JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by a student seeking admission in nursing course after clearing the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board examination i.e. Standard XII, securing 39.85 percentage of marks. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for admission by giving the benefit of rounding of his marks and to give him admission in the Management quota in the Resp. No.2 school forthwith; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Writ petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to give the admission to the petitioner provisionally and allow him to pursue his study in the Resp. No.2 school; (C) Be pleased to pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by Your Lordships in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarised as under : 1. Petitioner cleared her Standard XII examination in General (Science) stream securing 39.85 percentage (337/700) of marks. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent no.1 in the local newspaper for a nursing course, the petitioner applied for the same with requisite fees. 3. It appears that admission came to be refused by respondent no.1 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to secure minimum 40 percentage of marks in the qualifying examination i.e. Standard XII, as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Gujarat Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Rules 2011 which prescribes the eligibility criteria for admission in various General Nursing and Midwifery course. 4. We have heard learned advocate Ms.Mamta R.Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Pranav Dave for the respondents. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would vehemently submit that refusal on the part of the respondents in not giving admission to the petitioner in General Nursing and Midwifery course is untenable in law and contrary to the rules governing such admission. We have heard learned advocate Ms.Mamta R.Vyas for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Pranav Dave for the respondents. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would vehemently submit that refusal on the part of the respondents in not giving admission to the petitioner in General Nursing and Midwifery course is untenable in law and contrary to the rules governing such admission. Learned advocate would submit that 40 percent is the minimum marks required for admission and the petitioner has secured 39.85 percentage of marks, just falling short by 0.15 percentage of aggregate marks. She would submit that the respondents ought to have applied the rule of rounding off the marks. She would submit that the rule of rounding off is based on logic and commonsense. She would vehemently contend that on the basis of logic and commonsense, when the Admission Rules prescribes 40 percentage marks at the qualifying examination as the eligibility criterion, a student with 39.50 percentage or higher marks has to be considered eligible. 6. She would further contend that in the case of candidates of reserved categories, relaxation of 5 percentage is given and thereby they are entitled to get admission even at 35 percentage of marks, whereas the petitioner though obtained 39.85 percentage marks i.e. 0.15 percentage short of 40 percentage of marks, is denied admission by the centralized admission committee. Lastly, she submitted that the petitioner will not only lose the chance of getting admission in nursing course, but will not be able to get admission in any other faculty since the colleges have already started from 5th September 2011. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon few case-laws to fortify her contentions. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and another v/s. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others, reported in (2005)2 SCC 10 . Reliance has also been placed on an unreported judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court in Special Civil Application No.5854 of 2008 decided on 14th July 2008 (Patel Amitaben Amrutlal v/s. Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University and others). 8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Dave submitted that the rules make it abundantly clear that in order to qualify for admission in nursing course the petitioner has to obtain minimum 40 percentage of marks. 8. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Dave submitted that the rules make it abundantly clear that in order to qualify for admission in nursing course the petitioner has to obtain minimum 40 percentage of marks. He would submit that when emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, making it clear that atleast the said minimum marks have to be obtained by a student concerned, there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. He would submit that there is no power provided in the statute/rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to a minimum requirement. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition is devoid of any merits. 9. Learned AGP has relied upon the following case-law in support of his contentions : 1. Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another v/s. Union of India and others, reported in (2005)2 SCC 65 ; 2. Vani Pati Tripathi v/s. Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and others, reported inAIR 2003 Allahabad 164; 3. Dr.Rajiv Mangal v/s. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and another, reported in AIR 2007 Rajasthan186; 4. Noor Ali Ansari, son of Mohd. Ali v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2008(72) All L.R.446. 10. Having given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the rival contentions of the respective parties, we shall now proceed to examine the contentions on merits so as to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief or not. This petition being preferred by a student and as her entire career is at stake, we have examined all relevant aspects of the matter very closely including the rules and the position of law. 11. We may first examine the relevant rules which govern the admission in General Nursing and Midwifery course. 12. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (Guj-3 of 2008) framed rules amending the Gujarat Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. 12. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (Guj-3 of 2008) framed rules amending the Gujarat Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment) Rules, 2011. Rule 2(1)(n) thereof defines “Qualifying Examination”, which means “the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, (Standard XII, 10+2 patterns) passed in Science Stream or General Stream”. Rule 6 lays down the eligibility criteria. Rules 6(4) and 6(5) are relevant, which read as under:- “6(4) General Students should have scored minimum of forty percent in the qualifying examination. 6(5) Student shall meet minimum qualifying standards for admission as prescribed under these Rules.” Rule 12 speaks about minimum qualifying standard for admission. Rules 12(1) and 12(2) thereof read as under :- “12(1) No students shall be admitted in Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery Course unless he/she fulfills the eligibility criteria; including the minimum qualifying marks (standard) 12(2) The minimum qualifying standard for admission shall be notified by the State Government by order in the Official Gazette from time to time.” 13. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules would make it crystal clear that in order to secure admission in the nursing course, a candidate has to obtain minimum 40 percentage of marks in the qualifying examination. When emphasis is given in the rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained, making it clear that atleast the said minimum marks have to be obtained by a candidate concerned, whether this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct the Admission Committee to relax or round off the percentage from 39.85 to 40. 14. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. (supra), where the Supreme Court took the view that rule of rounding off is based on logic and commonsense. Supreme Court proceeded to explain this as under :- “...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. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not to 46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been considered for selection in general category, the respondent was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious candidates and hence entitled to appointment.” 15. Learned counsel also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this High Court in the case of Patel Amitaben Amrutlal (supra), wherein the Division Bench of this High Court, relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. (supra), held as under :- “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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. In view of the fact that admission on the basis of rounding off was given to the petitioner in the B.Ed. course last year and the petitioner even appeared in the B.Ed. 19. In view of the fact that admission on the basis of rounding off was given to the petitioner in the B.Ed. course last year and the petitioner even appeared in the B.Ed. examination held in April, 2008, the objection sought to be raised is even otherwise academic.” 20. If the ratio of the aforesaid two judgments is made applicable in the present case applying the same logic and commonsense, there would not have been any difficulty in allowing this petition and granting the relief to the petitioner as prayed for in the petition. But, we find that there are many impediments coming in the way of the petitioner and the two judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are easily distinguishable on facts. 21. In a very recent pronouncement of the Apex Court the same issue has been considered. We are referring to the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and another v/s. Rupashree Chowdhary and another, reported in (2011)8 SCC 108 . In this recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court all earlier judgments have been considered including the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v/s. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A close look at the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission (supra) suggests that the Supreme Court has not approved the theory of rounding off. Firstly, the Supreme Court held as to how the judgment of State of U.P. v/s. Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra) would not be applicable. The relevant paragraphs in the said judgment are paragraphs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, which read as under :- “7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents during the course of his arguments relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa and Another v. Damodar Nayak reported in (1997)4 SCC 560 , State of U.P. and Another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others, reported in (2005)2 SCC 10 , Union of India v. S.Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007)8 SCC 100 and Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and Another reported in (2008)1 SCC 233 . On scrutiny, we find that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. On scrutiny, we find that the findings recorded in the above referred cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts and findings recorded by this Court in the above referred cases are distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand. Almost all the aforesaid cases dealt with post or vacancies where it was allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post. Understandably, there cannot be a fraction of a post. 9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Rule 24 thereof specifically deals with the criteria for determining of candidates for interview. Rule 24 reads thus: - "24. Determination of number of candidates for interview -The Commission shall call the candidates for interview who have secured not less than forty-five per centum of marks in aggregate and a minimum of thirty-three per centum of marks in each paper in the main written examination." 10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. 11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another. v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990)3 SCC 655 . 11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Another. v. M.Tripura Sundari Devi reported in (1990)3 SCC 655 . In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: “6...when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, then it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement.” 12. The entire record of the main written examination was also produced before us which indicates that there are also candidates who have got more marks than the respondent in the aggregate but have not been able to get 33% marks in each paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case, the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks in each paper in the main written examination could and should have also been called for viva voce examination, which would amount to a very strange and complicated situation and also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of statutory provision. 13. When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the Statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration. 14. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration. 14. The High Court, in our considered opinion, has also committed an error apparent on the face of the records by allowing two more persons, who secured marks between 44.5% and 45%, to be called for the interview who were not even parties before it and who had not even shown interest subsequently to be appointed subsequent to the declaration of the results of the examination but despite the said fact the High Court directed them also to be called for the interview only on the ground that they have secured more than 44.5% of marks but less than 45% marks in the main written examination in aggregate.” 22. We have noticed that the Apex Court in Orissa Public Service Commission (supra), laid emphasis on the word 'minimum'. As per the Oxford Dictionary, the word 'minimum' means 'the least possible or attainable amount'. The Supreme Court also laid emphasis on the fact that when the rule itself prescribes the minimum percentage of marks to be obtained then there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. As a matter of fact, there is no power provided in the statute/rules permitting any such rounding off. The Supreme Court also laid emphasis on the fact that rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. The Apex Court also considered the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v/s. Pawan Kumar (supra) and held that it was a case dealing with posts and vacancies where it was allowed to be rounded off to make one whole post, as understandably there cannot be a fraction of a post. We may also refer to a Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Vani Pati Tripathi (supra), which has been confirmed by the Apex Court. In the said case, the Division Bench held as under :- “When an eligibility criteria has been fixed for appearing in an examination which is basis of a particular percentage in the examination, every candidate seeking admission must possess the minimum percentage. In the said case, the Division Bench held as under :- “When an eligibility criteria has been fixed for appearing in an examination which is basis of a particular percentage in the examination, every candidate seeking admission must possess the minimum percentage. The principle of rounding up of fraction of marks cannot be held to be applicable in a competitive examination. The principle of rounding up has been applied in calculating the majority of particular votes in election where the votes cannot be expressed in fraction. The marks obtained by candidate in an examination can be expressed in fraction and when a particular merit is required as eligibility the principle of rounding up of less marks to the next higher percentage cannot be accepted. There is no principle that percentage of marks can only be expressed in round figure. The plea that when the fraction is less than 5 it shall be ignored and when fraction is more than .5 it should be rounded up to the next figure is neither acceptable nor workable since in between .5 to one while expressing in way of percentage of total marks there may be several numbers and by rounding up of all such numbers to next whole figure unequal will be made equal.” 23. In the case of Dr.Rajiv Mangal (supra), the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court almost considered the same issue and held as under :- “In the light of the authoritative decision of the Supreme Court in the afore-referred case, we have no hesitation in holding that the expression "the minimum percentage of marks ...... shall be 50%" has to be read to mean at least 50% of the total marks and by applying the process of rounding off, the eligibility cannot be provided which a candidate failed to achieve in the competitive examination. The rule of rounding off though founded on logic and common sense would not be attracted in the context of Regulation 7 framed by the Medical Council of India.” 24. The rule of rounding off though founded on logic and common sense would not be attracted in the context of Regulation 7 framed by the Medical Council of India.” 24. The Supreme Court in the case of Mridul Dhar (supra) of course was concerned with the question of all-India quota of MBBS/BDS courses, but while dealing with that issue, also issued directions in the matter of granting admission to the effect that the merit determined by competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision like grant of marks by mode of interview or any other mode. Surely, the rule of rounding off, if applied to the marks obtained or determined in the competitive examination shall be one of the modes that may result in tinkering with the competitive examination which is not permissible. When the Supreme Court says that the merit determined by the competitive examination shall not be tinkered with by making a provision of any other mode, the Court, by applying interpretative process, cannot provide a mode that would result in tinkering with the merit determined in the competitive examination. The merit determined in the competitive examination for admission to the post-graduate medial sciences examination is solemn and cannot and must not be allowed to be tinkered with by applying an equitable rule of rounding off. 25. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Noor Ali Ansari (supra), after considering the Apex Court's decision in the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), held in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18 as under :- “11. So far as the judgments in the State of U.P. and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Ors. (supra) and Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and Anr. (supra) are concerned, they are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the aforesaid cases, the issue for consideration was regarding the percentage of reservation provided for a particular category. The percentage so provided was not qualified or to be governed by the word minimum. The principle of rounding up is based on logic and common sense: 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. The percentage so provided was not qualified or to be governed by the word minimum. The principle of rounding up is based on logic and common sense: 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. More so, while making such a calculation, the Court must keep in mind that the number of reserved vacancies do not exceed the permissible limit i.e. 50 percent. 12. In Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court refused to round up 1.86 to 2 for Scheduled Tribes observing that no candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe had challenged the determination, therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the law laid down therein is not of universal application. 13. So far as the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Anr. v. Asha Mehta (supra) is concerned, the judgment specifically records that it had been a procedure of the Public Service Commission in all other cases, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal without recording anything further merely being its order on the principle that practice adopted for a long period should not be disturbed. Such a judgment cannot be relied upon by the petitioner except in support of the contention which has been canvassed before us. 14. The case in hand is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vani Pati Tripathi v/s. Director General, Medical Education and Training, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow and Ors. (2003)1 UPLBEC 427 , wherein this Court considered large number of its earlier judgments making calculations to find out the exact number of members required for removal of an elected office bearer of the local bodies, particularly, Wahid Ullah Khan v/s. District Magistrate, Nainital and Ors. And Rajan Seth v/s. State of U.P. and Ors. (1992)1 UPLBEC 636 and came to the conclusion that where inter-se merit of the candidates is to be examined, the rounding up theory is not applicable. In the said case, the candidate seeking admission in the MBBS course could not secure the exact qualifying marks i.e. at aleast 50 percent and her contention that marks secured by her to the extent of 49.67 percent be rounded up and be read as 50 percent was rejeted. 15. In the said case, the candidate seeking admission in the MBBS course could not secure the exact qualifying marks i.e. at aleast 50 percent and her contention that marks secured by her to the extent of 49.67 percent be rounded up and be read as 50 percent was rejeted. 15. It is admitted by Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner that against the said judgment and order in Vani Pati Tripati (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the Special Leave Petition. 17. In a competition like this, there may be large number of candidates/applicants who might have secured marks equal to the petitioner or between 54.75 and 54.99 percent. No factual foundation has been laid down to the effect that in case his marks are rounded up to 55 percent, no person either of general category or to which the petitioner belongs would stand superseded. 18. In such a fact situation, it would be greatest injustice to those who had secured better marks than petitioner, but could not secure 55 percent, the plea of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on this ground also. The validity of the advertisement has been challenged on various grounds inter-alia that in the subsequent advertisement, cut off marks have been reduced from 55 percent to 50 percent. A notification which earlier cannot be challenged on a ground that a different criteria had been adopted by the competent authority at a subsequent stage. More so, the process of selection starts from the issuance of the advertisement and is to be complied within conformity with the terms and conditions incorporated therein. If for certain reasons, the cut off marks have been reduced in subsequent advertisement, petitioner cannot take benefit thereof.” 27. Having considered the entire issue threadbare and also having considered the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court and other High Courts, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. When eligibility criterion has been fixed by statutory rules which lays emphasis to the minimum marks to be obtained, then in such a case, there cannot be a question of 'rounding off'. We hold that there is no power provided in the rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. We hold that there is no power provided in the rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. The rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding or relaxation. 28. We may also state that in the Division Bench judgment of this High Court in the case of Patel Amitaben Amrutlal (supra), admission was already given to the petitioner in the B.Ed. course on the basis of rounding off and the petitioner had even appeared in the B.Ed. examination which was held in April 2008 and, therefore, the Division Bench held that the objection sought to be raised was almost academic. 29. In the present case also, counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince us by bringing it to our notice that there is a vacancy in the management quota, and as such, there should not be any difficulty for the respondents to give admission. We refrain to go into whether there exists vacant seats or not. 30. In above view of the matter, we are left with no other option but to reject the petition. The petition is accordingly rejected with no order as to cost.