1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioner seeks a declaration that he has passed his final examination in Bachelor of Architecture five years course commencing from the academic year 20032004 of the Pune University – Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the Controller of Examinations, Pune.

3. The petitioner passed the first, second and third year examinations of the said course. He was however, declared as having failed in the second phase of the course i.e. fourth year and fifth year in the examinations held in October, 2011.

4. The criteria for passing is as under:-

“Rule No.8 : CRITERIA FOR PASSING

To pass the F.Y./S.Y./T.Y./Fourth Year/ B.Arch. Examination a candidate must obtain minimum 45% marks in each paper / sessional / Viva-voce and 50% in aggregate.”

5. The petitioner's mark-sheet annexed as Exhibit-C to the petition is admitted. The petitioner admittedly obtained more than 45% marks in each paper. His aggregate marks for the fifth year are more than 50%. The dispute is regarding his aggregate marks for the fourth year. The marks for all the papers of fourth year is 1300. 50% thereof is 650. The petitioner obtained 648 marks i.e. 49.846% in the aggregate. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the same rounded off to 50%.

6. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the rules do not entitle marks being rounded off. He submitted that Rule 8 stipulates the requirement of 50% in the aggregate as the criteria for passing and nothing less than that would suffice.

7. The petitioner's case is supported by various authorities including a judgment of the Supreme Court and a judgment of a Division Bench of this court.

8. In State of U.P. and another vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 10), the U.P. State Public Service Commission advertised ninety three posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Certain posts were reserved in accordance with the relevant laws. The controversy pertained to the application of percentage as against the total number of posts. The percentage of reservation as applicable and as were actually applied were set out in a table. Under the general category, the percentage prescribed was 50%, whereas the percentage of the candidates appointed in that category was 46.50% and forty six posts were reserved. The respondent who belonged to the general category was the first in the waiting list, having been denied an appointment. His petition for a writ of mandamus was allowed by the High Court, inter-alia on the ground that the figure of 46.5% ought to have been rounded off to 47% and not 46%. Upholding the judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court held as under :-

“7. We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the High Court. 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. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment.”

9. Mr. Kulkarni submitted that the judgment related only to reservation in employment and the principle cannot be extended to other cases.

10. We are unable to agree with Mr. Kulkarni's submission that the ratio of this judgment ought to be restricted only to cases of employment. The ratio of this judgment would apply to the present case. There is nothing in the judgment that warrants restricting it to cases of employment. The rule of rounding off was held to be based on logic and common sense. We do not read the observations as being limited to any particular kind of case. Rounding off therefore, is a rule in the absence of anything to the c