JUDGMENT MOHIT S. SHAH ACTG. C. J. The petitioner secured 44.71% of marks [317 out of 700 marks] at the T.Y.B.A. examination. The petitioner applied for admission to B.Ed. Course in June 2009. The admissions to B.Ed. Course are regulated by the B.Ed. Centralized Admission Committee, respondent No.1 herein. The B.Ed. Centralized Admission Committee accepted the petitioner's form and allotted the petitioner to respondent No.2-College. The petitioner was, accordingly, granted admission to the B.Ed. Course in respondent No.2-College. This was done on 4.6.2009. The petitioner paid necessary fees of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,160/- to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 respectively. The petitioner also commenced his studies in the said course. However, the petitioner received communication dated 27.7.2009 [Annexure ‘D’] from respondent No.1-Committee informing that the petitioner was erroneously granted admission to the B.Ed. Course and that the minimum eligibility criterion is 45% of marks of graduation/post-graduation, but the petitioner did not have minimum qualifying marks of 45%. Hence the present petition. 2. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision dated 14.7.2008 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5854 of 2008 taking the view that, where minimum qualifying standards for admission to an academic course is 50%, the student having 49.50% and above marks has to be considered eligible, because, in case of a fraction, rounding off will apply. Ms. Vyas has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, [2005] 2 SCC 10. 3. On the other hand, Mr. P.V. Hathi, learned advocate for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that, when the minimum eligibility criterion is 45%, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of rounding off. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Harshaben Chatrabhuj Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2009 (2) G.L.H. 411 , and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi vs. Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and others, AIR 2003 Allahabad 164. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Harshaben Chatrabhuj Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2009 (2) G.L.H. 411 , and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi vs. Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and others, AIR 2003 Allahabad 164. It is submitted that the decision of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioner would apply in the case of posts or vacancies where there cannot be a fraction, but it would not apply in the case of admission to academic course where a student is required to have obtained the minimum qualifying marks, such as 45% in the instant case. It is also submitted that the eligibility criterion of 45% marks for admission to the B.Ed. Course is determined by the NCTE and, therefore also, the University or any other body cannot have the power to give the benefit of rounding off to students. 4. National Council for Teachers Education was joined as party-respondent in this proceeding and learned advocate Mr. Ashutosh Shastri appears for the NCTE. Mr. Shastri states that, in view of the decision dated 14.7.2008 of this Court in Special Civil Application No.5854 of 2008, the NCTE has no objection to the rule of rounding off being applied in the matter of admission to the B.Ed. Course. 5. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 6. In Patel Amitaben Amrutlal vs. Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University, Special Civil Application No.5854 of 2008, by order dated 14.7.2008, this Court has considered the similar controversy. The minimum qualifying percentage for admission to the B.Ed. Course at the relevant time was 50%. The petitioner therein had obtained 49.88%. The petitioner was granted admission and, thereafter, the admission was sought to be cancelled. This Court examining the same controversy laid down the following principles in paragraphs 5 to 7: “5. In State of U.P. and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others ( 2005 (2) SCC 10 ), the Apex Court has held that 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 be rounded off to 47 and not to 46. 46.50 should be rounded off to 47 and not to 46. On the basis of the same logic and common sense, when the Admission Rules prescribe 50% at the qualifying examination as the eligibility criterion, a student with 49.50% or higher marks has to be considered eligible. We see no reason to take a different view. 6. Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the University, however, submits that when there is a competitive examination, rounding off may create some complication if a student with 49.50% marks is treated to have secured 50% marks and he is required to be placed in the same merit list having another candidate who secured 50% marks without any rounding off. 7. We see no basis whatsoever for entertaining this apprehension. The student having 49.50% marks may be treated as having secured 50% marks for the purpose of satisfying the eligibility criterion, but at the time of preparation of merit list, he would obviously be treated as less meritorious compared to the student who obtained 50% marks without rounding off. Similarly, in the instant case, the petitioner, having secured 49.88% marks, would be treated as eligible, but less meritorious compared to the student who had secured 50% marks at the qualifying examination.” 7 We see no reason why the view taken by the Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Tiwari [supra] should not be adopted in the matter of admission to the academic course merely because in the case before the Apex Court the question was about number of posts to be considered. What is relevant is what is eligibility criterion - whether it is marks or percentage of marks. For instance, if the University had prescribed that for admission to the B.Ed. Course, the minimum qualifying marks at the graduate/post-graduate examination shall be 315 out of 700 marks, a candidate with 314 marks would not be eligible. There, the question of applying rounding off would not arise, because there is no fraction in the first place. However, what is prescribed as eligibility criterion by the NCTE is 45% and, if the student has obtained more than 44%, the question of rounding off does arise. There, the question of applying rounding off would not arise, because there is no fraction in the first place. However, what is prescribed as eligibility criterion by the NCTE is 45% and, if the student has obtained more than 44%, the question of rounding off does arise. As per the aforesaid rule adopted in Pawan Kumar Tiwari [supra], which is also considered as rule of rounding off based on logic and commence sense, if the fraction is one-half or more, its value shall be increased to one and if the fraction is less than one-half, then its value shall be ignored. Accordingly, since the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner at the graduate examination is 44.71%, the same will have to be rounded off to 45%. The petitioner was thus eligible to get admission to the B.Ed. Course. The admission was already granted to the petitioner in June 2009. The petitioner was granted admission without any attempt on the part of the petitioner to mislead the respondent-authority. By the interim order dated 18.8.2009 of this Court, the petitioner was permitted to continue his studies in the B.Ed. Course provisionally subject to result of the petition and, thereafter, the petitioner was also allowed to appear at the examination. 8. As regards the decision of this Court in Harshaben Chatrabhuj Trivedi, [2009] 2 G.L.H 411, the matter related to a different controversy altogether. While the UGC Regulation prescribed minimum qualifying standard of 55%, the University Ordinance permitted the University to give five grace marks, if the candidate's total fell short of the requisite total of 55%. The said Rule contained in Ordinance 164A did not provide for rounding off, but provided for granting grace marks irrespective of fact whether the percentage obtained by a candidate was 54% or 54.5%. It was in this view of the matter that this Court held that the UGC Regulation cannot be diluted by the Ordinance of the University. Therefore, the reasoning in the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. 9. It was in this view of the matter that this Court held that the UGC Regulation cannot be diluted by the Ordinance of the University. Therefore, the reasoning in the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case. 9. As far as the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Vani Pati Tripathi, AIR 2003 Allahabad 164 is concerned, in view of the previous decision of this Court, which is binding on us, we are not inclined to take a different view, more particularly when the Allahabad decision does not deal with the distinction between prescription of particular marks and prescription of particular percentage as the minimum eligibility criterion. 10. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The order dated 27.7.2009 of respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to pursue his studies in the B.Ed. Course. Civil Application stands disposed of. (SBS) Petition allowed.