JUDGMENT
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar appeared in the entrance test conducted for admission in degree/diploma course in department of Computer Science conducted by the Panjab University on 8.7.1995. 60 seats were advertised by the department of Computer Science, out of which 30 seats are for the degree course and 30 seats for the diploma course. The petitioner had made an application for appearing in the said test in response to the advertisement issued by the respondent University. The minimum eligibility requirement for the degree course is 60% marks and for the diploma course is 55% marks. 1,500 students appeared in the entrance test. The result of the entrance test was declared on 4.7.1995. The petitioner secured 77.75 marks out of 100. He was placed at No. 26 in the merit list. On 26.7.1995, the petitioner was invited for interview for the degree/diploma course. The interviews were held on 4.8.1995. The petitioner had deposited the original Certificates in the office of respondent No. 2, i.e. Panjab University, Centre for Computer Science. The petitioner was duly interviewed. All the necessary Certificates and application forms were before the interview Committee. After interview, the petitioner was informed that he has been selected in the diploma course and has been placed at waiting list No. 6 in the degree course. The petitioner was told to deposit the necessary fees, which was duly done by the petitioner. On 9 & 10.8.1995 a notice was pasted on the Notice Board in the Department that since some seats had fallen vacant in the degree course, seven candidates on the waiting list can take admission slips and deposit the necessary fees, as they had been selected in the degree course. The petitioner duly deposited a sum of Rs. 993/- including Rs. 75/- as late fee for the degree course. He attended the classes of the degree course, which had started on 16.8.1995. However, on 24.8.1995, a letter was handed over to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 that due to some oversight, a mistake has been committed by the office, as the petitioner’s marks are less than 60%, therefore his admission to M.C.A. Session 1995-1996 stands cancelled.
2. The petitioner challenged the said communication dated”24.8.1995 (annexure P-6) on the ground that the said order is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and therefore, liable to be quashed. No written statement has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, a Civil Miscellaneous No. 13318 of 1995 was filed by one Munish Kapoor son of Shri Som Nath Kapoor for being impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. The said application was allowed and Munish Kapoor was impleaded as respondent-No. 3 by order dated 14.12.1995. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had admittedly obtained 59.95% marks in the qualifying examination. His marks being less than the minimum eligibility marks (60%), he was not eligible to appear in the entrance test for degree course in Master of Computer Applications. Respondent No. 3 had obtained 68.89% marks in B.Sc. i.e. the qualifying examination. However, on the basis of the result of the common entrance test, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 6 of the waiting list and respondent No. 3 was placed at Sr. No. 8 of the waiting list. One Ms. Anju Gupta was placed at Sr. No. 7 of the said list. Thereafter, the candidates upto Sr. No. 7 on the waiting list were given admission to the said degree course and respondent No. 3 being at No. 8 was left out. Thus, if the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner is upheld, then respondent No. 3 became entitled to be given admission to the degree course being at Sr. No. 8 of the waiting list. The /petitioner was, however, continuing with the studies in the degree course in view or the stay order granted by the Motion Bench on 29.8.1995.
3. The petitioner has raised two-fold contention to challenge the order, annexure P-6. His first contention is that he has secured 59.95% marks instead of the minimum eligibility requirement of 60%. He has only one mark short of the required eligibility. This short-fall can be made up if the petitioner is granted the benefit of rounding off so as to make him eligible. The controversy regarding rounding off the marks has been settled by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 821 of 1996 and other connected writ petitions, decided on 30.1.1996. A Division Bench of this Court after considering all the case law has held as under:-
“There is another aspect of the matter. As already noticed, the rules prescribe three preconditions, viz. (i) 33% marks in the language paper, (ii) 45% marks in the aggregate of the written papers; and (iii) 55% marks in the aggregate of the written papers and vive voce test. If the plea of the petitioners is accepted, a candidate who gets 32.5% marks in the language paper shall be entitled to the award of half a mark by the process of rounding off. Similarly, when he gets 44.5% marks in the aggregate of the written papers which is 900 marks, he will be entitled to the award of 4.5 marks by way of rounding off. Similarly, when he gets 54.5 marks, he would get 5.1 marks. In other words, he would get 10.1 marks by way of rounding off. A candidate from the general category is required to secure 561 marks out of 1020. On acceptance of the plea of rounding off, he would become eligible by securing merely 550.9 marks. Not only this there can be a candidate who has actually secured 561 marks. There is another who has in fact secured 550.9 marks. The latter shall be made equal to the former and thus, made eligible by rounding off. This would make two ‘unequals’ equal. We are unable to persuade ourselves to uphold the contention which would lead to such an unfair result.
Counsel for the petitioners also referred to certain other decisions. In Chetna Sharma and Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Anr., 1992 (1) R.S.J. 702 the Court directed the rounding off the number of seats. In Rakesh Kumar v. G.N.D. University, Amritsar, 1989 (2) R.S.J. 570, the plea of rounding off was sustained in view of the fact that the rule permitted it. However, neither of these decisions is of any help so far as the present cases are concerned. In fact, a contrary view was expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Miss Nisha Kukreja v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1991 (5) S.L.R. 655. A candidate who had secured 149.5 marks viz. half a mark less than 150 claimed the benefit of rounding off so as to be eligible for admission to the MBBS course. The plea was rejected. Similarly, while deciding C.W.P. No. 4527 of 1993, the prayer of a candidate who had secured 44.77% marks in the written examination for rounding off the fraction so as to make it 45% and to call him for the viva voce test was rejected by the Division Bench vide its order dated May 3, 1993. We find that the issues involved in these cases are similar to those arising in the present case. Respectfully following the ratio of these decisions, we reject the claim of the petitioners”.
4. Respectfully agreeing with the law laid down above, we find that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of rounding off.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 1,500 candidates appeared in the entrance test. The petitioner was one of the candidates. He submitted all the necessary forms within time. He did not mis-state, mis-quote or conceal any material from the authorities. He was interviewed by a duly constituted Committee. He had submitted all the necessary Certificates before the Interview Committee. The Interview Committee scrutinized the forms. After interview his result was duly declared. On the basis of the result, he was given admission in the diploma course. He was consciously put at Sr. No. 6 of the waiting list for the degree course. Thereafter, consciously he was permitted to join the degree course. He had deposited the necessary fees. He had started attending the classes. The respondent University has not controverted any of the factual pleas raised by the petitioner. Therefore, without conceding, the position as set forth by the petitioner has virtually been admitted. Similar question of law and facts was raised in Civil Writ Petition No. 11546/1995, Bijender Singh v. Haryana State. This Court has held as follows:-
“It is true that as per the admission notice, the eligibility condition for admission to diploma in education, a candidate belonging to the general category was required to have passed 10 plus 2 examination from the Board of Central Education, Haryana or its equivalent examination with atleast 50 percent aggregate marks. It is also true that the petitioner who had applied in the general category had secured only 42 percent marks. It is also not disputed that the petitioner in his application form had specifically stated that he had obtained only 42 percent marks and had also attached a copy of the marks sheet. It is also admitted that the respondents did not raise any objection till the time the petitioner appeared in the competitive entrance test and was admitted on the basis of his merit. He was even allowed to continue his studies for a period of about 5 months. It is well settled position of law that the condition of eligibility for appearance in the entrance test is prescribed with the object of selecting the best on the basis of their merit out of the persons who are eligible for admission to the course. It is not disputed that any person having” passed 10 plus 2 examination is entitled to admission to diploma in education. The condition regarding having obtained 50 percent marks in 10 plus 2 examination appears to have been prescribed for the purposes of limiting the candidates to compete on the basis of their merit. If a person submits his application form alongwith the relevant documents it Is for the concerned authority to check and debar him from appearing in the entrance test but once he has been allowed to appear in the entrance test and admitted on the basis of the merit, he cannot be penalised for the faults committed by the officials of the respondents. The officials of the respondents are required to be vigilant in processing the cases of the candidates appearing in the entrance test. The petitioner in this case has not been found to have either suppressed any fact or mislead the authorities in securing his appearance in the entrance test, and was admitted on the basis of his merit.
Under similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376 held:
“Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for an infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear.”
The Court further held
“Before issuing the admission card to a student to appear at Part I Law Examination in April, 1972 it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinise the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. Similarly, when the candidate was allowed to appear at Part II Law Examination in May, 1973, the University authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force” of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.”
6. In view of the position of law stated above, the action of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioner vide annexure P-6 is held to be unjust, illegal and is hereby quashed. We are not inclined to interfere at the instance of respondent No. 3, who admittedly is lesser in merit in the common entrance test than the petitioner, Consequently, the petitioner is held entitled to continue studies in the degree course on the basis of the admission already granted. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.