Holding

The Court held that no power exists under the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules to round off or relax the minimum qualifying marks, and therefore the appellant was not qualified for appointment.

Summary

The appellant, Bhanu Pratap, appeared for the 2003 Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) examination for Subordinate Judge and obtained 508 out of 1020 marks (49.8%), falling short of the statutory 50% aggregate requirement. He sought a mandamus directing his appointment, arguing that the shortfall of two marks should be rounded up to meet the qualifying threshold. The High Court dismissed his petition and the Division Bench upheld the dismissal. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, which expressly require at least 33% in each paper and 50% in aggregate, including viva‑voce, and found no provision for rounding off or granting grace marks. The Court held that the Rules are statutory and cannot be altered by implication or by adding words, and the selection committee lacks power to relax essential qualifications. Consequently, the appellant was not qualified and his appointment could not be ordered.

Issues considered

Whether the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules permit rounding off or granting grace marks to meet the 50% aggregate qualification.
Whether the selection committee has authority to relax the essential qualification criteria prescribed by the statutory Rules.
Whether the appellant is entitled to appointment despite falling short of the statutory aggregate marks.

Subjects

Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rulesminimum qualifying marksrounding off marksgrace marksappointment of Subordinate Judgeselection committeestatutory rulesmandamusqualification criteria

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 736

.. '
A BHANU PRATAP
v.
+
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6205 of 2011)
AUGUST 02, 2011
8 ~
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ...
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules :
c rr. 7(1), 7(2), 8(1), 9- Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch)
Examination advertised in 2003 for the post of judicial officer
- Qualifying marks in written examination and viva voce for
selection - Rounding off or relaxation in marks or giving
grace marks - Permissibility of - Held: In order to qualify in }

D the written examination, a candidate has to obtain at/east 33% ...
marks in each of the papers and at/east 50% qualifying marks ~

in the aggregate in all the written papers - Candidate cannot
be considered as qualified in the examination unless he
obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate including viva
E voce - There is no power provided in the statute nor any such
stipulation is made in the advertisement and also in statutory
rules permitting any rounding off or giving grace marks so as
to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement - The
-..+
Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment
~

to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some •
F
words to the said statutory rules for giving benefit of rounding
off or relaxation - In the instant case, respondent obtained
total aggregate marks of 508 out of 1020 total marks, i.e.,
49.8% and since marks obtained by him was short of the
qualifying marks of 50%, he failed to qualify in terms of r.B of
G the Rules and was rightly not appointed to the post of judicial
officer.

An advertisement was issued Jn 2003 for filling up 73
posts of Subordinate Judges under the Haryana Civil
H 736
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 737

Services (Judicial Branch) Examination. The appellant A
appeared in the writtel) tests and was declared
successful and thereafter he was called for interview. He
failed to qualify in terms of Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil
Services [Judicial Branch] Rules and was not appointed
to the said post. The appellant filed a writ of mandamus B
before the High Court seeking direction for his
appointment .to the post of Judicial Officer. In the writ
petition, his contention was that he received total
aggregate marks of 508 out of 1020 total marks, i.e., 49.8%
and since the marks obtained by him was short of the c
qualifying marks of 50% by just two marks, the same
should be rounded off to 50% in aggregate. The High
Court dismissed the writ petition. The instant appeal was
filed challenging the order of the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court D

HELD: 1.1. Appointment to the post of ;Subordinate
Judge (Haryana Civil Services Judicial Branch) is guided
by the Haryana Civil Services [Judicial Branch] Rules,
which are statutory in nature. Rule 7(1), 7 (2) and 8(1) E
specifically deal with the minimum marks that a
candidate has to obtain to qualify in the written test and
also for selection. In the advertisement issued by the
respondents for filling up the said post along with
instructions and information for candidates, it was F
specifically mentioned that the syllabus of the
examination would be as contained in Schedule under
Rule 9 of para 'C' of the Rules relating to the appointment
of Subordinate Judges in Haryana. The said syllabus
was set out in detail showing the compulsory papers, G
description of subjects, maximum marks for each
subject. It was also communicated that for viva-voce test
there will be 120 marks. The Rules with regard to the
conduct of the written examination were also set out
therein. In clause (g)(i) thereof it was indicated that no H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the
examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the
--
'

aggregate of all papers including viva-voce test. It was
also stated thereafter in the advertisement that the merit
of the qualified candidates shall be determined by the
B Haryana Public ·Service Commission strictly according to 1 -1

the aggregate marks obtained in the written papers and ·
viva-voce, For the"viva-voce test, it was provided in the
advertisement that it will be a test relating to the matters
of general interest and is intended to test the candidate's
c alertness, intelligence and general outlook. It was
reiterated thereunder also that the merit of the qualified
candidates would be determined by the Haryana Public
Service Commission strictly according to the aggregate
marks obtained in the written papers and viva-voce.
D [Paras 8, 9] [742-F-H; 743-A-G]
•
1.2. A sitting Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court was associated as an Expert Advisor at the time
of viva-voce test which consisted of 120 marks. The total
120 marks of viva-voce test were divided under four
E heads evaluating the personal quality of the candidates.
The Judge present in the interview graded the canddiate
'AS' as 'G', i.e., 'Good' placing him within the mark range
of 16-20, whereas the appellant was graded as "P", i.e.,
'Poor' placing him within the mark range of 01-05 and the •
F candidate 'VS' was graded as "A+", i.e., 'Above Average'
placing him within the mark range of 11-15. The said
grading criteria to be awarded by the Judge for
evaluating the personal quality of the candidates were
circulated to the members of the Selection Committee for_
G viva-voce examination as a guideline before the viva-voce
examination. Therefore, the minimum marks which could ·j
be given to the appellant in each of the heads, was only
one and in this case, the Chairman, and the members of
the Commission had given him the maximum marks, i.e.,
H 5 marks, under each of the four heads and consequ.ently
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 739

.........~ he got 20 marks out of 120 ascribed to the viva-voce A
examination. A bare reading of the Rules would make it
crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written
examination, a candidate has to obtain at least 33%
marks in each of the papers and at least 50% qualifying
J
marks in the aggregate in all the written papers. The B
,J further mandate of the rules was that a candidate would
not be considered as qualified in the examination unless
he obtains at least 50% marks in the aggregate including
viva-voce test. When emphasis is given in the Rules itself
to ~he minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that
at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by
c
the concerned candidate there cannot be a question of
relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in
the statute nor any such stipulation was made in the
..., advertisement and also in the statutory Rules permitting
) any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to D
bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. No
such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The
Rules were statutory in nature and no dilution or
amendment to such Rules was permissible or possible
by adding some ·words to the said statutory rules for E
providing or giving the benefit of rounding off or
relaxation. If rounding off is given to the appellant as
sought for by him there has to be similar rounding off for
.. -I a person who has missed 33% in one of the papers just
by a whisker. To him and to such a person who could not F
get 50% in aggregate in the written test, if this rule of
rounding off is offered then they would also get qualified.
In that event, there would be no meaning of having a ru"
wherein it is provided that a person must at least have
the minimum marks as provided for thereunder. G
Somewhere a line has to be drawn and that line has to
be strictly observed which is like a Lakshman Rekha and
no variation of the same is possible unless it is so
provided under the Rules itself. Both the Selection
Committee as also the appointing•.authority were bound H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A to act within the parameters of the Rules which were r._
statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation
thereof whether by way of giving grace marks or
rounding off would be acting beyond the parameters
prescribed which would be illegal. [Paras 10, 11, 14, 15,
B 18] [743-H; 744-A-C-F-H; 745-A; G-H; 746-A-D; 747-C-E]
District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
WelfareResidential School Society, Vizianagaram and
Another. v. M. TripuraSundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655: 1990
(2) SCR 559; Umrao Singh v.Punjabi University, Patia/a
c and Ors. (2005) 13 sec 365: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 530 -
referred to.

Case Law Reference:
1990 (2) SCR 559 referred to Para 16 r-
D
2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 530 referred to Para 17
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6205 of 2011.

E From the Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 207 of 2007.
Naresh Kaushik, Sanjeev K. Bhardwaj, Lalita Kaushik for
..
F
the Appellant.
Manjit Singh, AAG, D.S. Chauhan, Ruchi Singh, Rajinder
.
Juneja, Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Shivika Jain,
Parvinder Jain, Vivekta Singh, Tarjit Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta
for the Respondents.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivere by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal we are called upon to decide an issue
pertaining to an appointment to the Post of Subordinate Judge
H under the Haryana Civil Services [Judicial Branch] Examination
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 741
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

,- which was advertised in 2003 and for which the selection A
process was completed in 2004. Thereafter two candidates
who alone were selected have been appointed and joined their
services on 18.03.2005 and 07.07.2005, respectively.
3. Even subsequent thereto advertisements have been
... issued for filling up similar vacancies in 2008 and 2010 which
B
.J
process was also long completed and persons selected have
also been appointed pursuant to the said selection process.
We are also informed that in 2011, further 111 posts have been
advertised for which selection process has been initiated.
c
4. The appellant herein submitted his application as
against the aforesaid advertisement issued by the respondents
in 2003 for filling up 73 posts of Subordinate Judges under

.
_
~

_)
Haryana Civil Services [Judicial Branch] Examination. The
appellant appeared in the written tests and was declared
successful and thereafter he was called for interview. Incidentally
D

out of 3,471 candidates who appeared for the written
examination, only 3 persons obtained more than 50% marks
in the written examination and were eligible under the extant
Rules for being called for interview/viva-voce. All the 3
candidates called for interview duly appeared before the
E
interview board constituted by the Haryana Public Service
Commission [for short "the Commission"] in which one of the
..
. .;
then Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was called
as an Expert Advisor who was present during the process of
the interview.
5. It transpires from the records that in the interview
F

conducted by the Commission total marks allocated for the
interview/viva-voce test were 120 and one Shri Vivek Nasir
obtained 72 marks out of 120, whereas, Shri Anubhav Sharma G
--
~

).
was awarded 60 marks out of 120. However, the present
appellant could get only 20 marks out of the total marks of 120
for the interview. Since he failed to qualify in terms of Rule 8 of
the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules [for short "the
Rules"] he was not appointed to the said post.
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A 6. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed a Writ Petition .,
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh which
was registered as CWP No. 12205 of 2005 in which he sought
for a writ of mandamus directing his appointment to the post
of Judicial Officer. In the Writ Petition his contention was that
B since he received total aggregate marks of 508 out of 1020
total marks, i.e., 49.8% and since the marks obtained by him, '
was short of 50% by just two marks the same should be rounded
off to the qualifying marks of 50% in aggregate in terms of Rule
8 of the Rules. It was contended that shortage of the percentage
c of half or less was to be rounded off and when the petitioner
had obtained 49.8% in the whole aggregate after viva voce test,
he should have been treated to have obtained 50% and should
have been deemed to have qualified.
7. The aforesaid contention of the appellant, however, was /.

D rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court and the Writ
Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, which order was
further upheld by the Division Bench on appeal. Being
--
aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ Petition and Letters
Patent Appeal, the appellant filed the present appeal in this
E Court, on which we heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties who had also taken us through the entire records.
8. Appointment to the post of Subordinate Judge (HCS
Judicial Branch) is guided by Haryana Civil Services [Judicial
Branch] Rules, which are statutory in nature. Rule 7(1), 7 (2) and
F 8(1) specifically deal with the minimum marks that a candidate 'f
has to obtain to qualify in the written test and also for selection.
The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow for ready
reference: -

G
"7(1) No candidate shall be credited with any marks in any
paper unless he obtains at least thirty three per cent marks ''-..._
in it. _).

(2) No candidate shall be called for the viva-voce test
unless he obtains at least fifty per cent qualifying marks in
H the aggregate of all the written papers and thirty three per
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 743
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
- - - - •'f"'"

cent marks in the language paper, Hindi in (Devnagri A
Script).

······························.•·························
-'
4'
························································
8(1) No candidates shall be considered to have qualified B
in the examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks
in the aggregate papers including viva-voce test."
9. In the advertisement issued by the respondents for filling
up the said post along with instructions and information for
candidates it was specifically mentioned that the syllabus of the
c
examination would be as contained in Schedule under Rule 9

-- -\

_,
of para 'C' of the Rules relating to the appointment of
Subordinate Judges in Haryana. The said syllabus was set out
in detail showing the compulsory papers, description of ·
subjects, maximum marks for each subject. It was also D
communicated that for viva-voce test there will be 120 marks.
The rules with regard to the conduct of the written examination
were also set olit therein. In clause (g)(i) thereof it was indicated
that no candidate shall be considered to have qualified in the
examination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the E
aggregate of all papers including viva-voce test. It was also
·I.
stated thereafter in the advertisement that the merit of the
-,. ... qualified candidates shall be determined by the Haryana Public
Service Commission strictly according to the aggregate marks
obtained in the written papers and viva-voce. For the viva-voce F
test it was provided in the advertisement that it will be a test
relating to the matters of general interest and is intended to test
the candidate's alertness, intelligence and general outlook. It
Nas reiterated thereunder also that the merit of the qualified
.<!: :andidates would be determined by the Haryana Public Service G
:ommission strictly according to the aggregate mar_ks
)btained in the written papers and viva-voce.
10. As stated hereinbefore, a sitting Judge of the Punjab
md Haryana High Court was associated as an Expert Advisor
--,' H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A at the time of viva-voce test which consisted of 120 marks. The
total 120 marks of viva-voce test were divided under four heads
evaluating the personal quality of the candidates as follows: -
Ma) Awareness, outlook, Subject knowledge 30 marks
and general interest
B
b) Articulation and expression 30 marks
c) Intelligence and alertness 30 marks
d) Poise, bearing and other qualities 30 marks"
C The Judge of the High Court was to classify a candidate as
Expert Advisor under the following categories: -
MC lass Marks Range
Excellent (E) 26-30
D V. Good (G+) 21-25
Good (G) 16-20
Above average (A+) 11-15

E Average (A) 06-10
Poor (P) 01-05"

11. It is brought out on records that the Judge present in
the interview graded Anubhav sharma as 'G', i.e., 'Good' placing
F him within the mark range of 16-20, whereas Bhanu Partap was
graded as MP", i.e., 'Poor' placing him within the mark range of
01-05 and Vivek Nasir was graded as MA+", i.e., 'Above
Average' placing him within the mark range of 11-15. The
aforesaid grading criteria to be awarded by the Judge for
G evaluating the personal quality of the candidates were circulated
to the members of the Selection Committee for viva-voce
examination as a guideline before the viva-voce examination.
Therefore, the minimum marks which could be given to the
appellant in each of the heads, was only one and in this case,
the Chairman, and the members of the Commission had given
H
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 745
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
- ..,..
him the maximum marks, i.e., 5 marks, under each of above- A
mentioned four heads and consequently he got 20 marks out
of 120 ascrib.ed to the viva-voce examination.

.;
12. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before
..J
us that since the appellant had received 49.8% in aggregate
in all the tests including viva-voce, the same could and should B
have been rounded off to 50% in aggregate which would have
entitled the appellant to be selected for appointment to the

- aforesaid post. Counsel also submitted that during the earlier
selection immediately preceding the selection in question there
was the requirement of grading under three factors/categories c
only and the same came to be varied/increased in the selection
in question from three to six. He contended that this increasing
.~
"_, of grading factors/categories from three to six envisages much
wider criteria in the selection process in question which
amounted to arbitrariness. D
13. The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing
for the appellant were however refuted by counsel appearing
for the respondents by submitting that the respondents have
strictly and minutely followed and complied with the Rules which
E
are statutory in nature and, therefore, the present appeal has
no merit at all. He also submitted that there cannot be addition
(

., of any marks unless the same is specifically permitted and
provided either under the Rules or in the advertisement and,
therefore, there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection
in question. F

14. In the light of the records placed before us we have

..
A' .+
considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing
for the parties. The relevant Rules have already been extracted
above. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it
crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a
G

candidate has to obtain at least 33% marks in each of the
papers and a\ \eas\ soo/., qualifying marks in the aggregate in
all the written papers. \he further mandate of the ru\es \s \ha\ a
candidate would not be considered as qua\ified in the \-\
axamination unless he obtains at least 50% marks in the
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A aggregate including viva-voce test. When emphasis is given in
7
-
the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making
it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be
obtained by the concerned candidate there cannot be a
question of relaxation or rounding off as sought to be submitted
B by the counsel appearing for the appellant. .. '
15. There is no power provided in the statute nor any such
stipulation was made in the advertisement and also in the
statutory Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace
marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum
c requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off
or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature
and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or
possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for
providing or giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
t
..
D
16. We may also draw support in this connection from a
decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman,
Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society,
Vizianagaram and Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi
reported in (1990) 3 SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court
E has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a particular 1

qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the
same then it is not a matter only between the appointing
authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all •
those who had similar or even better qualifications than the
F appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post
because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in
the advertisement.
17. In the case of Umrao Singh Vs. Punjabi University,
Patiala and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 365 this Court
G 1
while dealing with the power of Selection Committee for
relaxation of norms held thus: -
"Another aspect which this Court has highlighted is scope
for relaxation of norms. Although Court must look with
H respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the
BHANU PRATAP v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 747
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
respective fields, it cannot abdicate its functions of A
ushering in a society based on rule of law.•Once it is most '
satisfactorily established that the Selection Committee did
not have the power to relax essential qualification, the
entire process of selection so far as the selected
candidate is concerned gets vitiated. In P.K. Ramchandra B
Iyer and Ors. v. Union oflndia and Ors. (1984)1LLJ314SC · I
this Court held that once it is established that there is no
power to relax essential qualification, the entire process
of selection of the candidate was in contravention of the
established norms prescribed by advertisement. The c
power to relax must be clearly spelt out and cannot
otherwise be exercised."
18. Let us also examine the issue from another angle. If
rounding off is given to the appellant as sought for by him there
has to be similar rounding off for a person who has missed 33% D
in one of the papers just by a whisker. To him and to such a
person who could not get 50% in aggregate in the written test,
if this rule of rounding off is offered then they would also get
qualified. In that event, there would be no meaning of having a
rule wherein it is provided that a person must at least have the E
minimum marks as provided for thereunder. Somewhere a line
.. has to be drawn and that line has to be strictly observed which
is like a Lakshman Rekha and no variation of the same is
possible unless it is so provided under the Rules itself. Both
the Selection Committee as also the appointing authority are F
bound to act within the parameters of the Rules which are
statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation thereof
whether by way of giving grace marks or rounding off would be
acting beyond the parameters prescribed which would be
illegal. G
19. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal,
which is dismissed but leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
Appeal dismissed. H
D.G.