IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16504 of 2008(M) PETITIONER: ------------ SMT. BIBI E.M, D/O.MADHAVAN, EDATHATTIL HOUSE, KALLATTUMKARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, (A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATIONAL SPECIAL CELL, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARYEDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16504 OF 2008 M -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar appears for the first respondent. Government Pleader appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is agreed that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of. 2. The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Hindi) in R.M.H.S., Aloor in Thrissur District. The petitioner appeared for the State Eligibility Test (SET), 2007 for the subject Hindi. There are two papers for the Test. It is stated that Paper I contained 100 questions and Paper II contained 120 questions. The petitioner secured 46.46 marks in Paper I and 64 marks in Paper II. The percentage of marks secured by the petitioner is 46.46% for Paper I and 53.33% for Paper II. According to the petitioner, she has secured 50% marks in aggregate and, therefore, Clause 13 of Ext.P1 prospectus would enable her to be declared as passed in SET. The first respondent took a different view and issued Ext.P2 result, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has failed. 2. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner has secured 50% marks in aggregate for the two papers as provided in Clause W.P.(C) NO.16504 OF 2008 :: 2 :: 13 of Ext.P1 prospectus approved by the Government. Clause 13 reads as follows: “13. Requirement for Pass Those candidates who secure a minimum of 35% marks in each Paper (separately) and an aggregate minimum of 50% marks will be considered to have passed the Test.” It would appear that the contention of the first respondent is that the petitioner has to secure 50% marks in each Paper whereas, according to the petitioner, it is sufficient if 50% marks are obtained on an aggregate of Paper I and Paper II. 3. A similar question arose for consideration in W.P.(C) No.23589 of 2007 and connected cases, which were disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 14.3.2008. A learned single Judge of this Court took the view that it is sufficient if 50% marks are obtained in the aggregate. In Ext.P3 judgment it was held as follows: “7. The question therefore is what is the import of the words “aggregate” and “minimum”. In the Oxford Reference Dictionary, the word 'aggregate' is given the meaning 'combined', 'total' and the word 'minimum' is given the meaning 'least amount possible'. Emphasis of the words 'aggregate' and 'minimum' with reference to clause 13 of the prospectus, is on the marks received and not to the average of percentage of marks as adopted by the respondents. Percentage of marks obtained for each paper will be a W.P.(C) NO.16504 OF 2008 :: 3 :: different integer than the individual marks. By calculating the percentage of the marks of two papers and taking the average of the same as noted already, the method to be worked out as per clause 13 is deviated. According to me, when the prospectus clearly spells out a method, the Pass Board cannot adopt a different method altogether and that too which is irrational. Percentage has to be calculated only for the purpose of finding out whether the candidate has obtained the minimum of 35% for each paper and an aggregate minimum of 50%. In view of the above, the contention that the aggregate of the fractional marks secured by the candidates can be determined only by arriving at the L.C.M of the denominators, is rejected.” 4. In the light of Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P2 does not appear to be correct. Therefore, I quash Ext.P2 to the extent that it declares that the petitioner has failed in the State Eligibility Test 2007. The first respondent shall consider the matter afresh in the light of Ext.P3 judgment and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/