Holding

No rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted under the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24; the High Court's order is set aside.

Summary

The respondent secured 44.93% aggregate marks in the Orissa Judicial Service Main Written Examination, falling short of the 45% threshold prescribed by Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007. She filed a writ petition seeking that her marks be rounded up to 45% and that she be called for the viva‑voce. The Orissa High Court allowed the petition, rounding her marks and also calling two other candidates with marks between 44.5% and 45% who were not parties to the suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Rule 24 uses clear, unambiguous language requiring a strict 45% aggregate and a minimum of 33% in each paper, leaving no room for rounding or grace marks. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The Court also noted the High Court’s error in permitting candidates who were not before it to be called for interview.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 permits rounding off of aggregate marks to meet the 45% eligibility threshold.
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the respondent’s marks to be rounded up to 45% and in calling additional candidates who were not parties to the writ petition.

Subjects

rounding off marksstatutory interpretationminimum qualifying marksjudicial service examinationRule 24eligibility criteriapublic service commissionwrit petition

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 748
t 1 '

A ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR.
v.
RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2011)
AUGUST 2, 2011.
B
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial
c Service Rules, 2007:
Rule 24 - Minimum qualifying marks - Rounding off of
- Orissa Judicial Service Examination 2009 - Main written
examination - One of the criteria being 45% of marks in
D aggregate to be called for viva-voce - Candidate securing
44.93% of marks filing writ petition - High Court directing the
marks of the writ petitioner and two others to be rounded off
as 45% and to call them for viva-voce - HELD: No rounding
off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and
unambiguous language of r. 24 - High Court has also
E
committed an error apparent on the face of the record by
allowing two more persons, who secured marks between
44. 5% and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even
parties before it - Judgment and order of the High Court set '"'
aside - Interpretation of statutes.
F
Respondent no.1, who secured 337 out of 750 i.e.
44.93% of marks and more than 33 % of marks in each
subject in the Main Written Examination of the Orissa
Judicial Service Examination, 2009, but was not called for
G viva-voce test, filed a writ petition before the. High Court
with a prayer that the fraction of marks, i.e., 44.93 % l
...
secured by her, should have been rounded off to 45 %
and, thus, she fulfilled the criteria as per Rule 24 of the

H 748

'
ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE 749
..,+ CHOWDHARY
~

~:

Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial A
Service Rules, 2007 and, as such, she should have been
called for the viva-voce test, The High Court allowed the
writ petition. Aggrieved, the Orissa Public Service
-t Commission filed the appeal.
.....
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of Rule 24 of the Orissa
Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service
Rules, 2007 would make it crystal clear that in order to
qualify in the written examination a candidate has to c
obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers
and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all
'r
the written papers in the Main examination. When
emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum
""
marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said D
minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate
concerned, there cannot be a question of relaxation or .
rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/
Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace
marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum E
requirement. 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 giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. F
[para 9-1 OJ [754-A-D]
District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social
Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and
Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (2) SCR 559 = G
.'...+ ~ (1990) 3 sec 655 - relied on.
State of Orissa and Another v. Damodar Nayak 1997 (3)
SCR 456 = (1997) 4 SCC 560, State of U.P. and Another
v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others 2005 (1) SCR 21 = (2005)
2 SCC 10, Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar 2007 (10) H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A SCR 41 =
(2007) 8 SCC 100 and Bhudev Sharma v. District
Judge, Bu/andshahr and Another 2007 (11) SCR 730 =
(2008) 1 sec 233 - held inapplicable.

1.2 When the words of a statute are clear, plain or
unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to
8
only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to
that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act
speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language
of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an
C interpretation in favour of the respondent which would
be different to what was intended by the Statute.
Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is
permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language
of Rule 24 of the Rules. [para 13) [755-B-D]
D 1.3 The High Court has also committed an error
apparent on the face of the record by allowing two more
persons, who secured marks between 44.5% and 45%,
to be called for interview who were not even parties
before it and who had not even shown interest
E subsequent to the declaration of the results of the
examination. The judgment and order of the High Court
is set aside. [para 14-15) [755-E-G]
Case Law Reference:
F 1997 ( 3) SCR 456 held inapplicable para 7
2005 (1 ) SCR 21 held inapplicable para 7
2007 (10 ) SCR 41 held inapplicable para 7
2007 (11 ) SCR 730 held inapplicable para 7
G
1990 (2) SCR 559 relied on para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6201 of 2011.
H

-
ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE 751
CHOWDHARY
~
'4- From the Judgment & Order dated 08.12.2009 of the High A
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16782 of
2009.

Kirti Renu Mishra, Rishi Jain for the Appellants.

-+ S.K. Das, Ajay Chaudhary for the Respondents. B
).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and c
order dated 08.12.2009 passed by the Orissa High Court at
' '

Cuttack whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
1
Respondent No. 1 herein and ordered for rounding off of the
~ aggregate marks of the respondent from 44.93% to 45% along
> D
with two other candidates but not parties before the Court and
" held her eligible to appear in the interview as per Rule 24 of
the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial
Service Rules, 2007 [for short "the Rules"].
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present case are E
that the Orissa Public Service Commission [in short "the
OPSC"] published an advertisement inviting applications from
isuitable candidates for the Orissa Judicial Service Examination,
..' 2009 for direct recruitment to fill up 77 posts of Civil Judges
(J.D), pursuant to which, the respondent No. 1 applied for the
F
said post She appeared in the Preliminary Written Examination
held on 15.05.2009. Being successful in the Preliminary Written
Examination, she appeared in the Main Written Examination
which was held from 15-18.07.2009. The list of successful
candidates, who were eligible for interview, was published on
25.8.2009 in which respondent's name was not there. G
-~
-~ Immediately after publication of the result of the Main Written
Examination, the respondent applied for her marks in the Main
Written Examination and the mark sheet of the respondent was
issued to her on her request on 27.10.2009, which she received
on 03.11.2009. H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R

A 4. After receiving the same, she came to know that she ~
•
had secured 337 out of 750, i.e., 44.93% of marks in aggregate
& more than 33% of marks on each subject. As per Rule 24 01
the Rules the candidates who have secured not less than 45%
of the marks in aggregate & not less than minimum of 33% of
B marks in each paper in the written examination should be called ~

for viva-voce test. Since the respondent secured 44.93% marks "
in aggregate she was not called for interview/viva-voce.
Aggrieved thereby she approached the High Court of Orissa
by filing a Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 16782 of 2009 with a
prayer that she should have been called for the interview as the
c fraction of marks, i.e., 44.93%, secured by her should have
been rounded off to 45% & in that way she would have fulfilled
the criteria as per the Rules. The High Court vide its order dated
08.12.2009 allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent '(

herein against which this appeal has been filed, upon which,
D
we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. .. "
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that as per Rule 24 of the Rules a candidate who
has secured not less than 45% of marks in aggregate could
E only be called for the interview and since the respondent
secured only 337 out of 750 marks [i.e., 44.93%) in the Main
Written Examination she was not called for the interview.
Counsel submitted that the High Court erred in permitting the
rounding off of the marks of the respondent as there is no ..
F provision of rounding off or relaxation of marks under the Rules
which permit the Commission to give such a kind of grace to
the respondent. He further submitted that High Court also erred
in permitting 2 more candidates to sit in the interview by
rounding off their marks to 45% even when they were not party
G to the Writ Petition before it.
.)a t-
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
however refuted the contentions made by the counsel
appearing for the appellant and submitted that the High Court
rightly and correctly permitted the respondent to be called for
H
ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE 753
CHOWDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
-,. '4· the interview by rounding off the marks obtained by her to 45%. A
He further submitted that the High Court rightly held that in the
absence of any Rule dealing with the fraction of % marks or
even less secured by the candidates, whiie determining the
percentage of marks the same could be rounded off to the next
4 whole number. B
,J.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents during
the course of his arguments relied upon the decisions of this
Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Damodar Nayak
reported in (1997) 4 SCC 560, State of U.P. and Another v.
Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 10,
c
Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC
100 and Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and
Another reported in (2008) 1 sec 233. On scrutiny, we find
,_ ~
that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not
applicable to the facts of the present case. Facts and findings D
,.
recorded by this Court in the above referred cases are
distinguishable to facts of the case in hand. Almost all the
aforesaid cases dealt with post or vacancies where it was
allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post.
Understandably there cannot be a fraction of a post. E

8. In the light of the detailed records placed before us we
have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel
.... iappearing for the parties. The appointment to the post of Civil
Judge (J.D.) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by F
Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service
Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deal with the
criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24
reads thus: -

"24. Determination of number of candidates for interview G
--1
,+. - The Commission shall call the candidates for interview
who have secured not less than forty-five per centum of
marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty three per
centum of marks in each paper in the Main written
examination." H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A 9. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it ,)>
~

crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a
candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of
the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate
in all the written papers in the Main examination. When
B emphasis is given in 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.

10. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules
c permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as
to bring up a candidate to the minimum 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 ..
D adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the
benefit of rounding off or relaxation.
..
11. We may also draw support in this connection from a
decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman,
E 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
has laid down that when an advertisement mentions a particular
~
qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the ..
F 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
appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post
because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in
the advertisement.
G
~
12. The entire record of the main written examination was )
also produced before us which indicates that there are also
candidates who have got more than the respondent in the
aggregate but has not been able to get 33% marks in each
H paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the
ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE 755
CHOWDHARY [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
."' _.. contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is A
accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks
in each paper in the Main written examination could and should
have also been called for viva-voce examination, which would
amount to a very strange and complicated situation and also
would lead to the violation. of the sanctity of statutory provision. 8
...J
,~
13. When the words of a statute are clear, plain or
unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one
meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning
irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself.
There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two
c
conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the
respondent which would be different to what was intended by
the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks
\. is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of
~
Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration . D
.;

14. The High Court, in our considered opinion, has also
committed an error apparent on the face of the records by
allowing two more persons, who secured marks between
44.5% and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even E
parties before it and who had not even shown interest
Sllbsequently to be appointed subsequent to the declaration of
the results of the examination but despite the said fact the High
.. Court directed them also to be called for the interview only on
'· the ground that they have secured m.ore t~an 44.5%. of '!la~s F
but less than 45% marks in the mam written examination m
aggregate.
15. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and
the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside leaving
G
the parties to bear their own costs.
-"\ .
.;
.
R.P. Appeal allowed .

H