JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. Mr. P.S. Tomar on behalf of Mr. R.A. Katta appears for the contesting respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 31st January, 2008 passed by respondent No. 1- Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer, whereby petitioner's admission given in B.Ed. course has been cancelled on the ground that she does not possess minimum marks i.e. 47% in graduation under OBC category. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner secured 839 marks out of total 1800 marks in B.A. course which comes to 46.61%. She belongs to OBC category. A copy of mark-sheets of B.A. course has been placed on record. The minimum requirement fqr admission in B.Ed. course for OBC category candidate was that the candidate must possess minimum 47% marks in BA course. She also applied for admission in P.T.E.T. course, which was allowed and she was given admission, however, vide order dated 31st January, 2008 her admission has been cancelled. He contended that in similar circumstances this Court has rounded off the marks, therefore, in the present case also the 46.61% marks should have been rounded off as 47% and admission of petitioner should not have been cancelled. In support of his contention, he relied upon Bharti Devi Meena v. the Convener PTET Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer, 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC page 165 and Rajul Arora v. Jai Narain Vyas University & Another, 2006(2) RLW page 1054 . 5. A notice to show cause was given to respondents, but no reply to writ petition has been filed in their behalf. The matter was listed on 16th September, 2008 and on the request of learned counsel for the respondents again three days' time was granted to file reply but till date no reply has been filed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. From marks-sheet of BA course of petitioner (Annexure-1), it is clear that she obtained 46.61% marks in B.A. course. She was also given admission. It is clear from the impugned order itself that her admission has been cancelled only on this ground that she did not secure 47% marks in B.A. course, which 5 was minimum requirement for admission in B.Ed. course for OBC category candidate. The petitioner belongs to OBC category. She was also given admission. It is clear from the impugned order itself that her admission has been cancelled only on this ground that she did not secure 47% marks in B.A. course, which 5 was minimum requirement for admission in B.Ed. course for OBC category candidate. The petitioner belongs to OBC category. The learned Single Bench of this Court in Rajul Arora v. Jai Narain Vyas University & Another (supra) directed to round off 44.83% to 45% and allowed the writ petition. Para 6 to 9 of this judgment are as under : "(6) Learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Arora appearing for the petitioner has placed before the Court an order dated 20.10.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5818 of 2005, Budha Ram v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & Anr. , passed in precisely similar circumstances wherein the candidate had secured 44.61% marks and this Court directed that the petitioner's marks be treated as 45% for the purpose of admission to the LL.B Course after rounding up the marks from 44.61% to 45%. Learned Counsel Mr. Rakesh Arora further submitted that the said matter was taken in special appeal by the respondent-University and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 30 of 2006, Jai Narain Vyas University & Anr. v. Budha Ram Choudhary , has been rejected by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 12.01.2006. (7) It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Division Bench has rejected the contention of the University about a pseudo-distinction sought to be drawn between shortage of "marks" and shortage of "percentage" as Ill-conceived. The Hon'ble Division Bench has further rejected the contention of the University In relation to the academic standards fixed by the Bar Council of India and It has clearly been held that by simply directing rounding up of the marks, the learned Single Judge has not compromised on the norms fixed by the Bar Council. The Hon'ble Division Bench held, "Counsel also submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge amounts to interference with the academic standards fixed by the Bar Council of India. We do not find merit in this submission either. System of rounding off is well-accepted norm of assessment. The Hon'ble Division Bench held, "Counsel also submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge amounts to interference with the academic standards fixed by the Bar Council of India. We do not find merit in this submission either. System of rounding off is well-accepted norm of assessment. The learned Single Judge simply directed rounding off of the marks without compromising with the norm fixed by the Bar Council." (8) Having regard to the aforesaid decision of this Court, the submissions sought to be made by the respondents in their reply and so also in the additional affidavit are of no avail and deserve to be rejected. As a necessary consequence, prayer of the petitioner for permitting rounding up of the marks deserves to be granted. (9) As a result of the aforesaid, following the order passed by this Court in Budha Ram Choudhary (supra), this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner's marks may be treated to be 45% for the purpose of admission to LL.B course after rounding up the marks from 44.83% to 45%. No costs." 7. Similarly in Bharti Devi Meena v. the Convener PTET Maharshi Dayanand University (supra), this Court directed to round off 39.88% marks as 40% and to consider the case of the petitioner for admission. 8. From the above referred two decisions, it is clear that the present case is fully covered by the aforesaid two decisions and writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st January, 2008 is quashed and it is directed that petitioner's marks may be treated as 47% for the purpose of admission in PTET course after rounding up the marks from 46.61 % to 47%. 10. The operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 8th February, 2008 but it was directed that result of the petitioner shall not be declared without permission of the course. The petitioner has moved an application to declare the result of the petitioner as she was allowed to appear in the PTET course as per interim order passed by this Court. The petitioner has moved an application to declare the result of the petitioner as she was allowed to appear in the PTET course as per interim order passed by this Court. Since writ petition has been allowed, therefore, the application to declare the result of the petitioner is also allowed and the appellants are - directed to declare the result of the petitioner within seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. No costs.Writ petition allowed. *******