ORDER : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned merit list dated 30.08.2013 and appointment order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner in the post of Lab Technician (Electronics and Telecommunication subject) at respondent no. 3 Polytechnic, by awarding proper marks for her experience, with consequential benefits, in accordance with law. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued by the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Mahasamund on 28.01.2013 for various posts including 3 posts of Lab Technician out of which 1 post was reserved for the ST category in the mechanical department; 1 post was reserved for UR category in the electronic department and 1 post was reserved for UR (female) candidate. The advertisement was issued pursuant to the Chhattisgarh Technical Education Class-III (Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 2005. The method of recruitment was marks obtained by respective candidates in terms of educational qualification, experience, and interview. As per the advertisement, a maximum of 10 marks were to be awarded for experience and the distribution of marks was 2 marks for every one year of experience. The petitioner being a diploma holder in Electronics and Telecommunications submitted her application. She was working as a Guest Lecturer at Government ITI, Koni, Bilaspur where she worked for 3 years, 9 months and 14 days. A certificate in this regard was also produced. The petitioner applied at 4 places, namely, (i) Government Polytechnic College, Takhatpur; (ii) Government Polytechnic College, Mahasamund; (iii) Government Polytechnic College, Bilaspur, and (iv) Government Engineering College, Bilaspur for the post of Lab Technician. A merit list was prepared at all four places on different dates. The petitioner was awarded 8 marks for experience at Government Polytechnic College, Mahasamund; 7.57 marks at Government Polytechnic College, Bilaspur; 7.58 marks at Government Engineering College, Bilaspur and only 6 marks were awarded at Government Polytechnic College, Takhatpur for the experience. A merit list was prepared at all four places on different dates. The petitioner was awarded 8 marks for experience at Government Polytechnic College, Mahasamund; 7.57 marks at Government Polytechnic College, Bilaspur; 7.58 marks at Government Engineering College, Bilaspur and only 6 marks were awarded at Government Polytechnic College, Takhatpur for the experience. At Government Polytechnic College, Takhatpur, Anupama Shrivastava was selected since she secured 68.15 marks out of 100 whereas respondent No. 5 secured 68.12 marks and remained at serial No. 1 on the waiting list. The petitioner secured 68 marks and remained at serial No. 2 on the waiting list. The selected candidate, Anupama Shrivastava did not join the service, therefore respondent No. 5 was offered the appointment and she joined the service. She received the appointment order in her favour on 30.09.2013. 3. Mr. Prateek Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that members of the recruitment committee/panel at Government Polytechnic College, Takhatpur and Government Polytechnic College, Mahasamund were the same. The petitioner was awarded 8 marks in Government Polytechnic College, Mahasamund for the experience of a total period of 3 years, 9 months and 14 days whereas the same panel awarded 6 marks for the same period of experience at Government Polytechnic College, Takhatpur. Thus, the decision of the recruitment panel was erroneous, discriminatory and contrary to the Rules, 2005 and conditions of advertisement. He further submitted that if the petitioner had been awarded 8 marks then her total marks would have become 70 out of 100. He also submitted that the method adopted by the recruitment panel was thus bad in law. He prayed that the order of appointment issued in favour of respondent No. 5 dated 30.09.2013 deserves to be quashed and the authorities may be directed to award appropriate marks for experience to the petitioner and issue her appointment order. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 5. Mr. Akash Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submitted that the principle of rounding-off would not apply. He referred to Rule 11(3)(k) of the Rules, 2005 which provides about ‘Required Experience-10 marks (Two marks for 1 year)’. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 5. Mr. Akash Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submitted that the principle of rounding-off would not apply. He referred to Rule 11(3)(k) of the Rules, 2005 which provides about ‘Required Experience-10 marks (Two marks for 1 year)’. He further submitted that if a candidate completes one year of service, he would be entitled to get 2 marks and if the period of one year is incomplete, then the candidate will not get 2 marks. He also submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was awarded 6 marks for having three years of experience but for the remainder of 9 months and 14 days, she has not been awarded 2 marks. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Kiran Dubey V. Smt. Sheela Dwivedi & Ors., W.A. No. 157/2018. 6. Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Public Service Commission & anr. V. Rupashree Chowdhary & anr., (2011) 8 SCC 108 . 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. The limited question involved in the present case is whether the petitioner is entitled to get 8 marks for the experience of the total period of 3 years, 9 months & 14 days as Guest Lecturer at ITI Koni, Bilaspur. According to Rule 11(3)(k) of The Rules, 2005, two marks were to be awarded for completion of one year of experience. There is a similar provision to this effect in the advertisement too. The language used in the Rules, 2005 as well as the advertisement is plain, clear and unambiguous. 9. The conditions mentioned in Rule 11(3)(k) are reproduced herein below for reference:- (1) Minimum Qualification - 80 (maximum) (2) Higher Qualification Diploma/Degree/PG) - 5 (only) (3) Required Experience - 10 (Two marks for 1 year) (4) Personal Interview - 5 (maximum) In this petition, the petitioner is claiming 2 marks for the remaining period of 9 months and 14 days as Guest Lecturer at Government ITI, Koni, Bilaspur. 10. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the principle of rounding off in the matter of Rupashree Chowdhary (supra) in para 13 held that ‘when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. It is also held that no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language.’ The same is reproduced herein below:- “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.” The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Kiran Dubey (supra) in para 4 held that ‘in absence of any enabling provision under the Rule of Policy, the principle of ‘rounding off’ cannot be applied.’ The same reads as follows:- “4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was only short of few marks of the last year for experience and therefore, the appellant was entitled for 2 marks of the experience by following the doctrine of 'rounding off'. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The word 'year' as used in the policy for appointment has to be construed as complete year and the principle of 'rounding off cannot be applied in the case of the present appellant as there is no provision of 'rounding of in the policy. The Apex Court in 2011(8) SCC 108 (Orissa Public Service Commission and another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another) and in 2012(8) SCC 568 (Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore Vs. G. Hemlatha and others) has held that in absence of any enabling provision under the Rule or Policy, the principle of 'rounding off' cannot be applied.” 11. The Apex Court in 2011(8) SCC 108 (Orissa Public Service Commission and another Vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another) and in 2012(8) SCC 568 (Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore Vs. G. Hemlatha and others) has held that in absence of any enabling provision under the Rule or Policy, the principle of 'rounding off' cannot be applied.” 11. The marks awarded by other institutions for experience cannot be taken into consideration as the same will be contrary to The Rules, 2005 and conditions of advertisement; therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner. 12. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rupashree Chowdhary (supra) and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Smt. Kiran Dubey (supra), I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s).