Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 748 (KAR)

Md. Aamir Waseem v. State of Karnataka

2011-07-28

N.K.PATIL

body2011
Judgment : PATIL, J 1. Petitioner in these petitions has sought for a direction, directing the third respondent herein to treat the percentage of the petitioner in the qualifying examination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as 40% by applying the rule of Mathematics with regard to rounding off of numbers, while the petitioner has secured 39.666% in the qualifying examination. Further, he has sought for a direction to third respondent to publish an additional rank list giving ranking to the petitioner for engineering course pursuant to Common Entrance Test-2011 considering the marks obtained by the petitioner, in the common Entrance Test Conducted in 2011, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been prosecuting his studies at Farhan Composite Pre-University Arts and Science College at Gulbarga. Through the said college, he appeared for the II year Pre-University Examination, conducted in the month of March 2011 and he has secured the marks out of 100, as follows. Thus, the aggregate percentage of marks obtained is 42.66%, whereas the aggregate percentage of marks in respect of optional subjects, viz. Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics (hereinafter referred to as “PCM” for short), is 39.666%. Unfortunately, he could not secure aggregate of 40% in respect of the optional subjects, viz, PCM, but could secure only 39.666%. 3. Further, it is his specific case that he belongs to 2B category (Muslim). Immediately after coming to know of the said percentage of marks, petitioner has apprised the matter to the competent authorities, requesting them to round off the aggregate percentage of English Hindi Physics Chemistry Mathematics Biology Total 50 44 39 45 35 43 256 marks secured in respect of PCM, by rounding off to 40% from 39.666%, secured by him. But, his request is neither considered nor fresh ranking is awarded in the CET2011 rank list. Since the aggregate percentage of 39.666% secured in PCM is not rounded off to 40%, by applying the rules of Mathematics regarding rounding-off of numbers, the authorities off the CET/Karnataka Examination Authority have not assigned the ranking to the petitioner for taking up admission for Engineering course through CET. Therefore, he is constrained to redress his grievance by presenting these petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stand supra. 4. Therefore, he is constrained to redress his grievance by presenting these petitions, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stand supra. 4. The submission of Sri Ameer Deshpande, Learned Counsel for petitioner at the outset is that, since the competent authorities have not considered the request of the petitioner to round off his aggregate percentage from 39.666% to 40% in respect of the optional subjects, viz PCM, the petitioner is not assigned any ranking in the CET Rank list published for the year 2011, for taking up admission for Engineering course. He further submits that, the petitioner even apprised the respondents 2 and 3, bringing it to their notice the order dated 1st September 2010 passed in the case of MRS. G. HEMALATHA vs. THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES Writ Petition No.41041/2008, dated 1st September 2010, BY THE Learned Single Judge, which is affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.10223/2010. In spite of the well settled cannons of law laid down by this Court, neither respondents 1 to 3 has considered nor modified the rank list of the CET-2011. Hence, in view of non consideration of his request, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the case of petitioner, in the light of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court, referred above. 5. Per contra, Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, inter alia, contended and submitted that, the competent authority is not empowered to round it off from 39.666% secured by him to 40% in respect of optional subjects, PCM. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. 6. After careful consideration of the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and after perusal of the entire material available on file, I am of the view that the Learned Counsel for petitioner is right in stating that there is provision to consider regarding rounding-off of numbers on the basis of the marks secured by a candidate in the Examination, by following the rules of Mathematics in regard to the rounding off of numbers. The Learned Single Judge of this Court, while answering the question. The Learned Single Judge of this Court, while answering the question. “whether the petitioner who has secured 54.71% is enabled to claim that she has secured 55%?”, has gone into the matter in minute details of rules of Mathematics, after collecting necessary data and marks secured by the individuals in the qualifying Examinations and held that the Authorities ought to have applied the Rules of Mathematics as regards rounding off of numbers. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s aggregate percentage of marks in the qualifying examination is 39.666%. If the same is rounded off, following the rules of mathematics, regarding rounding off of numbers, it comes to 40%, by which, he would be entitled to a ranking in the CET-2011, after considering the marks obtained by him in the Common Entrance Test conducted during 2011, enabling him to take up admission to prosecute his Engineering course. 8. If the ratio of law laid down by the Learned Single Judge in MRS. G. HEMALATHA’S case (supra), affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court is taken into consideration, I am of the view that, rules of mathematics regarding rounding off of numbers can be applied to the case on hand. In the instant case, the petitioner has secured aggregate percentage of marks of 39.666% as against the required eligible aggregate percentage of 40%. By following the rules of Mathematics, the said percentage may be rounded to 40%. 9. Further it must be noted that, the Court has passed a detailed order as early as on 1st September 2010 in Writ Petition No.41041/2008 in the case of MRS. G HEMALATHA vs. THE REGISTRAR, RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND OTHERS. The Competent Authorities, in consultation with the academicians, educationists and other experts in the field, ought to have taken a pragmatic decision, to remove these type of anomalies, in the best interest of the student fraternity. Further it should be noticed that the aim and object of the preamble of the Education Act is to encourage students to secure higher qualifications and any amendment brought should ensure to the benefit of the students. In this regard, it is needless to mention that it is open for the Competent Authority to make necessary amendments to the rules and regulations of the Act. 10. In this regard, it is needless to mention that it is open for the Competent Authority to make necessary amendments to the rules and regulations of the Act. 10. In the light of the discussion made above, the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed in part. The percentage of marks secured by the petitioner is directed to be construed as 40% in PCM as against 39.666% by applying the rules of Mathematics with regard to rounding off of numbers. Further the third respondent is directed to take note of the above directions and publish fresh/additional rank list, construing aggregate percentage of marks secured by petitioner in PCM as 40% coupled with the percentage of marks obtained in the examination conducted by CET, and assign the ranking to the petitioner to enable him to take up admission for the Engineering course through CET-2011, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one week either from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or an production of the same by the counsel for petitioner along with his representation, whichever is earlier. Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of respondent 1 to 3, within four weeks from today.