( 1. ) THE petitioner is challenging the action of the University is not giving the admission to him in the course of Bachelor of Pharmacy.

( 2. ) THE petitioner submits that he secured in 10 + 2 examination 49. 77% marks. Petitioner also passed B. Sc. examination in which he secured 53. 99% marks. Petitioner appeared in Pre-Pharmacy Admission test conducted by the Jiwaji University, Gwalior. He secured 32nd position in the test. He was called for counselling but as 17 students did not attend the counselling, thus the petitioner stood 15th in the merit of the candidates who appeared for counselling. Number of seats is 60. Out of 60 seats, there are 30 free seats. The sole ground on which petitioner claim was rejected was that he had not obtained 50% marks in 10 + 2 examination. Petitioner filed a representation to give admission. Petitioner submits that as per rules for admission as mentioned in Bulletin cum Prospectus, the minimum qualification is Higher Secondary with 50% marks and 45% marks for reserved category from Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal or its equivalent examination of any recognised Board/university with General English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics. Petitioner further submits that in case of State of Orissa and Anr. v. Damodar Naik and Anr. , (1997) 4 SCC 560, the Supreme Court held that 53. 9%has to be accepted as 54%. Thus the decision of the University not to admit the petition is bad in law. The petitioner had in addition done B. Sc. with 53. 99% which is an additional qualification. Thus the petitioner has been deprived of the admission in an illegal manner.

( 3. ) THE respondents have not filed the return however the respondents have chosen to contest the case on the strength of Information Bulletin itself as the facts are not in dispute. The question involved is purely legal one.

( 4. ) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where petitioner qualifies eligibility criteria for admission. He places reliance on the Supreme Court decision in State of Orissa and Anr. v. Damodar Naik and Anr. (supra), to contend that action of University is arbitrary.

( 5. ) THE learned senior counsel Shri J. P. Gupta appearing for the University submits that when the requirement is of 50%, figure cannot be rounded of. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Sumit Shrivas-tava v. Jiwaji University, in W. P. No. 1239/2000, decided on 18-10-2000.

( 6. ) THE main question for consideration is whether the petitioner aggregate 49. 77% can be treated to be 50%. The admission eligibility is mentioned in Para 3 of the Information Bulletin cum Prospectus 2001-2002 which is quoted below :--

"the minimum qualification shall be Higher Secondary (10 + 2) with 50% marks (45% for reserved category), from Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal or its equivalent examination of any recognised Board/university with General English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics. Candidates who have passed Higher Secondary (10 + 2)

Examination as supplementary/compartment will not be eligible for admission even if their names appear in the merit list. "

( 7. ) THE Supreme Court in Ajay Pradhan v. State of M. P. , AIR 1988 SC 1875, considered the decision of this Court in Urmila Shukla v. State of M. P. in M. P. No. 297/83, decided on 17-10-83. In the background of the fact that there were seven seats for studies in M. S. in subject Obstetrics and Gynaecology in G. R. Medical College. As such seven students had to be admitted for P. O. course in M. S. in Gynaecology and Obstetrics. As per Rule 2. 2 of the rules, the State Govt. had fixed the ratio of 2/3 for the merit candidates and 1/3 for the candidates in Govt. service for admission to postgraduate course in Gynaecology. No rules have been framed for working out the ratio of 2/3 and 1/3. The admission was not given, hence the writ petition was filed and decision of the State fixing the ratio as 4/3