The Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, The Director of Government Examinations and The Principal, District Institute of Education and Training vs Joseph Chellamuthu Teacher Training Institute

D. Murugesan, J.—This writ appeal is directed at the instance of the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training, Director of

Government Examinations, College Road, Chennai and the Principal of District Institute Education and Training, Namakkal District questioning the

veracity of the order dated 15.12.2006 made in W.P. No. 48851 of 2006.

A candidate by name Selvi. K. Sudha was admitted in Joseph Chellamuthu Teacher Training Institute, Keerambur, Namakkal District in the

academic year 2004-2005 for the I year Diploma in Teacher Education Course. There is no controversy that the minimum eligibility marks for

admission to the II year Diploma Teacher Education Course, is 45% in +2 Examinations. Equally, there is also no controversy or dispute that the

said candidate had secured only 44.8% of marks in +2 Examinations. When a proposal was forwarded to the first appellant for approval of the

selected candidates, by the proceedings dated 16.11.2005, the admission of the said candidate by name Selvi. K. Sudha was not approved by the

first appellant on the ground that she did not secure 45% marks in +2 Examinations. On a challenge to the said order in the writ petition, the

learned Judge had set aside the order and directed the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training to approve the admission of the said

candidate and also to allow her to write I and II years examinations scheduled to be held from 18.12.2006. The said order is now questioned in

the writ appeal. For completion of facts, it appears that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the said candidate had written examinations and

also completed her course.

The question as to how the marks obtained by a candidate could be rounded off came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Raj

Kumar Khaitan and others Vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatun and another, . In that case, while considering the awarding of marks by the Public Service

Commission, the Apex Court approved the practice of rounding off marks from 32.5% to 33%. Again in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar

Tiwari and Ors. 2005 (2) SCC 10, when a similar question came up for consideration, it has been held thus

We do not find 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 as 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.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that if this principle of rounding off is to be applied then the percentage of reservation

in Scheduled Tribe category would come to 2 by rounding off 1.86, to the nearest higher value, and in that case a candidate from Scheduled Tribe

category and not the respondent would be entitled to appointment....

A similar question came up for consideration before the single Judge of this Court (D. Murugesan, J.) in W.P. No. 9678 of 2006 (K. Sangeetha

v. The Director, Teacher Education, Research and Training, Chennai-6 and Anr.) and this Court has held as follows:

The said Clause does not refer to the marks totally secured by the candidate out of 1200. But it refers only the percentage of marks secured by

a candidate. As the petitioner has secured 539 marks out of 540, the admission has not been approved approved. However, if 539 marks is

converted into one of percentage, the petitioner has secured 44.91%, which is above 45%. It would be reasonable to hold that if a candidate

secures more than 44.5% of marks, the said mark has to be rounded of as 45%. Equally, it should be held that if a candidate secures 44.4% and

lesser percentage marks, then it should be computed as one of 44%. If this yardstick is applied, the petitioner should be considered as a candidate

secured 45% and in such case, she would be eligible as per Clause 1.1 of the information to the candidate issued by the respondent for the

admission to the Teacher Training Course for the academic year 2005-2006.

The procedure of rounding off marks has been consistently adopted by this Court for eligibility of a candidate and in that view of the matter, we

do not find any infirmity in the order dated 15.12.2006 made in W.P. No. 48851 of 2006 and the writ appeal fails.

In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. The candidate by name Selvi.Sudha, on whose behalf the Teacher Training Institute has questioned the

order in not approving her admission is entitled to all the benefits of her training including the certificates, if not already issued. No costs.

Consequently, M.P. No. 2 of 2007 is closed.