IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22057 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRASAD.T, S/O THACKAI, AGED 36 YEARS, PUTHEN PURACKAL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL P.O., KOOTTICKAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,S.C, K.P.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22057/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MARK LIST ALONG WITH THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE BSC. MLT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S S.S.L.C. BOOK. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 05/10/04 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DTD. 12/10/04. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 28/06/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. GO.(MS).NO.123/07/G. EDN. DTD. 23/06/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.22057 of 2008-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Vocational Teacher in Medical Laboratory Technology. She was having the qualification Bsc. MLT in Medical Laboratory Technology with 59.6% marks which is clear from Ext.P1 copy of the mark list. 2. The notification is dated 5.10.2004 issued by the second respondent. The method of recruitment is by transfer or direct recruitment. The qualification prescribed is Degree in Medical Laboratory Technology with not less than 60% marks from any of the Universities in Kerala which is clear from Ext.P3 copy of the Gazette notification. The petitioner submitted an application and actually he had participated in the written examination and passed the same and finally he was included in the rank list. At the time of verification of the documents he was informed that the application is rejected for want of sufficient marks, viz. 60%. This is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Ext.P5 is the copy of the Government Order by which an amendment was introduced to the qualification, whereby 60% has been wpc 22057/2008 2 replaced by 55%. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 59.6% is equal to 60% and therefore the application could not have been rejected. It is further pointed out that in the light of the amendment, the petitioner could have been considered. Learned Standing Counsel explained that there cannot be a rounding off of the marks, as the qualification is fixed 60% marks. The principle of rounding off can be applied if there is a specific provision for that, which legal position is well settled. Here, no power is given to the Public Service Commission or to the appointing authority to round off the marks to arrive at the figure 60%. Therefore, the marks can be reckoned only as 59.6% and hence the petitioner does not fulfill the qualification. 6. The next question is whether Ext.P5 will apply to the petitioner. Evidently, Ext.P5 is dated 23.6.2007. It is only prospective also. Even the subsequent amendment made to the Special Rules is also prospective. For all these reasons, it cannot be said that the rejection of the wpc 22057/2008 3 application is illegal or irregular in any manner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/