Hitendra Kumar Upadhyay vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

Grievance raised by the petitioner is against the non-grant of eligibility certificate to the petitioner which has deprived him of to take the examination

for MBA first semester.

Case of the petitioner is that having taken admission in MBA first year in ITM GOI College, Gwalior, through online counseling process which is non-

entrance test based course by the Directorate Technical Education, Bhopal Department of Technical Education, Bhopal, the petitioner attended the

classes regularly in the college. However, at the time of filling the examination form for the MBA first semester, the petitioner was declined the

eligibility certificate by respondent No. 3. - Jiwaji University, for the reasons that the petitioner is not having 50% aggregate in the qualifying

examination.

It is urged that the petitioner is having degree in Bachelor of Commerce in which his aggregate is 49.71% and by rounding up it becomes 50%

because the same is more than 49.5%.

Reliance is placed on the letter issued by Directorate of Technical Education for academic session 2011-12 for rounding up the percentage in

according admission to the students concerned and grant of eligibility certificate.

On these grounds, the petitioner calls in question the action of respondent No. 3- Jiwaji University.

On being noticed, the University has filed the response. It is stated therein that the eligibility to obtain admission in the MBA course is governed by the

Ordinance No. 24. It is urged that Clause 1(a) of the MBA Ordinance 24 stipulates the minimum qualification for admission to the first semester of

course shall be Bachelor's degree in Arts, Science, Engineering, Law, Commerce or Social Science with a minimum of 50% of marks in aggregate of

Jiwaji University or any other recognized University.

It is further contended that even the Directorate Technical Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh framed admission rules for MBA

course with effect from the session 2017-18, wherein as per Clause 1.4.3 incumbent it is upon the candidate seeking admission to MBA and allied

courses should be a graduate with at least 50% marks and 45% marks in case of SC, ST, OBC category of Madhya Pradesh in aggregate of any

UGC / AICTE approved Indian University or from a foreign University recognized by Association Indian Universities or Institute recognized by the

concerned University as equivalent there to.

It is further contended that the petitioner's case was placed for consideration before the Standing Committee of the Jiwaji University in its meeting

held on 16/01/2018 at item No. 19. The Standing Committee recommended to act and action as per rules.

It is urged that since the petitioner does not fulfil the mandatory requirement i.e. 50% marks in the Bachelor's degree as per the proviso of Ordinance

No. 24 requirement to obtain admission in the MBA

course, therefore, he is not eligible to take admission in said course. It is contended that since the petitioner inhere basic ineligibility, he is not entitled

for any relief.

Considered rival submissions and perused material documents on record.

The relevant qualification/eligibility for admission in MBA course as stipulated in Clause 1(a) of the Ordinance 24 is “Bachelor's degree in Arts,

Science, Engineering, Law, Commerce or Social Science with a minimum of 50% of marks in aggregate of this

University or any other recognized University.â€​

That the State of Madhya Pradesh through its Directorate of Technical Education Department has also framed admission rules for MBA course for

starting session 2017-18, wherein Clause 1.4.3 stipulates:-

“1.4.3 ELIGIBILITY FOR ADMISSION

1) The Candidate should be an Indian National.

2) Educational Qualifications:

MBA & ALLIED COURSES:

A candidate seeking admission to MBA and Allied Courses should be a Graduate with at least 50% marks and 45% marks in case of SC, ST, OBC

category of Madhya Pradesh in aggregate of any UGC/ AICTE approved Indian University or from a foreign University recognized by Association of

Indian Universities (AIU) or Institute recognized by the concerned University as equivalent thereto. The Bachelor's degree must be of minimum three

years duration after passing Higher Secondary (10+2) examination of (10+2) system or equivalent.

NOTE:

Candidate in the Final year of above degree examination can also appear in the CMAT 2017 test on provisional basis. But such a candidate shall have

to produce the original certificate of having passed/ mark sheet showing aggregate marks of the degree program the time of admission taken in the

allotted institute; however, candidate shall have to fill all the entries of qualifying examination at the time of registration. 3) Domicile Requirements:

No candidate belonging to SC, ST & OBC (Excluding Creamy Layer) category shall be selected for admission against the seats reserved for them

unless;

tks Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gksA

e/;izns'k 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] ea=ky;

Hkksiky ds i= Øekad lh&3&7&2013&3&,d fnukad

29 twu] 2013 ds vuqlkj 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvksa esa nkf[kys ds fy;s l{ke izkf/kdkjh ¼uk;c rglhynkj @rglhynkj½ }kjk tkjh LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k&i=

izk:i&3 ;k e/;izns'k 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx] ea=ky; Hkksiky ds ifji= Øekad lh&3&7&2013&3 &,d fnukad 25@09@2014 vuqlkj LFkkuh; fuoklh

gsrq Lo izekf.kr ?kks""k.kk&i= ¼vLVkfEir dkxt ij½ izk:i&3 ¼v½ vuqlkj izLrqr djuk vko';d gSAâ€​

Evident it is that at least 50% marks in graduation for a general category candidate is a criteria laid down by the University as well as the State for

admission to MBA course, we are not commended at to any provision according relaxation

in the said eligibility criteria.

The issue as to whether in absence of statutory stipulations, marks can be rounded of for making an incumbent eligible for admission came up for

consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Orissa Public Service Commission and another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another [(2011) 8

SCC 108], wherein it is held:-

“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 the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When

emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by

the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such

rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or

relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some

words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.

We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society Vs. M.

Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p. 658, para 6)

“6. ...when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only

between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the

appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.

When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give

effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two

conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the statute. Therefore, no

rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration. 14. The

High Court, in our considered opinion, has also committed an error apparent on the face of the records by allowing two more persons, who secured

marks between 44.5% and 45%, to be called for the interview who were not even parties before it and who had not even shown interest subsequently

to be appointed subsequent to the declaration of the results of the examination but despite the said fact the High Court directed them also to be called

for the interview only on the ground that they have secured more than 44.5% of marks but less than 45% marks in the main written examination in

aggregate. â€​

Similarly in Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore Vs. G. Hemlatha and others [(2012) 8 SCC 568], it is observed by their

Lordships:-

“11. In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High

Court in Vani Pati Tripathi vs. DG, Medical Education and Training and Others (AIR 2003 All 164) and the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab

and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (1997) 117 PLR 1, were cited before us because they take the same view.

However, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Orissa Public Service Commission vs. Rupashree Chowdhary (2011) 8 SCC

108, it is not necessary for us to discuss the said decisions.

No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder have been shown to us, which permit rounding-off 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 rounding-off of 54.71% to 55% so as to make Respondent 1 eligible for admission to PG course.

Such rounding-off is impermissible.â€​

In view whereof, we find no merit in the claim put forth by the petitioner for direction to the respondent â€" University to round up the marks obtained

by the petitioner in graduation to make him eligible for admission to MBA course.

As no relief can be granted, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.