1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Akshay Chandra Tiwari Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2360/2008 ......... Date of Order : 28/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR BY THE COURT Mr. H.R.Soni for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bhandari for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. K.L.Thakur, for respondent No.5. By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order Annex.P-3 and Annex.P-4 and seeks declaration to hold the petitioner eligible for appearing in LL.B. First Year Examination 2008 and a direction to the respondents No.3 to 5 to accept the examination form submitted by the petitioner and accord permission letter for appearing in the LL.B. First Year Examination 2008. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner after having acquired the Graduation degree i.e. B.A. from Jai Narain University, Jodhpur in which he secured 44.83% marks vide Annex.1, sought admission with the respondent No.5 for LL.B. Degree Examination to pursue the legal studies. By order of this Court dated 9.4.2008 the respondent University was directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination scheduled to be held from 21.4.2008, however, allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination was provisional subject to the result of the writ petition. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has pursued the studies and appeared in the examination. By order Annex.3 and Annex.4, the examination form for LL.B. First Year 2008 was rejected. Hence this petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner secured 44.83% marks in Graduation and minimum marks required for admission to the LL.B. Degree Course is 45% as prescribed by the respondent University and marks secured by the petitioner if rounded up then it comes to 45%. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar controversy came to be decided by this Court in catena of decisions in Rajul Arora Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University and Anr. 3 2006 (2) RDD 765 (Raj.), Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The Principal, ST. Pafricks Vidya Bhawan 2000 (4) W.L.C. (Raj.) 159 and Bharti Devi Meena Vs. The Convenor PTET Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer, 2006 W.L.C. (Raj.) UC, 165. In Rajul Arora Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University and Anr. (Supra) the petitioner therein secured almost the same percentage which the petitioner herein secured in B.A. Examination. In that case, the percentage of petitioner therein was 44.83% and for the purpose of admission in LL.B. Degree Course, the minimum 45% marks are required. This Court held that the petitioner's marks be treated as 45% for the purpose of admission to LL.B. Course after rounding up the marks from 44.83% to 45% and there is no reason why the petitioner therein be deprived of admission to the LL.B. as she is otherwise eligible. The controversy raised in the instant writ petition is on identical facts to that of Rajul Arora's case (supra) and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed treating the percentage of the marks secured by the petitioner as 45% after rounding up the marks from 44.83% to 45%. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders 4 impugned Annex.3 and Annex.4 are quashed and it is held that the petitioner is eligible to be admitted for LL.B. Examination 2008. Since the petitioner has already provisionally appeared in pursuance of the interim order dated 9.4.2008, the respondent University shall declare the result of the petitioner along with result of other candidates who have appeared in the year 2008. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.4240/08 IN S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2360/2008 ......... Date of Order : 28/05/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. H.R.Soni for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bhandari for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. K.L.Thakur, for respondent No.5. Since the writ petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp