AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.11.2011,
passed by the Aalim Muthammed Salegh College of Engineering, declining the request of the petitioner, for approval to his admission to MBA
Degree Course. The impugned order reads as under:
AALIM MUHAMMED SALEGH COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING
Approved by All India Council for Technical
Education, New Delhi.
Affiliated to Anna University, Chennai
NBA Accredited. An ISO 9001 : 2008 Certified
Institution
Nizara educational Campus"", Muthapudupet, AvadiI.
A.F., Chennai 600 055.
28.11.2011
Mr. Imam Hussain J.
64/1 A, Kottai Kalam South Street,
Ali Nagaram, Theni, Theni District.
Sub: Admissions 2011-2012 Eligibility
for admission declined-By the
Directorate - reg.
Ref: Verification of records by DOTE
on 16.11.2001
In continuation of oral information made to your parents, it is hereby informed that your admission in MBA had not been approved by the DOTE
Authorities stating that the minimum marks 45% is not there as per AICTE new regulations. The admission was refused since the percentage could
not be rounded off.
Therefore, you are requested to collect the originals from our Head office
Regards,
For Aalim Muhammed Salegh College of Engineering
sd/-
Principal
Sea/-
The petitioner is a first year student pursuing MBA Degree Course in Aalim Muhammed Salegh College of Engineering. The petitioner comes
from rural background, and got his Bachelors degree in Commerce from the M.S. S. Wakf Board College, Madurai.
In order to pursue higher education in the Master Degree in Business Administration (MBA), the petitioner applied for admission under the
management quota for the year 2011-2012. The petitioner was admitted by the third respondent on furnishing the necessary certificates, and is
petitioner thereafter attending classes regularly.
The submission of the petitioner, is that the petitioner was informed vide impugned order that his admission to MBA Course has not been
approved by the Director of Technical Education, as he had failed to get minimum marks of 45% as per AICTE new regulation. The petitioner was
informed that his 44.538% marks could not be rounded off to 45% to make his eligible for admission.
The petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the action of the respondent in not rounding off aggregate marks, secured by
him in Bachelors degree is arbitrary and unreasonable, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and another vs Pawan Kumar
Tiwari and others [(2005) 2 SCC 10] wherein it was held that the Rule of rounding off is based on logic and common sense, i.e., if part is one-half
or more, its value is to be increased to one, and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in this case directed that 46.50 should be rounded off to 47 and not to 46. It was a case where, the allocation of
number of vacancies was considered for reservation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is based on basic principle of rounding off,
therefore, by applying the law laid down in this judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
Orissa Public Service Commission and Another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and Another, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to
hold that 44.93% could not be rounded off to 45, to make candidates eligible for appearing in interview dehors the rules. The judgment relied on
by the petitioner was also considered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and distinguished. The para 7 of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme
Court reads as under:
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents during the course of his arguments relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa
v. Damodar Nayak, State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari, Union of India v. S.Vinod Kumar and Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshalu.
On scrutiny, we find that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts and findings
recorded by this Court in the above referred cases are distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand. Almost all the aforesaid cases dealt with post
or vacancies where it was allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post. Understandably, there cannot be a fraction of a post.
On consideration, I find no force in the writ petition The eligibility for admission to MBA Course as per AICTE regulation reads as under;
Recognized Bachelor''s Degree of minimum 3 Yrs duration.
Obtained atleast 50% (45% in case of candidate belonging to reserved category) at the qualifying Examination
The reading of the regulation shows, that the condition stipulated is atleast 50% marks or 45% marks in the case of reserved category. The
regulation is similar to the Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 which was under consideration
by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and another vs Rupashree Chowdhary and another [supra] which
reads as under:
Determination of number of candidates for interview-
The Commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than forty-five per centum of marks in aggregate and a minimum
of thirty three per centum of marks in each paper in the main written examination.
In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, no fault can be found with the order impugned, as 44.538% marks
cannot be rounded off to 45% as requirement under regulation is atleast 45% in case of reserved category. Consequently, the writ petition is
ordered to be dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.No cost.