LPA No. 206 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 206 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 03.02.2011 Sushil Kumar ---Appellant Versus Punjab Public Service Commission and another ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.01.2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge rejecting the claim made by the writ petitioner- appellant that his score of 39.59% marks in the first paper in Preliminary Examination rounded of to 40% marks so as to make him eligible for appearing in the main examination of PCS (Executive). The overall percentage of the marks secured by the writ petitioner- appellant in the preliminary examination of Punjab Civil Services (for brevity 'the PCS'), under the physically handicapped category was 56.53%. According to prospectus, a candidate is eligible for main examination, if he gets 45% marks in aggregate and minimum 40% in each paper. On account of lack of 40% marks, the writ petitioner- LPA No. 206 of 2011 (O&M) -2- appellant was not declared successful and he approached this Court with a prayer for rounding up of 39.59% marks so as to become eligible to take main examination. 2. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that there was no rule which permit rounding of marks and that there is strict competitive examination where even a fraction of marks is relevant. 3. The issue is no longer res integra and it came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab 1997(5) SLR 133. In para 19, the Full Bench has overruled the Division Bench judgments in the cases of Asha Mehta v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) SLR 757 (Pb. & Hry.) and Raj Deep Singh v. State of Punjab 1996(4) SCT 383 and proceeded to observe as under: “ 19. From the above discussion, it follows that law stated by the learned Single Judge in Asha Mehta's case (supra) and that by the Division Bench in Raj Deep Singh's (supra) do not represent the correct law. We disapprove the same. Method of rounding off percentage of marks obtained in the written examination for bringing a candidate into the field of choice for selection to a post is not warranted by law. We are also of the considered view that for selecting candidates to any post on competition marks obtained in the examination/ test is not to be LPA No. 206 of 2011 (O&M) -3- rounded off to the next whole number unless the Rule governing the selection specifically provides for the same.” 4. In view of the aforesaid categorical statement of law, it is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that his 39.59% marks in the first paper be rounded of to 40% so as to make him eligible for appearing in the main examination of PCS (Executive). There is, thus, no merit in the appeal and the same does not warrant admission. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE February 3, 2011 Atul