Order
1. Leave granted. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in W.B Joint Entrance Examination Board v. Sarit Chakraborty MAT No. 1361 of 2012 dated 3-9-2012. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order dated 2-8-2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Sarit Chakraborty v. W.B University of Technology 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 7848, (2013) 3 CHN 369.
2. The learned Single Judge, by its order dated 2-8-2012 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 7848, (2013) 3 CHN 369, had allowed the writ petition of Respondent 1 herein and stated that the principle of rounding off should be applied to all candidates who may have secured 44.5% marks or above but below 45% marks in aggregate as 45% marks in aggregate being the minimum marks required to be eligible as laid down in the Information Brochure JEM-2012 issued by the appellants herein.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any infirmity or error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, by the impugned order dated 3-9-2012 MAT No. 1361 of 2012, the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the principle of rounding off was applied. It would be pertinent to note that both, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court took notice of the admitted fact that Respondent 1 herein is a general category candidate who obtained 44.6% marks in aggregate in the Science group, that is, below the required aggregate for eligibility.
4. The West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board (for short “the Board”) is Appellant 1 in the present appeal. The Board was established under the order of the State Government in the Higher Education Department. The basic purpose of the Board is to select candidates to be considered for admission to degree-level Engineering, Medical and Technological Degree Colleges of the State on the basis of the results of a competitive examination as conducted by the Board. According to Shri Piyush Roy, learned counsel for the appellants, the Board has framed the guidelines keeping in view the Regulations of the All India Council for Technical Education (for short “Aicte”). The Aicte Regulations prescribe that general category candidates have to secure 45% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe candidates have to secure 40% marks in the aforesaid subjects. The said requirement by Aicte are mentioned in Appendix I to the Approval Process Handbook 2012-2013 as published by Aicte under Regulation 4.3 of the All India Council for Technical Education (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010.
5. Respondent 4 Aicte has been established under the provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (52 of 1987) (for short “the 1987 Act”). According to the Preamble of the 1987 Act, Aicte was set up, inter alia, for the proper planning and coordinated development of the technical education system throughout the country and for the promotion of qualitative improvements of such education in relation to planned quantitative growth and the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the technical education system. It is to be noted that Aicte supports the position of the appellants herein that there could be no application of the principle of rounding off in the present scenario as the Aicte Regulations regarding eligibility of candidates does not provide for the same.
6. Respondent 1 herein is a general category candidate who obtained 44.6% marks in aggregate in the Joint Entrance Examination conducted by the Board in the year 2012. As a consequence of a writ petition filed before the High Court of Calcutta, the said Respondent 1 was permitted to participate in the counselling process for admission in an engineering college depending upon his rank in the said Joint Entrance Examination. It is against this impugned judgment MAT No. 1361 of 2012 that the present appeal has been preferred before this Court. It would be pertinent to take note of the fact that the said Respondent 1 has not filed any counter-affidavit before this Court in the present appeal.
7. Admittedly, the facts in the present appeal are that Respondent 1 has secured 44.6% marks in aggregate in Physics, Mathematics and Chemistry in the Joint Entrance Examination conducted by the Board. In accordance with the eligibility criteria as set out by Aicte, the Board had published the Information Brochure for Joint Entrance Examination 2012, wherein the relevant academic requirements were stated as follows:
“3.4 Academic requirements:
(a) For Engineering and Technology courses: For all the courses except B. Arch., Marine Engineering and B. Pharmacy; general candidates must pass Higher Secondary (10 + 2) or its equivalent examination with a minimum of 45% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics taken together (40% for SC/ST candidates) with at least 30% marks in English (for all category of candidates) with individual pass marks in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English and Vernacular (or any other fifth subject).”
8. As a consequence of the aforementioned guidelines, the Board did not permit Respondent 1 herein to participate in the counselling. Therefore, Respondent 1 had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court with a request to direct the Board to round off 44.6% marks to 45% marks in the aforesaid subjects. The learned Single Judge, without noticing the guidelines which are framed under the Aicte Regulations had passed the order dated 2-8-2012 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 7848, (2013) 3 CHN 369 and which order had been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 3-9-2012 MAT No. 1361 of 2012.
9. Shri Piyush Roy, learned counsel for the appellants while contending that the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in directing the Board to round off the marks from 44.6% to 45% referred to the observations made by this Court in Orissa Public Service Commission v. Rupashree Chowdhary (2011) 8 SCC 108. In the said decision, this Court has stated as under in paras 9 and 10:
“9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (JD) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deals with the criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24 reads thus:
‘24. 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.’
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.”
10. The aforementioned principle has been reiterated by this Court in Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences v. G. Hemlatha (2012) 8 SCC 568. The question of law involved therein was whether by applying the principle of rounding off the eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in MSc (Nursing) could be relaxed. After placing reliance on Rupashree Chowdhary case (2011) 8 SCC 108, this Court, in Hemlatha case (2012) 8 SCC 568, held as follows:
“12. 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 the PG course. Such rounding off is impermissible.”
11. In the instant case, we have already observed that the Guidelines that are framed by the Board are in consonance with the Regulations framed and notified by Aicte. Aicte, in its Regulations as noticed hereinabove, has specifically pointed out that the minimum marks that a candidate should secure, in order to be considered eligible to appear for counselling for the purpose of admission in an engineering college, in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, in aggregate, is 45% marks only. Since the Guidelines that are framed by the Board are in consonance with the aforesaid Aicte Regulations, in our considered opinion, the learned Judges of the High Court were not justified in ignoring the guidelines and directing the Board to round off the marks from 44.6% to 45%.
12. There are express guidelines issued by the Board for governing the process of admission in engineering colleges. There is no guideline for permitting the principle of rounding off of marks in order to be made eligible to appear for counselling. In the absence of such a guideline in either the Brochure issued by the Board or in the Aicte Regulations, we are of the considered opinion that the rounding off of marks could not be permissible. The High Court ought not to have exercised such discretion in the light of the express and clear guidelines to the contrary.
13. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) MAT No. 1361 of 2012 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 7848, (2013) 3 CHN 369 passed by the High Court.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.