State of U.P. vs Virendra Singh Yadav

Mr. Ram Prakash Yadav, Counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection in case delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the matter be heard finally at the admission stage itself.

Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay is satisfactory.

Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 passed in writ petition No. 1587 of 2014 (MS): Virendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition finally with the direction to the appellants to consider the respondent''s case for admission in Basic Training Certificate Course-2013 as having been awarded 45% marks in graduation under the reserved category quota.

Heard Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and Mr. Ram Prakash Yadav, Counsel for the respondent.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the special appeal at the admission stage itself.

Respondent/petitioner appeared in final B.A. Examination, 2005 conducted by Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and after being declared successful, degree of B.A. was awarded to him. Thereafter, in pursuant to the advertisement published by the Secretary, Pariksha Niyamak Pradhikari, U.P., Allahabad (appellant No. 2), respondent/petitioner applied for B.T.C. Training, 2013. After scrutinizing the application forms, the appellant No. 2 published list of selected candidate for B.T.C. Training, 2013. As the name of the respondent was not in found in the list of the selected candidate, he preferred representation but no heed was paid and as such, respondent approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition No. 1587 of 2014. Learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 21.4.2014, disposed of the writ petition with the direction, indicated hereinabove.

Hence the instant special appeal.

Mr. Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the respondent/petitioner secured 44.88% marks in Graduation was not eligible to be selected for Basic Training Certificate Course, 2013 as the minimum essential marks required for selection was 45% after having been given relaxation of 5% being in reserved category in comparison of general category candidate for whom the minimum required percentage was 50% but the learned Single Judge committed an error in rounding off the percentage marks obtained by the respondent/petitioner in graduation and directed the appellants to consider the candidature of the respondent/appellant without there being any provision or circular or government order for rounding off the marks obtained in graduation by any candidate.

Mr. Ram Prakash Yadav, counsel for the respondent has supported the order impugned in the instant appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the records, it is clear that the respondent had received 44.88% marks in graduation and minimum qualifying marks for getting selection in Basic Training Certificate Course, 2013 is 45% marks. Admittedly, no rules, regulations or statutory provisions is brought to the notice of this Court based on which rounding off is permissible. Rounding of or grant of grace marks if permissible as a discretion cannot be granted by way of mandamus by this Court. Discretion has to be exercised by the administrative authority and it is for the administrative authority to exercise the discretion if permissible under law. Issuance of mandamus for rounding of is concerned, the same is permissible if rules so contemplates. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and Another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and Another, has clearly laid down the principle that rounding off the aggregate marks or exercising the powers of discretion cannot be permitted dehorse the rules. If the rule do provide for rounding off of aggregate marks, the same cannot be directed by way of mandamus in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

In the present case, respondent is unable to demonstrate before this Court any rules, regulations or statutory provisions which permits rounding off marks. Under such circumstances, in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court, learned Single Judge erred in rounding off the marks obtained by the respondent in graduation.

For the reasons aforesaid, the special appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 is set-aside. Writ Petition No. 1587 of 2014 (M/S) is dismissed.