DODDAKALE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) PETITIONER has challenged the selection of second respondent as Work inspector including his non selection by first respondent. ( 3 ) CONTROVERSY lies in a very narrow compass : -Petitioner has secured 66. 44 per cent in qualifying examination and 29. 50 per cent in interview. Second respondent has secured 66. 97 per cent in qualifying examination and 28. 60 per cent in interview. Contention of petitioner was that, as he has secured more marks than the second respondent, he should have been selected and recruited instead of second respondent. Second respondent, though served, remained absent. ( 4 ) FIRST respondent has tried to justify the selection on the ground that fraction of marks secured at the qualifying examination has been rounded of to the nearest next digit if it exceeded -5 or more than hall and fraction of marks less than the -5 or half has not been taken note of. In that process, it was contended that marks of the petitioner in qualifying examination was taken as 66 and that of second respondent as 67 : as second respondent had secured more marks than the petitioner by adding marks secured at the interview to the qualifying examination, he was selected. In other words, according to the first respondent, marks secured by petitioner and second respondent would be 95. 50 (66. 00 29. 50; and 95. 60 (67. 00+28. 60) respectively. ( 5 ) THE power to round of fraction of a mark is not traced to any rule of law or precedent. If the first respondent had adopted the policy of treating the fraction or half and more then half as one, in marks secured at the qualifying examination, same principle should have been adopted to round of fraction of a mark secured at the interview also. The first respondent could not have adopted different criteria or principle to round of marks secured by candidates viz. , could not have rounded of a fraction of a mark secured at the qualifying examination and retained fraction secured at the interview. Such process is not merely arbitrary and illegal but, unknown to all cannons of law. The first respondent could not have adopted different criteria or principle to round of marks secured by candidates viz. , could not have rounded of a fraction of a mark secured at the qualifying examination and retained fraction secured at the interview. Such process is not merely arbitrary and illegal but, unknown to all cannons of law. ( 6 ) ASSUMING for the sake of arguments that first respondent could have rounded of the fraction to the nearest digit, that could have been done after totalling the marks secured at the qualifying examination as well as marks secured at the interview. In that case, the marks would be as follows :- petitioner 66. 44+29. 50 = 95. 94 second respondent 66. 97 + 29. 50 = 95. 67 if this figure is rounded of to the next highest digit, both would get 96 and it would become impossible to make a selection for one post ; selection could not have been made by drawing lots. Consequently, selection should have been rested on marks secured by candidates both at the qualifying examination as well as interview. Undisputedly, petitioner, who has secured more marks than the second respondent should have been selected and recruited. Selection of second respondent must be held to be arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner was justified in complaining infringement of his fundamental rights, guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. Recruitment of second respondent is hereby quashed. First respondent is directed to recruit petitioner who has secured more number of marks than the second respondent as 'work Inspector' in Group C'. Rule made absolute. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .