Page 1

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

Page 2

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  

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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.  

4

Page 5

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  

5

Page 6

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  

6

Page 7

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.  

7

Page 8

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  

8

Page 9

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

9