- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 1199 of 1997 ZILA PARISHAD & ANR V/S NEELAM BATRA Mr. BL BHATI, AGA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. VK AGARWAL, for the respondent Date of Order : 30.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.7.99, accepting the writ petition, and directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner, treating her to have obtained 81.85 marks, and to consider her for appointment on the merit, accordingly. Challenging the order, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge has erred in reassessing the merit, inasmuch as, the calculation made by learned Single Judge, for the percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed. qualification, is wrong. According to the learned Single Judge, the marks for - 2 - B.Ed. have been taken to be 56.7, while on a proper calculation, the marks should have been taken as 52.5, and since the petitioner secured a total of 79.75% of marks, she was rightly declined the appointment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and going through the judgments, in our view, the precise controversy centers round the question, as to whether the writ petitioner is entitled to 56.70 marks for the B.Ed. qualification or is entitled to 52.50 marks for that qualification. The learned Single Judge has found, that the stand taken by the respondent is, that there is a formula evolved for calculating the marks obtained in the B.Ed. examination, as in the mark-sheet of the B.Ed. Examination of the writ petitioner issued by the Kota Open University, at that relevant time, did not give marks but only gave gradation and according to the State, the petitioner had obtained 2.42 in theory, and 3.25 in practical examinations, out of 200 and 600 respectively, and to arrive at a percentage point, the total of the theory and practical is to be multiplied by 20. Thus, on multiplying theory examination being 2.42 by 20 comes to 48.4%, which is out of 600, and the practical grade 3.25 is multiplied by 20, which comes to 65%, which is to be again multiplied - 3 - by 100, and divided by 200. Thus, the total marks come to 52.50. The writ petitioner relied upon the instructions dated 5.5.93, wherein the method of calculation of percentage was provided, being that, the average is to be calculated on the basis of marks obtained in Secondary/Higher Secondary, and marks obtained in B.Ed., then it is to be divided by 2. On that aspect, there is no controversy. Then regarding the calculation of marks in B.Ed. examination, the learned Single Judge has calculated like, that the percentage is to be obtained by multiplying the grade by 20, and by so multiplying, the figure has been arrived at 56.70, and thus, the petitioner has been held to be having qualifying marks as 81.85. We have also again tried to recalculate the marks, and find, that instructions are printed on the reverse side of the marks sheet, as to how the percentage of marks is to be arrived at. And according to those instructions, the figure assigned whether for practical or for theory is to be multiplied by 20. If the theory grade, being 2.42, is multiplied by 20, it comes to 48.4, and if practical grade is multiplied by 20, it comes to 65%, and then by adding the two figures being 48.4 and 65, and then dividing them by 2, the figure comes to 56.70%. Since overall grading is given for theory examinations as well as practical, in this - 4 - grading there can be no further bifurcation, and the two heads only are to be added, and then divided by 2, to arrive the average percentage of marks, and that is the precise procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge, wherein we do not find any error, and if that is done so, the petitioner is legitimately entitled to be declared to be having 81.85% marks. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be considered, as directed by the learned Single Judge. We thus, do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/