Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. The respondent is the writ petitioner. He is a Tamil graduate having obtained the degree in 2006. With a view to joining the B.Ed. course, on 17. 2009, he applied to the appellant for an eligibility Certificate. He belongs to the Most Backward Community. As per the norms, he must have obtained 43% in B.A. degree to obtain the eligibility Certificate. He had obtained 673 marks out of 1500 marks in the B.A. degree examination, which works out to 42.90%. Since he did not have 43% marks, he requested that the Rule of rounding off be applied and 42.90% should be rounded off to 43%. He referred to a case in an identical situation. Learned Single Judge accepted his claim. Therefore, the State has filed this writ appeal. 2. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that the Rules are very clear. There can be no rounding off. If the percentage of 42.90% is rounded off to 43%, then the respondent/writ petitioner is getting an addition of 5.5 marks and more, which cannot be done. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that the other students, who had obtained less than the minimum marks for each community, had accepted that the Regulations bind them and they will not be entitled to join the B.Ed. course. The writ petitioner, without obtaining the requisite marks, has marched over them. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that it is difficult to calculate the consequences if rounding off is applied to one individual when the number of colleges and number of students are taken into account. Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that there are 644 colleges and more than 64,000 students. In support of his submissions, he also relied on the decision in 2008 (4) CTC 741 reported in the case of MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY v. GIS JOSE. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that all that the writ petitioner wanted was that the eligibility Certificate was to be given for admission to B.Ed. course. Learned Single Judge has rightly held in his favour, relying on the decision in (2005) 2 SCC 10 reported in the case of STATE OF U.P. v. PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submitted that all that the writ petitioner wanted was that the eligibility Certificate was to be given for admission to B.Ed. course. Learned Single Judge has rightly held in his favour, relying on the decision in (2005) 2 SCC 10 reported in the case of STATE OF U.P. v. PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI. 4. Regulations, which deals with the eligibility for admission to the courses, in first paragraph Note (d), stated as follows:- "(d) Rounding off of marks to the next higher integer will not be permitted." 5. Therefore, it is clear that rounding off is not permitted. In the grounds of appeal, it is specifically stated that by this rounding off, the student has obtained an increase of 5.5 marks. This is impermissible. When the Regulations are clear, the appellant as well as the students are bound by the Regulation. There is no scope for any discretion in this regard. 6. In (2005) 2 SCC 10 (cited supra), the question was with regard to reservation and application of prescribed percentage to general and reserved categories and the vacancy that arose was a fraction. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that logic and common sense require that a fraction of vacancy must be rounded off. This reasoning cannot be applied to marks. 7. In 2008(4) CTC 741 (cited supra), the Supreme Court clearly held that when there is a prescribed cut off marks for admission to M.Sc. Computer Science course, no student can be admitted in violation of the said Rule and misplaced sympathy should not be shown in breach of Rules. In that case, the student, who had obtained 53.3% as against the minimum requirement of 55%, was allowed to continue. The Supreme Court held that the completion of course and writing of exams were all illegal. 8. In the interest of justice as well as uniformity and consistency, Courts must apply the regulations strictly to all the students and when the students have not obtained the marks as required for the purpose of obtaining admission, the question of giving grace marks by exercising discretion and granting admission does not arise. We may feel sorry for the student, who has missed the winning post by a whisker. But the fact remains he has missed it. We may feel sorry for the student, who has missed the winning post by a whisker. But the fact remains he has missed it. We have no authority nor the discretion to push him past it ignoring the law or the Rules or Regulations. Judicial discretion is limited. It cannot be absolute. Justice Aharon Barak (Supreme Court, Israel) remarks in his great book "The Nature of Judicial Discretion" "Not every option that the Judge would prefer is possible, not every consideration is permissible". In the words of Lord Justice Greene M.R., "The Judge(s) ............ must avoid idiosyncrasies, his view of right and wrong must conform to a practical standard....." Judicial discretions are to be taken as precedents after examining the facts. Here the eligibility Certificate was required for the purpose of obtaining admission to the B.Ed. course for the academic year 20092010 and the impugned order passed by the appellant has rightly referred to the Regulations, which says that rounding off shall not be permitted. The learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered. The writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.