Judgment :- The two writ petitioners were appointed as Principals in the respective Teacher Training Institutes. Their names were sent for approval by the respondents. The respondents by the impugned order refused to grant approval on the ground that the petitioners lack the minimum qualification for holding the posts. 2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.24287 of 2007 is that the petitioner had secured 54.85% in the M.Ed., which is not equivalent to 55%. Therefore, since it is not coming within the NCTE norms and standards, the respondents have no power to grant approval. In respect of W.P.No.22649 of 2007, it is stated that the petitioner had secured 54.7% in M.Ed, which is below the norms prescribed by the NCTE and the respondent cannot grant approval, since the minimum qualification is 55% of marks in M.Ed. for holding the post of Principal. It is also further stated that in respect of D.Muthukumaran, he had worked as B.T.Assistant in Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department and therefore his B.T.Assistant service cannot be considered as Elementary School service. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Pa.Kadirvel, learned Government Advocate for the respondents and have perused the records. 4. Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the case of D.Muthukumaran, he had got already five years service working in a Teacher Training Institute, who has all the qualifications including the Elementary School service and this is the qualification, which is prescribed under the Rules. Therefore, no exception can be taken with reference to the minimum experience demanded. 5. With reference to the second issue the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in G.Jeyavani V. The Registrar, University of Madras, Chennai and another made in W.P.No.10459 of 2007 dated 04.04.2007. Therefore, no exception can be taken with reference to the minimum experience demanded. 5. With reference to the second issue the learned counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in G.Jeyavani V. The Registrar, University of Madras, Chennai and another made in W.P.No.10459 of 2007 dated 04.04.2007. Learned counsel drew the particular attention of the said judgment to paragraph 11, wherein it is stated as follows: "Para 11: The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above said contentions put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs.Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others and reported in 2005(2) S.C.C. 10 wherein, while considering the percentage of reservation prescribed and percentage which worked out on that basis, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- "7.....The rule of rounding off based on logic and common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done." Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in case of fraction, rounding off is permissible and in the above judgment, this Court permitted the rounding off the marks. 6. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.11.2006 stand set aside and both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to grant approval to the petitioners to hold the post of Principal in the respective Teacher Training Institute within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.