1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9855/2008 (Shival Sharma Vs. Raj. Technical University & Ors.) Date of order : 25.02.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr. R.R. Vyas } Mr. Amitabh Acharya } for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned verbal order by which the respondent College cancelled the admission of the petitioner and further prayed that the respondent College be directed to permit the petitioner to undertake the regular classes of M.B.A. On 12.12.2008, at the time of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 25.11.2008, the order for cancellation of petitioner's admission has been passed which has been received by the petitioner now, therefore, the said order has been placed on record by the petitioner by way of filing additional affidavit and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the effect and operation of the order 2 dated 25.11.2008 was stayed. The case of the petitioner is that after securing 49.98% in the graduation, he applied for admission under the management quota in M.B.A. Course. The basic eligibility for admission is that a candidate must possess the graduation qualification with 50% marks but the petitioner has secured 49.98% marks and is short by .02% marks in aggregate 50% marks, therefore, while inviting the attention of this court towards the judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Rajul Arora Vs. J.N.V.U. & Ors., reported in 2006 (2) RLW 1054, it is submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner's admission is totally illegal because in view of the aforesaid judgment, the respondents are required to round up the marks obtained by the petitioner and obviously the petitioner has securing 49.98% marks, therefore, after rounding up the marks, he became eligible for admission as general candidate but his admission has been cancelled only on the ground that he has not securing 50% marks which is condition precedent for granting admission in M.B.A. Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after staying the operation of the order dated 25.11.2008, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to even fill up the form and to pursue his studies in the college and now examination are also 3 commenced, therefore, a contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner which is registered as SB Civil Contempt Petition No.378/2008, which is also listed today along with this writ petition. In the contempt petition, while filing reply, it is pointed out that college has not refused the petitioner to attend the classes and for the said purpose after receiving the order passed by this Court, an order was made on 16.12.2008 whereby it was specifically ordered that the petitioner may be allowed to offer too the formalities which were permissible to bonafide student. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court because initially he filled up the form in O.B.C. Quota but he has not furnished the required certificate of O.B.C., therefore his eligibility for the purpose of granting admission as general candidate is to be seen on the basis of the marks obtained in the graduation. According to the admission rules in graduation, a candidate is required to possess 50% marks in aggregate which the petitioner is not possessing and undisputedly he is is possessing 49.98% marks which is less then 50% marks and for the purpose of assessing the petitioner's eligibility, learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by Hon'ble 4 Division Bench of this Court in case of Dr. Rajiv Mangal Vs. Rajasthan Ujniversity of Health Sciences & Anr., reported in 2008 (1) RLW 576 and submits that Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that for the purpose of granting admission, no benefit on the basis of rounding up of marks can be given. The candidate is required to possess the marks as provided under the Rules and not less then the marks prescribed for the qualification, which is eligibility for granting admission. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused entire writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has acquired graduation with 49.98% marks which is less then 50% marks but only .02% marks is short from the aggregate 50% marks. In the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner the Court has adjudicated the matter on the point whether at the time of granting admission rounding up of the marks can be made or not. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the petitioner's marks shall be treated to be 45% for the purpose of granting admission in LL.B. Course after rounding up the marks from 44.83% to 45%. Therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that rounding up shall be made for the purpose of granting admission and assessing eligibility. In case of Dr. Rajiv Mangal (supra), the Hon'ble Division 5 Bench of this Court while considering various judgments in para-20 held that the eligibility of the candidate shall be assessed on the basis of marks obtained as prescribed under the Rules. Para 20 of the judgment reads as under:- “(20) In the light of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court inn the afore-referred case, we have no hesitation in holding that the expression “the minimum percentage of marks.... shall be 50%” has to be read to mean at least 50% of the total marks and by applying the process of rounding off, the eligibility cannot be provided which a candidate failed to achieve in the competitive examination. The rule of rounding off though founded on logic and common sense would not be attracted in the context of Regulation 7 framed by the Medical Council of India.” Admittedly in this case, the petitioner is not possessing the graduation with 50% marks. Therefore, while following the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Rajiv Mangal's case (Supra), I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun