CTET), November, 2012, i.e. 59.33% to the nearest percentile i.e.
60% and declare her qualified.
2. As per the petition, the petitioner had appeared in the Central Teachers
Test Eligibility Test (CTET), conducted by respondent no.1 on behalf of
the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, in
terms of the Central Teachers Eligibility Test Rules 2011. As per Rule 8
relating to qualifying marks and award of CTET Certificate a candidate
appearing in CTET would be issued marks statement and the candidates
securing 60% and above marks would be issued a CTET certificate. The
petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination and secured 59.33%and,
thus, she was not issued a qualified certificate.
3. The only ground urged before this Court is that percentage obtained by
the petitioner is liable to be rounded off to 60% applying the principles of
„rounding off‟ as the petitioner has secured 59.33%.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The issue of rounding off
of marks has been a subject matter of various decisions of the High Court
and the Supreme Court of India. In W.P.(C) 2877/2003 titled as
Dr.Ravinder Singh v. Medical Council of India & Anr. the petitioner
had obtained 49.7%. While allowing the said writ petition in favour of the
petitioner, the Court had held that the percentage was to be rounded of to
50% applying the principles of rounding off. Further in the case of State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, reported at (2005) 2 SCC 10
the Supreme Court of India upheld the judgment of the High Court where
the percentage had been rounded off from 46.5% to 47%. Para 7 of the
judgment reads as under:
"7. ...... The rule of rounding off based on logic and common
sense is: 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. 46.50
should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done.
If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in
general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list
of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to
appointment."
5. In the case of State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta, reported at (1997) 11 SCC
410, 32.5% marks were allowed to be rounded of to 33% marks. It was
observed as under:
"The question whether 32.5% could be rouned off to 33% is purely
an arithmetical calculation, a procedure which the Public Service
Commission in fairness has been adopting in all other cases. The
High Court noticed this aspect of the matter and also relied upon
earlier procedure in support thereof. In that view of the matter, we
do not think that it is a fit case for interference under Article 136 of
the Constitution."
6. Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajul Arora v. Jai
Narain Vyas University, reported at RLW 2006 (2) Rajasthan 1054
rounded of 44.83% to 45%. Further in the case of Dharmendra Kumar
Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, reported at Gwalior 2002 (2) MPHT
303, 49.7% marks were rounded of to 50%.
7. The Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar
Tiwari (supra) has explained the rule of rounding off and it is applicable if
part is one half or more, its value should be increased to one and if a part
is less than half than its value should be ignored. It is on the basis of this
principle that the rounding off was done in favour of the candidates as all
of them had secured more than a part of one half or a more viz. 46.5%
was rounded to 47%. Further in the case of Rajul Kumar (supra) the
marks have been rounded off from 32.5% to 33%. In the case of State of
Punjab (supra) the marks have been rounded off from 32.5% to 33%. In
the case of Dr.Ravinder Singh (supra) marks have been rounded off from
49.7% to 50%. In the case of Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava (supra)
49.7% marks were rounded of to 50%.
8. The petitioner in this case has secured 59.3% marks, which is less than the
part of the half and, thus, the rule of rounding off would not be applicable
to the petitioner. Accordingly, no benefit can be accrued in favour of the
petitioner.
9. The present writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
G.S.SISTANI, J
APRIL 30, 2013
msr
