Judgment H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. These writ appeals are by the Karnataka Examinations Authority and are directed against the Order dated 28th July, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.82539-540/2011. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of the learned single Judge. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 by directing the appellant-Examinations authority to construe the aggregate marks of 39.66% secured by respondent No.1 in Physics, Chemistry & Mathematics in the qualifying examination namely, second year pre-university examination held in March 2011 as 40%, by applying the Rule for rounding off numbers. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that no rounding off of the marks is permissible in law in view of the statutory rule requiring a minimum of forty percent marks in the aggregate in the optional subjects in the qualifying examination. In support of his submission, he relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VERSUS RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY [ (2011) 8 SCC 108 ]. It is relevant to refer to the following observations made in the said judgment in the context of interpreting Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules. 2007. "9. The appointment to the post of Civil Judge (JD) under the Orissa Judicial Services is guided by the 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. 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 Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society versus M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1(1990) 3 SCC 6551. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p.658, para 6) "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. 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." (underlining supplied) 4. It is relevant to state that under the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for Admission to Government seats in Professional Educational Institutions Rules, 2006 (‘'the Karnataka Admission Rules, 2006’ for short), for a candidate belonging to ‘Other backward classes’ to be eligible for admission to any of the engineering degree courses, he/she should have inter alia secured not less than forty percent marks in the aggregate in the optional subjects in the qualifying examination i.e. second year pre-university examination or any equivalent examination held preceding the Entrance test. 5. As noticed above, the Karnataka Admission Rules, 2006 prescribe a certain percentage of minimum aggregate marks to fulfill the eligibility criteria: they do not provide for any rounding off of the marks secured by the candidates. 5. As noticed above, the Karnataka Admission Rules, 2006 prescribe a certain percentage of minimum aggregate marks to fulfill the eligibility criteria: they do not provide for any rounding off of the marks secured by the candidates. When the rules prescribe a certain percentage of minimum aggregate marks to fulfill the eligibility criteria and when they do not provide for any rounding off, it is not permissible in law, as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above, to apply the rule of rounding off so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. Hence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the appellant to construe the aggregate marks of 39.66% secured by respondent No.1 as 40% is unsustainable in law. The impugned order of the learned single Judge is therefore set aside and writ petition Nos. 82539 540 of 2011 are dismissed. Appeals allowed.