THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALOREversusG. HEMLATHA AND OTHERS.

                   [2012] 8 S.C.R. 157


  THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF                      A
        HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE
                            v.
              G. HEMLATHA AND OTHERS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 5992 of 2012)
                                                                 B
                    AUGUST 23, 2012
[A.K. PATNAIK AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

     Education - PG course - Admission - Qualifying
examination - Eligibility criteria - Whether can be relaxed by C
rounding-off the marks - Held: Eligibility criteria should be
strictly adhered to, when rounding-off is not permitted by any
statute or rules - On facts, High Court erred in rounding-off
the marks so as to make the candidate eligible for admission
to PG course - However, clarified that since the candidate D
 already completed the course, the judgment not to have
 adverse impact on the candidate.

     The question for consideration in the present appeal
was whether by applying the principle of rounding-off, the           E
eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination
for admission to the PG Course in M.Sc. (Nursing) could
be relaxed.

     Disposing of the appeal, the Court
                                                            F
      HELD: No provision of any statute or any rules
 framed thereunder has been shown which permits
 rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the
 qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in
 M.SC (Nursing). When eligibility criteria is prescribed in G
 a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to.
 Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on
  other candidates. The Division Bench of the High Court
  erred in holding that Single Judge was right in rounding-
                              157                                    H
       158      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 8 S.C.R.


 A off of 54.71 % to 55% so as to make respondent No. 1
   eligible for admission to PG course. Such rounding-off is
   impermissible. It is clarified that this order merely settles
   the question of law and shall not have any adverse
   impact, in any manner, on the service of respondent No.
 B 1, as she has completed the course. [Paras 3, 10 and 11]
   [159-C; 162-E-G]

          Orissa Public Service Commission and Anr. v.
      Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr. (2011) 8 SCC 108: 2011 (9)
      SCR 748 - relied on.
 c
          Vani Pali Tripathi vs. Director General, Medical
     Education andTraining and Ors. AIR 2003 All 164; Ku/dip
     Singh, Legal Assistant,Punjab Financial Corporation vs. The
     State of Punjab and Ors. (1997) 117 PLR 1 - referred to.
D
                          Case Law Reference:
         2011 (9) SCR 748          Relied on          Para 8
         AIR 2003 All 164          Referred to        Para 9
E        (1997) 117 PLR 1          Referred to       Para 9

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
     5992 of 2012.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2010 of the High
F Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga in Writ Appeal
  No. 10223 of 2010(EDN-ADM).

         S.N. Bhat for the Appellant.

G        Sharan Gounda Patil, Ashok Kumar Gupta II for the
     Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave
H granted.
                                                                           1


REG, RAJIV GANDHI UNI. OF HEALTH SCI., BANGALORE v.       159
      G HEMLATHA[RANJANAPRAKASH DESAI, J.]

     2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the A
judgment dated 28.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court. By the impugned judgment, the Division
 Bench declined to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant
 challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High
 Court permitting rounding-off of the percentage of marks B
 obtained by respondent 1 so as to make her eligible to get
 admission to post-graduate course ["PG course", for
 convenience] in M.Sc (Nursing).
    3. On 11.03.2011 this Court issued notice only to settle the
question of law raised in the appeal because respondent 1 has      C
completed the course. This court refused to stay the impugned
order and directed that respondent 1 's admission be
regularized and her results be declared.
     4. The question of law involved in this case is whether by
 applying the principle of rounding-off the eligibility criteria   D
 prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the
 PG course in M.Sc (Nursing) can be relaxed.
        5. For deciding the question of law, it is necessary to know
  the facts of the case. Respondent 1 completed Bachelor of E
  Science degree in Nursing with 54.71% aggregate marks from
  N.T.R. University of Health Sciences in the year 1997.
  Thereafter, she registered herself as a Public Health Nurse and
   Midwife. She also registered herself as a nurse under the
   provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Nurses and Midwives F
   (Extension of Amendment) Act, 1964. She was appointed as
   a working staff nurse at the Primary Health Centre,
   Nagasamudram (Andhra Pradesh) on 08.07.1999. She served
   for eight years and three months in the said institution. She
   made a representation to the Regional Director of Medical G
   Health Services seeking permission to pursue the PG course
    in M.Sc (Nursing). The eligibility criteria prescribed by the
    Indian Nursing Council for securing admission to the said PG
-course was 55% aggregate marks. The petitioner, however,
-secured 54.71 % aggregate marks. She approached the
                                                                       H
        160       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 8 S.C.R.


    A  Secretary, Indian Nursing Council, the third respondent herein,
       requesting that a certificate of eligibility be issued to her. The
       third respondent communicated to her that 0.50% would
       normally be rounded-off to next dig it. She was asked to
       approach the concerned authority of the institute in that regard.
    B Accordingly, she approached the petitioner. The petitioner gave
      her the eligibility certificate. She, then, approached the
      Principal, Navodaya College of Nursing, Raichur, Karnataka,
      the second respondent herein. With the said certificate she
      obtained admission in the management quota.
 C      6. When she was preparing to take the annual
   examination, she was informed by the second respondent that
   she was not eligible to take examination as she has secured
   less than 55% in the qualifying examination. She approached
   the petitioner for reconsideration of her case. She was informed
D that on reconsideration it was found that she was not eligible
  to take examination. She, therefore, preferred writ petition in
  the High Court challenging the said communication. She
  obtained an interim order permitting her to take first year
  examination. She took the examination but, results were
E withheld. She was also permitted to take the second year
  examination by an interim order. Thus, she has completed the
  PG course by taking both the examinations. As stated by us
  earlier, while issuing notice, this court directed that her results
  be declared and her admission be regularized.
F        7. By order dated 01.09.2010 learned Single Judge of the
    High Court, by applying the rule of rounding-off of numbers, held
   that 54. 71 % marks obtained by respondent 1 should be
   rounded-off to 55%. Thus, respondent 1 became eligible by
   virtue of the High Court's order. Learned Single Judge set aside
G ·the endorsement issued by the petitioner stating that respondent
   1 was not eligible for admission to the PG course in M.Sc.
   (Nursing). The said order was carried in appeal to the Division
   Bench of the Karnataka High Court by the appellant. The
   Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court declined to
H entertain the appeal. The Division Bench observed that it was-
                                                                         l



REG, RAJIV GANDHI UNI. OF HEALTH SCI., BANGALORE v.          161
      G HEMLATHA [RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.]

not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by learned   A
Single Judge in rounding-off of 54. 71 % to 55%. In the
circumstances, the Division Bench held that respondent 1 did
possess required qualification to get admission to PG course.
       8.ln Orissa Public Service Commission and Another v.
Rupashree Chowdhary and Another (2011) 8 SCC 108 this B
Court in somewhat similar fact situation considered whether the
eligibility criteria could be relaxed by the method of rounding-
off. The Orissa Public Service Commission published an
advertisement inviting applications from suitable candidates for
the Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009 for direct C
recruitment to fill-up 77 posts of Civil Judges (JD). Pursuant to
the advertisement, the first respondent therein applied for the
 said post. She took the preliminary written examination. She
 was successful in the said examination. She, then, took the
 main written examination. The list of successful candidates, who D
 were eligible for interview, was published in which the first
 respondent's name was not there. She received the mark
 sheet. She realized that she had secured 337 marks out of 750
 i.e. 44.93% of marks in the aggregate and more than 33% of
  marks in each subject. As per Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior E
  Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (for
  short "the Orissa Rules"), the candidates who have secured not
  less than 45% of the marks in the aggregate and not less than
  a minimum of 33% of marks in each paper in the written
  examination should be called for viva voce test. Since the first F
   respondent therein had secured 44.93% marks in aggregate
   she was not called for interview/viva voce. The first respondent
   approached the Orissa High Court. The High Court allowed the
   writ petition. The appeal from the said order was carried to this
   court. After considering the Orissa Rules, this court held that G
   Rule 24 thereof made it 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% marks
    in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main
  -"xamination. This court observed that when emphasis is given H
  ----' the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there
        162       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 8 S.C.R.


  A can be no relaxation or rounding-off. It was observed that no
   power was provided in the statute/rules permitting any such
   rounding-off or giving grace marks. It was clarified that the
   Orissa Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or
   amendment to such rules is permissible or possible by adding
 B some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of
   rounding-off or relaxation.
         9. In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is clearly
    applicable to the facts of this case. Judgment of the Full Bench
    of Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi vs. Director
 C General, Medical Education and Training and Others (AIR
    2003 A/1164) and judgment of the Full Bench of Punjab and
   Haryana High Court in Ku/dip Singh, Legal Assistant, Punjab
   Financial Corporation vs. The State of Punjab and Others
   (1997) 117 PLR 1, were cited before us because they take the
 D same view. However, in view of the authoritative
   pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public Service
   Commission (supra), it is not necessary for us to discuss the
   said decisions.
          10. No provision of any statute or any rules framed
E thereunder has been shown to us, which permits rounding-off
   of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for
   admission to the PG course in M.SC (Nursing). When eligibility
   criteria is prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be
   strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work
F injustice on other candidates. The Division Bench of the High
  Court erred in holding that learned Single Judge was right in
  rounding-off of 54. 71 % to 55% so as to make respondent 1
  eligible for admission to PG course. Such rounding-off is
  impermissible.
G       11. We make it clear that this order merely settles the
      question of law and shall not have any adverse impact, in any -
      manner, on the service of respondent 1.
          12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
H K.K.T.                                        Appeal disposal O'--