Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. MURALIDHAR, TALWANT SINGH, JJ.
Ajay Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
Case No : W.P.(C). No. 7435 of 2019
Decided On : 13-02-2020
For the Petitioner:Ajay Singh Berwal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Anil Soni, CGSC, Devesh, Advocates
Rounding off of marks is impermissible when a specific aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, as per the decisions in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi and other relevant cases.
Headnote:
Rounding Off - LL.B Examination Eligibility - State of U.P v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (2005) 2 SCC 10, State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta (1997) 11 SCC 410, Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior 2002 (2) MPHT 303, Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi (2018) 14 SCC 129 - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for the Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) Branch of the Indian Army and the permissibility of rounding off marks, referring to various decisions including Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi, which led to the recall of the previous order.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought rounding off of marks in the LL.B examination to meet the eligibility criteria for the Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) Branch of the Indian Army, which was initially allowed but later recalled due to the reference to Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous order allowing rounding off of marks was based on incomplete consideration of relevant decisions, and therefore, it was recalled.
Issues: The issue revolved around the permissibility of rounding off marks in the LL.B examination to meet the eligibility criteria for the JAG Branch of the Indian Army.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that rounding off of marks is impermissible when a specific aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, as per the decisions in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi and other relevant cases.
Final Decision: The review petition was allowed, and the previous order allowing rounding off of marks was recalled, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
JUDGMENT :
S. Muralidhar, J.
Review Petition No. 417/2019 (for review of the order dated 27th August, 2019)
1. This is a petition filed by the Respondents, seeking a review of the order dated 27th August, 2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7435/2019.
2. By the said order, the plea of the Petitioner, that the 54.95% marks obtained by him in the LL.B examination, should be rounded off to 55% to make him eligible to be called for an interview for the Judge Advocate General (‘JAG’) Branch of the Indian Army, was allowed by this Court. In doing so, this Court referred to the decisions in State of U.P v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (2005) 2 SCC 10, State of Punjab v. Asha Mehta (1997) 11 SCC 410, and Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior 2002 (2) MPHT 303.
3. In the present review petition, the Respondents have drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of the Supreme Court in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi (2018) 14 SCC 129, where the express plea of rounding off of marks to meet the eligibility criteria was rejected by the Supreme Court. It is stated that due to inadvertence the said decision could not be placed before this Court when the petition was heard in the first instance.
4. Having gone through the decision in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi (supra), which has in turn referred to a number of other decisions of the Supreme Court, none of which were considered by this Court, the Court is satisfied that the order dated 27th August, 2019 deserves to be recalled.
5. The review petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 27th August, 2019 is hereby recalled. W.P. (C) 7435 of 2019 is restored to file.
W.P.(C) 7435/2019
6. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition have been noticed in the earlier order dated 27th August 2019, and requires to be briefly recapitulated.
7. The Petitioner applied for the post of JAG Branch of the Indian Army, for which applications were invited by an official notification dated 28th July, 2017, published on the website “www.joinindianarmy.nic.in”. The eligibility criterion was 55% marks in a recognised degree in law.
8. The case of the Petitioner is that in his B.A. LL.B, he scored 2528 marks out of 4600 and the percentage works out to 54.95%. Since the eligibility criterion was 55%, the Petitioner was unable to fill up the online form. According to him, a difference of a mere 0.05% could not prevent him from applying for the JAG Branch of the Indian Army.
9. The Petitioner submitted that in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi (supra) the examination was to be held in two stages, followed by an interview, and it was therefore, distinguishable on facts.
10. A careful perusal of the decision in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of The High Court of Delhi (supra) reveals that it was delivered in a batch of cases, one of which was W.P.(C) No.996/2017 (Swati Gupta v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi). One of the prayers in that petition was to quash the result of the examination and seek revaluation of the papers. The Petitioner in that case had obtained 49.9% marks, which she prayed should be rounded off to 50%, as “is normally done” and that “she should be called for interview”.
11. This aspect was specifically dealt with by the Supreme Court in paras 22 to 24 of the decision in Taniya Malik v. Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi (supra), which read as under:
“22. With regard to question as to rounding off of the marks, in our opinion, when a particular aggregate is prescribed for eligibility, a person must meet the criteria without relaxation. It is not permissible to enhance the marks by rounding off method to make up the minimum aggregate.
23. This Court, in The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. G. Hemlatha and Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 568, held as impermissible the rounding off of eligibility criteria in relation to qualifying examination for admission
