By the Court.—Petitioner is said to be a member of Other Backward Class. He made an application for being considered to the post of Lecturer in terms of Advertisement No. 38 published by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission.

2. According to the petitioner, he was successful in the written examination, but was not called for interview on the ground that he did not fulfil the minimum standard prescribed for the post in question i.e. did not secure 55 per cent qualifying marks. To be precise, the controversy relates to rounding up the fraction of the marks obtained by the petitioner in respect of his Graduate examination wherein he obtained 54.7 per cent. His contention is that it should be read as 55 per cent which is the minimum standard prescribed for the post in question in terms of the aforesaid Advertisement.

3. We have heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner ; Shri H.N. Singh for U.P. Higher Education Service Commission and Shri R.B. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The minimum marks required for being considered for the post in question is 55 per cent. The petitioner has admittedly obtained less than 55 per cent, i.e. 54.75 per cent.

5. The word ‘minimum’ has been defined in The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition at page 63 and means “the least possible amount, number or degree”. Thus, it is clear that 55 per cent is the least possible percentage which the candidate should obtain for being considered eligible for the post in question.

6. In the opinion of the Court, the process of rounding up, in the facts of the case, has no application inasmuch as percentage prescribed is followed by the word ‘minimum’ under the aforesaid advertisement and the Rules applicable.

7. The Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, particularly, Regulations 2, 4 and 10 of Chapter III provide for promotion to Class III post from Class IV post contains a note that while determining 50 per cent posts, the portion falling less than half, will be left out and the portion of half or above half will be considered to be one. Thus, in many cases, the Legislature itself has taken care of providing for solution to such a problem. This aspect has been considered by this Court in Kedar Nath Maurya and others v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 1995 AWC 744.

8. In Prana Vir Singh (Dr.) v. Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Lucknow and others, (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1445, a similar controversy was raised. This Court placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and others, JT (1998) 3 SC 223, held that while making such calculation of posts to be filled up by reserved category candidates, the Court has to bear in mind that it should not exceed the permissible limit fixed for reserved category.

9. In Chandra Kant Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and another, 2004 (5) ESC 291, this Court applied the theory of rounding up while determining the number of vacancies. However, this was a matter determining the number of vacancies. Same formula may be applicable while determining the number of required votes for sending the notice for holding the no confidence motion or for removal of an elected office bearer under various statutes.

10. Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P. and another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 10; Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and another, (2008) 1 SCC 233; and State of Punjab and another v. Asha Mehta, (1997) 11 SCC 410 and has contended that if the fraction is .5 or above it has to be rounded up so as to read as 1. On the same analogy, the petitioner contends that the marks obtained by the petitioner should be rounded up and should be read as 55 per cent