Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. The writ petitioner / first respondent herein has obtained 79 marks out of 200 marks in the Post Graduate Dental Entrance Examination conducted by the appellants institute herein for admission to the MDS PG course for the academic year 2015-2016. The minimum required qualifying marks for admission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is 40%. The petitioner secured only 39.50%. On being denied admission for the reason that she did not secure minimum qualifying marks, the writ petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the instant petition, seeking a direction to the appellants herein to admit her in MDS PG Course.

2. The learned Single Judge, applying the principle of rounding off relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. & another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (2005) 2 SCC 10 and State of Punjab Vs. Asha Mehta (1997) 11 SC 410, held that 39.50% marks obtained by the writ petitioner be treated as 40% and the writ petitioner be admitted in the reserved category to the said course. Being dissatisfied, the respondents therein have preferred the instant appeal.

3. Mr. A.Tamilvanan, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry), appearing for the appellants would contend that the principles of rounding off is not applicable in the case of admission to professional courses when there is no provision, granting liberty to the authorities to exercise discretion for grant of concession in minimum qualifying marks fixed under the statutory regulations and notifications. It is also contended that the judgments relied on by the learned Single Judge was in respect of appointment in service, not admission to professional courses.

4. In response, the learned counsel for the first respondent / writ petitioner reiterates the submissions advanced by him before the learned Single Judge and relied on the same judicial pronouncements, as referred and cited by the learned Single Judge.

5. We have examined the issue on hand at length.

6. In State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), the facts involved therein was appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the U.P. Judicial Service. Having regard to the number of reserved seats available, it was held that 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 to fill up the vacancy of reserved seats.

7. In the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Asha Mehta (supra), again the question arose in respect of appointment. By way of one paragraph order, the Supreme Court rounded off the award of 32.50% to 33%.

8. In Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore Vs. G.Hemlatha and others (2012) 8 SCC 568, a candidate, having secured 54.71% marks, was claiming to apply the principle of rounding off to 55%. The Supreme Court, negativing the contentions, held as under :

"12. No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permit roundingoff of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing). When the eligibility criteria is prescribed in 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 the learned Single Judge was right in roundingoff of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to the PG course. Such rounding-off is impermissible."

9. In cases of appointment in services, the Supreme Court in Orissa Public Service Commission and another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another (2011) 8 SCC 108 has taken a contrary view, referring to the judicial pronouncement rendered in State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), as under :

"10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule 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 t