Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University and Another vs Sumit Kumar Soni

Dr. I.M. Quddusi, J.—Challenge in this appeal filed by the appellants is to the order dated 3-8-2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 626/10, allowing the writ petition. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent herein after passing L.L.M. course with 54.89% applied before the appellant No. 1 for registration for the degree of M.Phil. or Ph.D. in law along with requisite fee and documents, but the appellant No. 1 refused to register the respondent in the said degree course on the ground that the respondent is ineligible for admission as he did not possess minimum qualifying marks i.e. 55%. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached the learned single Judge of this Court by filing a writ petition and the learned single Judge vide impugned order allowed the writ petition and ordered that if there is no other hurdle, the respondent may be treated as having minimum qualification i.e. 55% marks, for registration in M.Phil. or Ph.D. Aggrieved therewith, the appellants have filed this writ appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that as per Ordinance No. 45 of the appellant No. 1-University a candidate for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy must at the time of application, hold Master''s Degree with at least 55% marks, and since the respondent herein had secured only 54.89% marks in the L.L.M. course, he was not entitled for admission in the degree course. He further argued that the learned single Judge erred in permitting rounding-off of the marks of the respondent as there is no provision of rounding off or relaxation of marks under the Ordinance No. 45 of the appellant No. 1.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that direction of the writ court for treating the respondent as having minimum qualification i.e. 55% marks, for registration in the degree course is in the realm of doctrine of "rounding-up" and the same do not call for any interference by this Court.

We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

The admission in Ph.D. course is guided by the Ordinance-45 (Doctor of Philosophy) and Section 3 thereof deals with eligibility criteria for registration for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Section 3 reads thus :--

A. A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must, at the time of application, holds Master''s Degree with at least 55% marks (50% marks for SC/ST/Differently abled candidate)/B in the seven point scale/ an equivalent grade point average of a University, a deemed University or any other University incorporated by any law for the time being in force and recognized by the University.

OR

Holds M.Phil, degree of a University, a deemed University or any other University incorporated by any law for the time being in force and recognized by the University.

OR

A candidate who has at least 7 years experience of research/teaching with at least 5 papers published in standard research journal, even if he/she does not possess 55% marks at Master''s degree.

B. Provided that the candidate will be admitted to the Ph.D. program through an entrance test to be conducted once in a year, preferably in October by the University. The modalities of the test shall be decided by the University.

C. Following candidates shall be exempted from appearing at the entrance test:

Candidates, who qualify UGC-CSIR (JRF) examination, including NET lecturership/SLET/GATE/or any other JRF examination conducted by national agencies, such as ICMR, ICSSR etc.

ii. (a) Candidate possessing M.Phil. degree from Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur provided that his/her admission to the M.Phil. degree has been through entrance examination.

(b) Candidate possessing M.Phil. degree from other recognized University has to appear at the entrance examination, but shall be exempted from course work if it has been a component of his/her M.Phil. degree.

iii. Teacher Fellowship holder and University College Teachers holding a regular position (regular appointment) and having completed two years of service as teacher in a department or affiliated colleges of the University.

iv. Scientists of any recognized national (for example DST-CSIR-funded etc.) and international institutions (for example, WHO-funded etc.) having acquired two years experience.

A bare reading of the aforesaid section would make it crystal clear that a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must, at the time of application, hold Master''s Degree with at least 55% marks. However, the aforesaid condition is not applicable in the case where the candidate has at least 7 years experience of research/teaching with at least 5 papers published in standard research journal. This section further says about the entrance test and also about the candidates who are exempted from appearing in the entrance test. However, in the entire Section nowhere it has been provided that any rounding off or relaxation would be permissible so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement rather emphasis is given in the Ordinance itself to the ''at least marks'' that is to say, a candidate seeking registration for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy must possess minimum marks i.e. 55% of marks.

In the above connection it would be relevant to quote hereinbelow the dictionary meaning of the words ''at least'' given in the Oxford English Dictionary :--

at least" : "not less than or at the minimum or in any event.

In the matter of Orissa Public Service Commission and Another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and Another, the respondent being successful in the Preliminary Written Examination conducted by the Orissa Public Service Commission for direct recruitment of Civil Judges (JD), appeared in the Main Written Examination but her name was not in the list of successful candidates eligible for interview. She immediately applied to know the marks obtained by her in the Main Written Examination and the mark-sheet of the respondent was issued to her on her request. On receipt of mark-sheet, she came to know that she had secured 337 out of 750, i.e. 44.93% of marks in aggregate and more than 33% of marks in each subject. As per Rule 24 of the Rules the candidate who have secured not less than 45% of the marks in aggregate and not less than minimum of 33% of marks in each paper in the written examination should be called for viva-voce test. Since the respondent secured 44.93% marks in aggregate, she was not called for inter-view/viva-voce test. Being aggrieved she approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to call the respondent for interview. Thereafter, the Hon''ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant-Commission by observing thus :--

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.

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.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in its another recent judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6205/11 (parties being, Bhanu Pratap Vs. State of Haryana and Others, has reiterated the similar view that no such rounding off or relaxation is permissible when there is no power provided in the Statute nor any such stipulation was made in the advertisement and also in the statutory rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement.

It is settled position of law that where language of the rules is clear and explicit, the same should be given effect to irrespective of its consequences. Further, it is also settled that the authorities are bound to act within the parameters of the Rules which are statutory in nature and any violation or any relaxation thereof whether by way of giving "grace marks" or "rounding off would amount to acting beyond the parameters prescribed, which would be illegal.

In the instant case since there is no power provided in the Ordinance-45 permitting any "rounding off or "grace marks" so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement, the registration was refused to the respondent by the appellant No. 1 as against the minimum qualifying marks of 55% in the Master''s degree, the respondent had secured only 54.89% marks. However, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent with a direction that if there is no other hurdle, the respondent herein may be treated as having minimum qualification for registration i.e. 55% marks.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that in the case on hand when emphasis is given in the Ordinance itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the minimum marks i.e. 55%, have to be obtained by the concerned candidate, there cannot be a question of "relaxation" or "rounding off'', as sought for by the respondent and ordered by the writ Court vide impugned order. It is relevant to write down here that if the "rounding off'' is given to the respondent, as sought for by him, then there would be no meaning of having a rule wherein it is provided that a person must at least have the minimum marks as provided for thereunder. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 3-8-2010 is hereby set aside. No order as to costs.