JUDGMENT : P.D. Audikesavalu, J. The Appellant whose date of birth is 24.11.1992 and belongs to BC Community in General Category under PSTM, was a candidate with enrolment No. 3201175 in the common recruitment of Grade-II Police Constable/Grade-II Jail Warder/Firemen, pursuant to the notification issued by the Respondent on 23.01.2017. In that recruitment, the marks secured by the Appellant as published by the Respondent in its website was as follows:- Written Test Marks PET Marks Special Marks Total Marks 48.00 12.00 0.50 60.50 The cut-off marks with date of birth for candidates belonging to BC Community under PSTM General Category was as follows:- S. No. Post preference Cut-off mark Cut-off Date of Birth 1. Armed Reserve 68 10.11.1991 2. TSP 64.5 23.05.1993 3. Jail Warder 64 06.05.1997 4. Firemen 64 17.04.1999 2. Since the Appellant was not selected on the ground that he had not secured the cut-off marks for the category that he belonged, he filed W.P. (MD) No. 17397 of 2017 before this Court challenging the selection list issued by the Respondent on 31.08.2017 and sought for production of the video record for the 44th batch 400 meters running event in which he had participated and to award 1 full mark for having NCC 'B' certificate and to consequently include his name in the selection list of Grade-II Police Constable. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent in the Writ Petition, it was accepted that the Appellant ought to have been awarded 3 more marks in the 400 meters running event and as such, the Appellant was entitled to an aggregate of 63.50 marks. In respect of the claim made by the Appellant for award of 1 mark for holding NCC 'B' certificate, it was pointed out that no such certificate had been produced by him and he had been rightly awarded ½ mark for NCC service of one year and the same could not be increased further. On that basis, the contention of the Respondent was that since the Appellant had not secured the requisite 64 marks, he could not claim for selection on the basis of revised 63.50 marks that he was found to be eligible after the filing of the Writ Petition. 4. On that basis, the contention of the Respondent was that since the Appellant had not secured the requisite 64 marks, he could not claim for selection on the basis of revised 63.50 marks that he was found to be eligible after the filing of the Writ Petition. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to clause 31 of the information brochure for the recruitment, which provides for awarding the following special marks:- Particulars Maximum Marks NCC 2 NSS 1 Sports 2 In respect of the special marks for NCC, the allotment of marks is as follows:- Particulars Marks One year member ½ B-Certificate 1 C-Certificate/Petty Officer/ outstanding student in All India National Level 2 Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2018 in W.P. (MD) No. 17397 of 2017 passed by the Learned Judge accepting the contentions of the Respondent, the Appellant has preferred this intra-Court Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. A.K. Baskarapandian, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant raised the following two contentions:- (i) Inasmuch as the Appellant had secured 63.50 marks, the same ought to have been rounded off as 64 marks, placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kavitha -vs- Director of Teacher Education (Order dated 21.04.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 45 of 2017). (ii) Having regard to the fact that ½ mark was to be awarded for 1 year in NCC, taking into account that he had served in NCC for 2 years, he would be entitled to 1 mark. 7. (ii) Having regard to the fact that ½ mark was to be awarded for 1 year in NCC, taking into account that he had served in NCC for 2 years, he would be entitled to 1 mark. 7. In respect of the claim made by the Appellant that he is entitled to the benefit of rounding off the 63.50 marks obtained by him as 64 marks, so as to fall within the cut-off marks prescribed for the category to which he belongs, relying on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kavitha -vs- Director of Teacher Education (Order dated 21.04.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 45 of 2017), it requires to be pointed out that on a perusal of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited in that order for arriving at that conclusion, no such principle as sought to be canvassed by the Appellant has been laid down. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab -vs- Asha Mehta [ (1997) 11 SCC 410 ], had declined to interfere with the decision of the Public Service Commission under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by holding that the question whether 32.5 percent could be rounded off as 33 percent was purely arithmetic calculation, a procedure which the Public Service Commission in fairness has been adopting in all other cases. In other words, it had not been ruled in that decision that the recruiting authority has to round off the marks. In so far as the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Pavan kumar Tiwari [ (2005) 2 SCC 10 ] is concerned, the Court had merely worked out the number of posts that had to be allocated in terms of the percentage of reservation for the various category, viz., General, Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class and Scheduled Tribes and the same does not at all relate to awarding marks as in this case. 8. 8. In this context, we may refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Orissa Public Service Commission -vs- Rupashree Chowdhary [ (2011) 8 SCC 108 ], Banu Pratap -vs- State of Haryana [(2011) 15 SCC 304], and West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board -vs- Sarit Chakraborty [(2015) 13 SCC 668], in which it has been authoritatively held that when there is no such power conferred in the statute, the question of rounding off marks or giving grace marks, so as to benefit a candidate for the minimum requirement has to be ruled out. Since the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Kavitha -vs- Director of Teacher Education (Order dated 21.04.2017 in W.A. (MD) No. 45 of 2017), runs contrary to the aforesaid binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which squarely covers the dispute and the other rulings cited therein are inapplicable for the reasons already stated, we are of the considered view that the same is not good law. That apart, the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant for rounding off the marks ignores the conceptual difference between minimum marks required for eligibility and cut-off marks for selection. The cut-off marks with the date of birth published by the Respondent, refers to the mark secured by the last candidate within the reservation allotted for the respective category and it is not stipulation of any minimum marks for eligibility. Therefore, it would not be possible to round off 63.50 marks secured by the Appellant to 64 marks as claimed for the purpose of enabling him to be selected. 9. Coming to the next question regarding the enhancement of special marks for the Appellant for NCC, the Learned Judge who heard the Writ Petition, considered the rival submissions and held as follows:- “7. ...The information brochure provides for allotment of only ½ marks for one year membership in NCC. There is no provision of awarding one mark for two years training. What has not been provided in the information brochure cannot be granted by this Court. In the very nature of things, the information brochure or recruitment notification will have to be applied as they are. This Court can never add or subtract. Of course, it is unfortunate that the information brochure does not contain a provision for awarding 1 mark for “A” certificate holders. In the very nature of things, the information brochure or recruitment notification will have to be applied as they are. This Court can never add or subtract. Of course, it is unfortunate that the information brochure does not contain a provision for awarding 1 mark for “A” certificate holders. What was omitted to be awarded in the brochure cannot be supplied by this Court. I therefore, find no merit in the Petitioner's plea.” We are fully in agreement with the aforesaid cogent reasoning of that view taken and we do not find any infirmity in the same requiring interference. 10. That apart, if the aforesaid self-serving interpretations made on behalf of the Appellant in this regard are accepted, the logical consequence that would follow is that not only the Appellant, but also all other similarly placed candidates would have to be given the same benefit, irrespective of the fact whether they approached the Court or not, since the normal rule is that when a particular person is found to be entitled to relief on the basis of a particular yardstick in public recruitment, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit and not doing so would amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar Srivastava [ (2015) 1 SCC 347 ]. 11. As we do not find any merits in the Writ Appeal, the same is dismissed. No costs.