Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to accept his candidature for recruitment to the post of Lecturers under the Tamil Nadu Collegiate Educastional Service for Government Arts and Science Colleges based on his qualification as Post Graduate degree in M.A. (English). 2. The writ petition when it came up for admission on 8.6.2009, the same was admitted. It is the case of the petitioner that he is having B.A. Degree in English, M.A. Degree in English with B.Ed, M.Ed., and M.Phil in English. He had applied for the post of lecturer in English. He was also called for an oral test. According to the petitioner, he was awarded 20 out of 29 marks on certificate valuation. At the time of oral interview, maximum of 10 marks will be allotted for the same. It is claimed by the petitioner that in his P.G. Degree, he got 54.88% of marks, and that his case was not considered. Therefore, he claimed that it should be rounded off to 55% which is the minimum eligible mark. Hence he had come to this court. 3. He also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 10 and in paragraph 7 of the judgment it was observed as follows: "(7.) We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted by the High Court. 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. 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." 4. Subsequently, by an order dated 14.12.2009, the application for interim direction to attend the interview has become infructuous and the same was also dismissed. 5. 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." 4. Subsequently, by an order dated 14.12.2009, the application for interim direction to attend the interview has become infructuous and the same was also dismissed. 5. It is an admitted case that for the purpose of recruitment to the post of Lecturer, the regulations framed by the UGC will have to be applied and that the regulation requires that a persion must have 55% of marks in the PG degree + other qualifications. Whether 54.88% mark obtained by the petitioner can be rounded of to 55%, that question is no longer res integra. 6. The Supreme Court in Selin Mary Mammen Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University and others reported in (2008) 17 SCC 615 in paragraphs 2,5 and 6 had observed as follows: "(2.) The appellant sought for admission in Msc (Physics) course of study. The rules of the University required that the candidate, to be qualified for admission, should have secured not less than 55% marks in the qualifying examination. The qualifying examination is Bsc (Physics). Adminttedly, the appellant had secured 549 marks out of a total of 1000 and this is how her percentage came to 54.9%. She was allowed admission by the college. Later on, her application came to the notice of the University. The University formed an opinion that rounding off the fraction to the nearest whole number was not permissible, and, therefore, the appellant was ineligible for seeking admission. (5.) The High Court has taken a view that the admission granted to the appellant was in violation of the rule and, thereore, the ineligibility is not liable to be condoned. (6.) Without entering into the question of correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the High Court, we think the present one to be a fit case for giving relief to the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case, exercising our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; the marks secured by the appellant in the qualifying examination fell short only by one mark in the total of 1000. That apart, she has prosecuted her full course of study and has also taken the examination, the result whereof only remains to be declared. That apart, she has prosecuted her full course of study and has also taken the examination, the result whereof only remains to be declared. We deem it a just and proper case to direct the respondents to declare the appellants result without treating her as ineligible or disqualified. Needless to say, inasmuch the order is being passed in the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, it does not become a precedent for other cases." (Emphasis added) 7. The said judgment came to be once again referred by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Mahtma Gandhi University and another Vs. Gis Jose and others reported in (2008) 17 SCC 611, wherein the Supreme Court said that the said judgment cannot be followed as a precedent and in paragraphs 9 and 11, it was observed as follows: "(9.) Learned counsel for the student relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Selin Mary Mammen vs. Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.689 of 2004 delivered on 3.2.2004], a judgment delivered by Lahoti, J. Apart from the fact that the factual position is different in that case, there were no timely notices given regarding the irregular admission to the student as in the present case. (10.) The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, CBSE vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others [ (2003) 7 SCC 719 ]. In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, this Court observed as follows : "(6.) This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions...........". (11.) In the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the examination which was totally illegal."(Emphasis added) 8. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions...........". (11.) In the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the examination which was totally illegal."(Emphasis added) 8. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 in paragraphs 39 to 42, 48, 50, 51, 66 had observed as follows: "(39.) In Prit Singh (Dr.) v. S.K. Mangal20 this Court examined the case of a person who did not possess the requisite percentage of marks as per the statutory requirement and held that he cannot hold the post observing: (SCC pp. 718-19, paras 12-13) “(12.) ‘It need not be pointed out that the sole object of prescribing qualification that the candidate must have a consistently good academic record with first or high second class Masters degree for appointment to the post of a Principal, is to select a most suitable person in order to maintain excellence and standard of teaching in the institution apart from administration. ‘The appellant had not secured even second class marks in his Master of Arts Examination whereas the requirement was first or high second class (55%). The irresistible conclusion is that on the relevant date the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications. (13.) ‘on the date of the appointment the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications and as such his appointment had to be quashed.” (emphasis added) (40.) In Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission this Court examined the issue as to whether a person lacking eligibility can be appointed and if so, whether such irregularity/illegality can be cured/condoned. After considering the provisions of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission Rules, 1983 and the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, this Court came to a conclusion that lacking eligibility as per the rules/advertisement cannot be cured at any stage and making appointment of such a person tantamounts to an illegality and not an irregularity, and thus cannot be cured. A person lacking the eligibility cannot approach the court for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. A person lacking the eligibility cannot approach the court for the reason that he does not have a right which can be enforced through court. (41.) This Court in Pramod Kumar further held as under: (SCC p. 160, para 18) “(18.) If the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, ordinarily the same cannot be condoned. Such an act cannot be ratified. An appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law. An illegality cannot be regularised, particularly, when the statute in no unmistakable term says so. Only an irregularity can be. [See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)22, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh and Post Master General v. Tutu Das (Dutta).]” Relaxation (42.) In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University issue of relaxation of eligibility came up for consideration before this Court wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 425-26, paras 15-16) “(15.) ‘We regretfully but respectfully disagree with the Division Bench and uphold the sense of high second class attributed by the learned Single Judge. The midline takes us to 54% and although it is unpalatable to be mechanical and mathematical, we have to hold that those who have not secured above 54% marks cannot claim to have obtained a high second class and are ineligible. (16.) ‘We have earlier held that the power to relax, as the Ordinance now runs, insofar as high second class is concerned, does not exist. Inevitably, the appointment of the 3 respondents violate the Ordinance and are, therefore, illegal.” (emphasis added) (48.) In Bhanu Prasad Panda (Dr.) v. Sambalpur University30 one of the questions raised has been as to whether a person not possessing the required eligibility of qualification i.e. 55% marks in Masters degree can be appointed in view of the fact that UGC refused to grant relaxation. On the issue of relaxation of eligibility, the Court held as under: (SCC p. 536, para 5) “(5.) ‘the essential requirement of academic qualification of a particular standard and grade viz. 55%, in the ‘relevant subject’ for which the post is advertised, cannot be rendered redundant or violated’. On the issue of relaxation of eligibility, the Court held as under: (SCC p. 536, para 5) “(5.) ‘the essential requirement of academic qualification of a particular standard and grade viz. 55%, in the ‘relevant subject’ for which the post is advertised, cannot be rendered redundant or violated’. ‘The rejection by UGC of the request of the Department in this case to relax the condition relating to 55% marks at postgraduation level - is to be the last word on the claim of the appellant and there could be no further controversy raised in this regard.” (emphasis added) (50.) In the absence of an enabling provision for grant of relaxation, no relaxation can be made. Even if such a power is provided under the statute, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. (See Union of India v. Dharam Pal.) Such a power cannot be exercised treating it to be an implied, incidental or necessary power for execution of the statutory provisions. Even an implied power is to be exercised with care and caution with reasonable means to remove the obstructions or overcome the resistance in enforcing the statutory provisions or executing its command. Incidental and ancillary powers cannot be used in utter disregard of the object of the statute. Such power can be exercised only to make such legislation effective so that the ultimate power will not become illusory, which otherwise would be contrary to the intent of the legislature. (Vide Matajog Dobey v. H.S. Bhari and State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society.) (51.) More so, relaxation in this manner is tantamount to changing the selection criteria after initiation of selection process, which is not permissible at all. Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. (Vide K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi.) (66.) In State of Orissa v. Damodar Nayak, question arose that in case the teacher at the time of appointment, did not possess the requisite eligibility i.e. qualifications, whether he could claim any benefit under the grant-in-aid scheme. The respondent teacher therein had secured 53.9% marks and required eligibility provided for 54%. This Court held that undoubtedly 53.9% marks were very close to required marks i.e. 54%, but the teacher so appointed did not possess the eligibility. The respondent teacher therein had secured 53.9% marks and required eligibility provided for 54%. This Court held that undoubtedly 53.9% marks were very close to required marks i.e. 54%, but the teacher so appointed did not possess the eligibility. The court took notice of the fact that he was appointed in 1978 but acquired further qualification on 10-7-1987, and held: “Admittedly, since the first respondent on the date of his appointment was not possessing the requisite qualification and acquired the same only on 10-7-1987 he will be eligible to the benefit of the grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1-8-1987 and onwards.” (Emphasis added) 9. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cots.