Gujarat High Court
Jayani Dashrathbhai Patel vs National Board Of Examination In ... on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/549/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 549 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4107 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 549 of 2025
==================================================
JAYANI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL
Versus
NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATION IN MEDICAL SCIENCE & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI SR. ADVOCATE with MR. MEHUL A SHARMA(16314) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 05/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard Mr. G. M. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Mehul A. Sharma, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ankit
A. Shah, learned advocate appears for the respondents nos. 1 and 2.
1.1. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 and
affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the appellant is taken on record.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
04.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ
petition holding that the petitioner is not entitled for 'double benefit'
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/549/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
i.e. seeking a direction to round off her marks paper wise and then
again to grant her two (2) grace marks for each subject i.e. total six
(6) grace marks to declare her pass in the examination in question.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ravinder Singh (Dr.) v. Medial Council of India & Anr.,
reported in 2010 SCC Online Del. 758, and in the case of State of
U.P. and Anr., v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari & Ors., reported in (2005)
2 SCC 10 would submit that as per the total marks secured by the
petitioner in 3 papers of theory examination, the percentage of marks
in aggregate obtained by the petitioner would be 47.66%. With the
application of rounding off principle, the percentage of marks would
be 48% and since grace marks upto 2% shall be given to each
candidate across the board, the petitioner is to held as qualified in
the theory examination as she would score 50% of the maximum
marks.
4. Considering this submission of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, pertinent is to record Clause '4.2.1.' of
the Examination Bulletin which prescribes rule of the qualifying
examination and assignment of grace marks. Bullet Point '6' of
Clause'4.2.1.' provides that the candidate must score at least 50% of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/549/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
the maximum marks to qualify the theory exam and further make it
clear that only those candidates who score 150 or more marks out of
300 shall be declared "pass" in the theory examination.
4.1. Bullet Point '7' of Clause '4.2.1.' further clarifies that at least
150 out of 300 marks shall be the aggregate of 3 papers to qualify
the theory examination. It further provides that grace marks upto 2%
of maximum marks, which is 6/300 shall be given to the candidates
falling in the zone of consideration, i.e. those who secure marks
between 144-149 marks out of 300.
4.2. Bullet Point '8' further clarifies that only those candidates who
have qualified the theory examination are permitted to take practical
examination.
5. Noticing the above, if we consider the submission of the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant for rounding off
the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner to 48%, even then
the total marks obtained by the petitioner would not be 144,
inasmuch as, the marks scored by the petitioner in the aggregate of 3
papers is 142.5 and with the application of rounding off principle, the
aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner would be 143 only.
Moreover, 142.5 marks scored by the petitioner when converted into
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/549/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
percentage, it would be 47.50% which cannot be rounded off to 48%
as suggested by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The
contention of the learned counsel that the percentage of marks
obtained by the petitioner is 47.67% in aggregate is actually
incorrect.
6. From both the angles, if we look to the policy of examination as
notified in the Examination Bulletin, only those candidates who have
secured at least 144 marks in aggregate of 3 papers would be
entitled to the grant of 6 marks as grace marks, so as to reach the
figure of 150 out of 300, which is the minimum marks to be secured
by a candidate to qualify the theory examination.
6.1. It is not the case where with the rounding off of the percentage
of marks obtained by the petitioner, the petitioner would reach the
figure of minimum qualifying marks of 150, rather to achieve the
minimum qualifying marks of 150, the petitioner can be given grace
marks of 2% of maximum mark, which is 6 as the maximum marks of
theory examination is 300. The result is that in aggregate of the
marks obtained by the petitioner the grace marks of 6 even if added,
the petitioner would secure only 149 marks and thus, would be short
by 1 mark than the minimum marks which is 150 in aggregate of 3
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/549/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
papers to qualify the theory examination.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any error in the decision of
the learned Single Judge.
7.1. The fact that the petitioner has appeared in the practical
examination under the interim order passed by this Court in the
present appeal would not be relevant, inasmuch as, it is intimated by
the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, the petitioner has to
undertake qualifying examination comprising of theory as well as
practical examination, afresh which is being held every six months.
No benefit can be derived from the decisions relied on by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
8. With the above, the appeal stands dismissed.
Consequently, the connected Civil Application for stay also
stand disposed of.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
