1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Rajendra Singh Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3777/2006 Date of Order : : 10/09/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Bhati, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the State. Mr.Rituraj Singh for Mr.J.P.Joshi, for the respondent-RPSC. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents rejecting his candidature for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in History subject in pursuance of advertisement Annexure-8 and also seeks direction to round off the percentage of the mark obtained by him in Masters Degree and to consider his case for appointment on the post of Lecturer (School Education) in History subject. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide Annexure-8 certain posts were advertised including the post for school Lecturer, and for the post mentioned in column No.1 to 15, the minimum qualification apart from other qualification in the relevant subject was Master Degree with second division. The subject History is at serial No.3 in the table showing the subject 1 to 15. Thus, for the consideration of a candidate for the post of school Lecturer in History subject apart from the other minimum qualification, the qualification of Master Degree with second division was prescribed. The second division has been prescribed to be minimum 48 percentage marks. Learned counsel submits that petitioner secured 381 marks out of 800, therefore, it comes to 47.63% and if rounded then it comes to 48% and in these circumstances, the petitioner is eligible for consideration. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P.& Anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari & Ors.; 2005(2) SCC p.10 wherein the rule of rounding off came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is; if part is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. In 3 that case, the percentage of marks was 46.50 and the Apex Court held that 46.50 should be rounded off 47 and not to 46 as has been done in that case. On this proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the percentage of 47.63 obtained by the petitioner should have been rounded to 48% and therefore, the respondent fell in error in denying the consideration to the petitioner. However, by an interim order dated 21st July, 2006, the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short “the RPSC”) was directed to call the petitioner to face interview for the purpose of appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Education) in the subject of History provisionally. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21st July, 2006, the petitioner was permitted to appear for interview and he has faced the interview but his result was not declared and therefore, in the interest of justice, vide order dated 14th July, 2008, the respondent-RPSC was directed to bring the result of the petitioner for perusal of the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- RPSC has brought the result of the petitioner in a sealed envelop. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that for the post of Lecturer (School Education) in History subject, for General Male, the cut off marks for main merit is 60 and for 4 the reserve-list is 57. On envelop being opened, the result of the petitioner was found. I have perused the result. It appears from the result that the petitioner secured 53 marks and therefore, he is less in merit since the cut of marks for main merit is 60 and for reserve list is 57. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for relief prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK