ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.8.2011 passed by respondents No.1 and 2, whereby petitioner who was a candidate for appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspector, has been informed that since he does not fulfil the prescribed educational qualification, his selection is cancelled. 2. It is petitioner's case that he had his B.Sc. degree from Jiwaji University, Gwalior, and had secured 49.67% marks. It is further submitted that various vacancies were notified on behalf of the respondents by the M.P. Professional Examination Board, Bhopal, for which petitioner had also applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. It is submitted that qualification prescribed in the information brochure (Annexure P-3) is graduate from a Government recognized institute with 50% marks. It is petitioner's contention that he had appeared for the selection process and was declared successful, but his candidature has been rejected only on the ground that he had not secured 50% marks in graduation. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that rounding-off of the marks is provided under clause-2.10.5 of the rules, therefore his 49.67% marks should have been rounded-off to 50% marks. 3. Assailing the order passed by respondents No.1 and 2, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and another v. Damodar Nayak and another, as reported in (1997)4 SCC 560 , wherein in the matter of Grant-in-Aid, it was provided that it will be payable on acquiring Masters degree with 54% marks. Respondent lecturer had secured Masters degree with 53.9% marks on 10.07.1987. It was held that minimum percentage of marks 53.9% were to be treated as 54% marks for the purpose of release of Grant-in-Aid. 4. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Shrivastava v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior [ 2002(2) MPHT 303 ], wherein petitioner had secured 49.77% marks in 10+2 examination and 53.99 % marks in B.Sc. examination. Petitioner was deprived of admission in Bachelor of Pharmacy Course by the respondent- University on the ground that he had not obtained 50% marks in 10+2 examination. The Court was pleased to hold that petitioner's aggregate 49.77% marks can be treated to be 50% marks as rules in question does not debar rounding-off of the figure. 5. examination. Petitioner was deprived of admission in Bachelor of Pharmacy Course by the respondent- University on the ground that he had not obtained 50% marks in 10+2 examination. The Court was pleased to hold that petitioner's aggregate 49.77% marks can be treated to be 50% marks as rules in question does not debar rounding-off of the figure. 5. Respondents have filed a return and in the return, they have denied the allegations of the petitioner and have clearly submitted that since the petitioner had not passed graduation with 50% marks, therefore he was not entitled to get the appointment as respondents had appointed only those candidates selected by Vyapam, who were possessing the degree of graduation with actual 50% marks (without rounding-off the marks) or more than 50% marks and who were otherwise not ineligible during counselling. 6. This issue of rounding-off of the marks has already been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and another v. Rupashree Chowdhary and another, as reported in AIR 2011 SC 3276 , wherein it has been held that in absence of any authority provided under any Statue/rules permitting any rounding-off or giving grace marks, benefit of rounding-off marks, cannot be given. 7. Same is the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Banglore v. G. Hemlatha and others, as reported in (2012)8 SCC 568 , wherein it has been held that in absence of any provision for relaxation or rounding-off, no such benefit can be granted, no relief on this count is due. 8. This aspect has been considered by Bench of this Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh v. State of M.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.4340/2013 (S) vide order dated 3.10.2013, wherein the selection was to be made for the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak through Professional Examination Board and wherein the Court was of the view that benefit of rounding-off to treat 44.89 marks to be 45 marks is not permissible and had dismissed the petition treating that petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of rounding-off. 9. 9. In view of such decisions of the Supreme Court and that of this High Court, I am of the considered view that in absence of there being any provision in the rules for conduct of examination permitting rounding-off of the marks, such rounding-off of the minimum qualifying marks in the graduation is not permissible, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in Clause- 2.10.5, rounding-off has been provided, is of no avail inasmuch as the rounding-off has been provided for rounding-off fractional marks in the competitive examination and there is no provision for rounding-off of fractional marks in the qualifying examination and this being the distinction, rounding-off in the competitive examination as prescribed under clause- 2.10.5 of the rules, will not be of any help to the petitioner. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.