LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, August 23, 2012

No provision of any statute or any rules framed thereunder has been shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.SC (Nursing). When 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 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. 11. We make it clear that this order merely settles the question of law and shall not have any adverse impact, in any manner, on the service of respondent 1. 12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5992 OF 2012
      (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8442 of 2011)


THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY
OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE       …   APPELLANT

            VS.

G. HEMLATHA AND OTHERS              …  RESPONDENTS


                                  JUDGMENT


(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.


1.    Leave granted.


2.    This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment  dated
28.10.2010 of the Division Bench  of  the  Karnataka  High  Court.   By  the
impugned judgment, the Division  Bench  declined  to  entertain  the  appeal
filed by the appellant challenging the judgment of learned Single  Judge  of
the High Court permitting rounding-off of the percentage of  marks  obtained
by respondent 1 so as to  make  her  eligible  to  get  admission  to  post-
graduate course [“PG course”, for convenience] in M.Sc (Nursing).

3.    On 11.03.2011 this Court issued notice only to settle the question  of
law raised in the appeal because respondent  1  has  completed  the  course.
This court refused to stay the impugned order and directed  that  respondent
1’s admission be regularized and her results be declared.

4.    The question of law involved in this case is whether by  applying  the
principle of  rounding-off  the  eligibility  criteria  prescribed  for  the
qualifying examination for admission to the PG course in M.Sc (Nursing)  can
be relaxed.

5.     For deciding the question of law, it is necessary to know  the  facts
of the case.  Respondent 1 completed Bachelor of Science degree  in  Nursing
with 54.71% aggregate marks from N.T.R. University  of  Health  Sciences  in
the year 1997.  Thereafter, she registered herself as a Public Health  Nurse
and Midwife.   She also registered herself as a nurse under  the  provisions
of the Andhra Pradesh Nurses and  Midwives  (Extension  of  Amendment)  Act,
1964.       She was appointed as  a  working  staff  nurse  at  the  Primary
Health Centre, Nagasamudram (Andhra Pradesh) on 08.07.1999.  She served  for
eight  years  and  three  months  in  the  said  institution.   She  made  a
representation to the Regional Director of Medical Health  Services  seeking
permission to pursue the  PG  course  in  M.Sc  (Nursing).  The  eligibility
criteria prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council for securing admission  to
the said PG course  was  55%  aggregate  marks.   The  petitioner,  however,
secured 54.71%  aggregate  marks.   She  approached  the  Secretary,  Indian
Nursing Council, the third respondent herein, requesting that a  certificate
of eligibility be issued to her.  The third respondent communicated  to  her
that 0.50% would normally be rounded-off to next digit.  She  was  asked  to
approach  the  concerned  authority  of  the  institute  in   that   regard.
Accordingly, she approached the petitioner.  The  petitioner  gave  her  the
eligibility certificate.  She,  then,  approached  the  Principal,  Navodaya
College of Nursing, Raichur, Karnataka, the second respondent herein.   With
the said certificate she obtained admission in the management quota.

6.    When she was  preparing  to  take  the  annual  examination,  she  was
informed by the  second  respondent  that  she  was  not  eligible  to  take
examination as she has secured less than 55% in the qualifying  examination.
   She approached the petitioner for reconsideration of her case.   She  was
informed that on reconsideration it was found that she was not  eligible  to
take examination.  She, therefore,  preferred  writ  petition  in  the  High
Court challenging the said communication.  She  obtained  an  interim  order
permitting her to take first year examination.   She  took  the  examination
but, results were withheld.  She was also permitted to take the second  year
examination by an interim order.  Thus, she has completed the PG  course  by
taking both the examinations.   As  stated  by  us  earlier,  while  issuing
notice, this court directed that her results be declared and  her  admission
be regularized.

7.    By order dated 01.09.2010 learned Single Judge of the High  Court,  by
applying the rule  of  rounding-off  of  numbers,  held  that  54.71%  marks
obtained by respondent 1 should be rounded-off to 55%.  Thus,  respondent  1
became eligible by virtue of the High Court’s order.  Learned  Single  Judge
set aside the endorsement issued by the petitioner stating  that  respondent
1 was not eligible for admission to the PG course in M.Sc.  (Nursing).   The
said order was carried in appeal to the  Division  Bench  of  the  Karnataka
High Court by the appellant.   The Division  Bench  of  the  Karnataka  High
Court declined to entertain the appeal.  The Division  Bench  observed  that
it was not inclined to interfere with the discretion  exercised  by  learned
Single Judge in rounding-off of 54.71% to 55%.   In the  circumstances,  the
Division Bench held that respondent 1 did possess required qualification  to
get admission to PG course.

8.    In Orissa  Public  Service  Commission  and  Another    v.   Rupashree
Chowdhary and Another (2011) 8 SCC 108 this Court in somewhat  similar  fact
situation considered whether the eligibility criteria could  be  relaxed  by
the method of rounding-off. The Orissa Public Service  Commission  published
an advertisement inviting applications  from  suitable  candidates  for  the
Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009 for direct recruitment to  fill-up
77 posts of Civil Judges (JD).  Pursuant to  the  advertisement,  the  first
respondent therein applied for the said  post.   She  took  the  preliminary
written examination.  She was successful  in  the  said  examination.   She,
then,  took  the  main  written  examination.   The   list   of   successful
candidates, who were eligible for interview,  was  published  in  which  the
first respondent’s name was not there.  She received the  mark  sheet.   She
realized that she had secured 337 marks out of 750 i.e. 44.93% of  marks  in
the aggregate and more than 33% of marks in each subject.  As  per  Rule  24
of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial  Service  Rules,
2007 (for short “the Orissa Rules”), the candidates  who  have  secured  not
less than 45% of the marks in the aggregate and not less than a  minimum  of
33% of marks in each paper in the written examination should be  called  for
viva voce test.  Since the  first  respondent  therein  had  secured  44.93%
marks in aggregate she was not called for interview/viva  voce.   The  first
respondent approached the Orissa High Court.  The  High  Court  allowed  the
writ petition.  The appeal from the said order was carried  to  this  court.
After considering the Orissa Rules, this court held  that  Rule  24  thereof
made it 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% marks in the aggregate in all the written  papers  in  the
main examination.  This court observed that when emphasis is  given  in  the
rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, there can be no  relaxation
or rounding-off.  It  was  observed  that  no  power  was  provided  in  the
statute/rules permitting any such rounding-off or giving  grace  marks.   It
was clarified that the Orissa 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.

9.    In our opinion, the ratio of this judgment is  clearly  applicable  to
the facts of this case.  Judgment of the Full Bench of Allahabad High  Court
in Vani  Pati  Tripathi    vs.   Director  General,  Medical  Education  and
Training and Others  (AIR 2003 All  164) and judgment of the Full  Bench  of
Punjab and Haryana High Court  in  Kuldip  Singh,  Legal  Assistant,  Punjab
Financial Corporation  vs.  The 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 (supra),  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  discuss  the  said
decisions.

10.   No provision of any statute or any rules framed  thereunder  has  been
shown to us, which permits rounding-off of eligibility  criteria  prescribed
for the qualifying examination for  admission  to  the  PG  course  in  M.SC
(Nursing).   When  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  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.

11.   We make it clear that this order merely settles the  question  of  law
and shall not have any adverse impact, in any  manner,  on  the  service  of
respondent 1.

12.   The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                                              (A.K. PATNAIK)




                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                                     (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI.
AUGUST 23, 2012




                                                     -----------------------
8