IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16504 of 2008(M)
1. SMT. BIBI E.M, D/O.MADHAVAN, EDATHATTIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHERS SECONDARY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.GOPI
For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :04/06/2008
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 16504 OF 2008 M
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar appears for the first respondent.
Government Pleader appears for respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is agreed
that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of.
2. The petitioner is working as High School Assistant (Hindi) in
R.M.H.S., Aloor in Thrissur District. The petitioner appeared for the State
Eligibility Test (SET), 2007 for the subject Hindi. There are two papers for
the Test. It is stated that Paper I contained 100 questions and Paper II
contained 120 questions. The petitioner secured 46.46 marks in Paper I
and 64 marks in Paper II. The percentage of marks secured by the
petitioner is 46.46% for Paper I and 53.33% for Paper II. According to the
petitioner, she has secured 50% marks in aggregate and, therefore,
Clause 13 of Ext.P1 prospectus would enable her to be declared as
passed in SET. The first respondent took a different view and issued
Ext.P2 result, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has failed.
2. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner has
secured 50% marks in aggregate for the two papers as provided in Clause
W.P.(C) NO.16504 OF 2008
:: 2 ::
13 of Ext.P1 prospectus approved by the Government. Clause 13 reads
as follows:
“13. Requirement for Pass
Those candidates who secure a minimum of 35%
marks in each Paper (separately) and an
aggregate minimum of 50% marks will be
considered to have passed the Test.”
It would appear that the contention of the first respondent is that the
petitioner has to secure 50% marks in each Paper whereas, according to
the petitioner, it is sufficient if 50% marks are obtained on an aggregate of
Paper I and Paper II.
3. A similar question arose for consideration in W.P.(C) No.23589
of 2007 and connected cases, which were disposed of by this Court as
per Ext.P3 judgment dated 14.3.2008. A learned single Judge of this
Court took the view that it is sufficient if 50% marks are obtained in the
aggregate. In Ext.P3 judgment it was held as follows:
“7. The question therefore is what is the import of the
words “aggregate” and “minimum”. In the Oxford Reference
Dictionary, the word ‘aggregate’ is given the meaning
‘combined’, ‘total’ and the word ‘minimum’ is given the
meaning ‘least amount possible’. Emphasis of the words
‘aggregate’ and ‘minimum’ with reference to clause 13 of the
prospectus, is on the marks received and not to the average
of percentage of marks as adopted by the respondents.
Percentage of marks obtained for each paper will be a
W.P.(C) NO.16504 OF 2008
:: 3 ::
different integer than the individual marks. By calculating the
percentage of the marks of two papers and taking the
average of the same as noted already, the method to be
worked out as per clause 13 is deviated. According to me,
when the prospectus clearly spells out a method, the Pass
Board cannot adopt a different method altogether and that
too which is irrational. Percentage has to be calculated only
for the purpose of finding out whether the candidate has
obtained the minimum of 35% for each paper and an
aggregate minimum of 50%. In view of the above, the
contention that the aggregate of the fractional marks
secured by the candidates can be determined only by
arriving at the L.C.M of the denominators, is rejected.”
4. In the light of Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P2 does not appear to be
correct. Therefore, I quash Ext.P2 to the extent that it declares that the
petitioner has failed in the State Eligibility Test 2007. The first respondent
shall consider the matter afresh in the light of Ext.P3 judgment and pass
appropriate orders within a period of two weeks.
The Writ Petition is allowed as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/