JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed with the prayer that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued declaring the condition of minimum 50% marks in Senior Secondary Examination for participation in Pre-BSTC Course as illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution of India. 2. Alternatively, it has been prayed that this Court may issue a direction that 49.54% marks secured by the petitioner in Senior Secondary School Examination be rounded off and treated as 50% to enable the petitioner to be considered as eligible for Pre-BSTC Course tests in which the petitioner has secured 339 marks over the requirement of minimum 240 marks. 3. So far as first prayer of the petitioner declaring the condition of minimum 50% marks in Senior Secondary School Examination for participation in Pre-BSTC Course to be arbitrary is concerned, I am of the view that the prescription of minimum marks in any examination is a function of experts and it is not for this court to invoke its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction thereon for the asking. Otherwise also, matters pertaining to the field of experts such as prescription of minimum marks cannot be substituted by a bald opinion of this court without more. No grounds at all have been advanced for laying the challenge in issue or argued. I, therefore, find no occasion whatsoever to issue a declaration that prescription of minimum marks as 50% in Senior Secondary School Examination for participation in Pre-BSTC Course is arbitrary or in any manner whatsoever hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Alternatively, the other prayer of the petitioner is that 49.54 % marks secured by the petitioner in the Senior Secondary School Examination be treated as 50% on the principle of rounding off. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of this court rendered in Rajul Arora v. Jai Narain Vyas University, reported in 2006 (2) RLW 1054 in support of his case whereby learned Single Judge of this Court had directed that 44.83 % marks secured by the petitioner in the aforesaid case be treated as 45% on the principle of 'rounding off' for the purpose of admission to LL.B Course. 6. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that there is no force in the submissions so made even on issue of the purported right of petitioner to have "rounded off" his 49.54% marks in the Senior Secondary School Examination for writing the Pre-BSTC Examination. "Rounding off' marks is not a legal right. The concept of "rounding off" was initially a rule of convenience for the purposes of accounting. Subsequently, it mutated as a rule of logic in the context of the necessity felt in situations where without rounding off the situation was unworkable. Illustration in this regard can be had to determination of seats under various quotas and situations where number of seats in a particular quota were determined in fraction/s and thus unworkable. Consequently, the rule of "rounding off" was invoked to bring a fraction of a seat to the nearest whole number. 7. The above situation does not obtain where the marks were awarded in a school examination or in an eligibility test. There is no situation of unworkability and hence of necessity. The marks obtained are to be maintained as achieved, otherwise the ineligible would be rendered eligible. This Court does not have a requisite jurisdiction to turn ineligible candidates into eligible candidates. 8. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13846/2010, Sulochana Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 22.12.2010, this Court has held that rounding off of marks cannot be accepted to render an ineligible candidate, eligible and a candidate short of requisite marks even by a fraction cannot be considered to be eligible. Reference may also make to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Roopa Shree Choudhary & Anr decided on 02.08.2011 , wherein it has been observed that when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made based thereon then rounding off is impermissible to help a candidate cross the eligibility bar. Recently, this Court in the case of Swati Asawa v. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Anr., SBCWP No. 9686/2011, decided on 23.11.2011, relying upon the aforesaid two judgments held as under: "The principle of rounding off is an accounting principle dictated by the convenience of the accountants. Recently, this Court in the case of Swati Asawa v. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Anr., SBCWP No. 9686/2011, decided on 23.11.2011, relying upon the aforesaid two judgments held as under: "The principle of rounding off is an accounting principle dictated by the convenience of the accountants. The logic of the principle was imported into service jurisprudence where it mutated as a principle of necessity in the context of determination of quotas, where fraction of a seat arrived at had to be made workable by rounding off to the nearest whole number. This was done because without rounding off the determination of seats in the respective 'quotas would have been unworkable. This situation does not obtain in cases of meeting of eligibility criterion. The issue of unworkability cannot arise in case of determination of eligibility and hence the "principle of necessity" cannot be invoked to find a solution to an intractable problem. " 9. This Court cannot apply the principle of rounding off to marks in an examination as in the facts & circumstances of the present case. 10. Once the petitioner consequently is not found eligible in Pre-BSTC Test, the petitioner's performance in the said test is irrelevant. 11. Accordingly, I find no force in the writ petition. Same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******