IMPORTANT POINTS
1. When 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.
2. 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.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2009 passed by the Orissa High Court at Cuttack whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein and ordered for rounding off of the aggregate marks of the respondent from 44.93% to 45% along 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 that the Orissa Public Service Commission [in short “the OPSC”] published an advertisement inviting applications from suitable 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 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. 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.

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 of the Rules the candidates who have secured not less than 45% of the marks in aggregate & not less than minimum of 33% of 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 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, 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 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 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 to the Writ Petition before it.

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 the interview by rounding off the marks obtained by her to 45%. 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, while determining the percentage of marks the same could be rounded off to the next whole number.

7. Learned counsel appear