Rounding off the percentage of marks obtained in the written examination to make a candidate eligible for selection to a post is not permitted unless the rule governing the selection specifically provides for the same.

K.Shreedharan, J.

1. These two writ petitions have come before us on a reference made by one of the learned Judges of this Court.

2. The issue referred is as to whether the Public Service Commission in deciding the merits of a candidate is justified in granting the benefit of more marks by rounding off the marks obtained in the examination. Learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision rendered by this Court in Asha Mehta v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1993(3) RSJ 1 and that of a Division Bench in CWP No. 1112 of 1996. These decisions strike a different note from those in CWP Nos. 4527/1993, 821/1996 and 12663/1995. For proper understanding of the issue involved in these cases, it is necessary to refer to the bare facts of the cases.

3. Petitioners in these cases were candidates for the post of PCS (Judicial.). In pursuance to the Notification issued by Public Service Commission, Punjab, petitioners submitted applications for the said posts. They satisfied the eligibility criteria fixed in the Notification. They were called for competitive examination which was held in October, 1993. Their names did not appear in the list of candidates eligible for being called for interview. In the case of petitioner in CWP No. 12923/94, 347 marks were awarded to him out of total of 900 marks. In assessing the total marks, 65 marks obtained by him out of 200 in Criminal Law Paper (III) was excluded because he did not secure 33% marks set up for the subject. 65 marks out of 200 works out to be 32.5%. Point five (.5%) per cent and above should be made whole number by rounding off. It is so rounded off, 32.5% is to be treated as 33% and thereby he is eligible for being called for interview. This method was not resorted to by the Public Service Commission. Consequently, petitioner inter alia prays for issuance of a. writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to round off fraction of marks secured by him in Criminal Law Paper (III) as 33% and call him for interview for selection to PCS (Judicial).

4. Petitioner in CWP No. 14279 of 1994 secured 446 marks out of 900. As a Rule, no candidate shall the called for viva voce test unless he obtained at least 50% qualifying marks in the aggregate in all the written papers. Since, he did not get 450 marks out of 900, he was treated as not eligible for being called for interview. 446 marks out of 900 works out at 49.5% marks. The argument is that 5% should be rounded off to the next whole number. When the marks obtained by the petitioner is so rounded off, it comes to 50%. Thereby, he becomes eligible to be called for interview. By this method petitioner gets the benefit of 4 more marks. On this basis, he prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission to treat him as having secured the minimum requisite marks for being called for interview.

5. Detailed written statements have been filed by the Public Service Commission, Punjab disputing the claims put fourth by the petitioners in these writ petitions. It is contended in the written statements that in PCS (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, there is no provision allowing fraction of marks to be rounded off. Petitioner in CWP No. 12923 of 1994 failed in Criminal Law paper since he had obtained 65 marks as against the required 66 marks. The marks obtained by him in Criminal Law Paper (III) is not to be converted into percentage and then to be rounded off to the next whole number. Candidates were required to attempt 10 questions in Criminal Law Paper (III) and each question carries 20 marks. Contention raised by the petitioner is that candidate were to attempt 9 questions carrying 180 marks alone, is incorrect, and all candidates did in fact attempt 10 questions. Decision in CWP No. 4527/1993 is an authority for the proposition that fraction of marks are not to be rounded off. Written statement concluded by staling that petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs asked for.

6. Before dealing with th