LexORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. versus RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 748 t 1 ' A ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR. v. RUPASHREE CHOWDHARY & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6201 of 2011) B AUGUST 2, 2011. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial c Service Rules, 2007: Rule 24 - Minimum qualifying marks - Rounding off of - Orissa Judicial Service Examination 2009 - Main written examination - One of the criteria being 45% of marks in D aggregate to be called for viva-voce - Candidate securing 44.93% of marks filing writ petition - High Court directing the marks of the writ petitioner and two others to be rounded off as 45% and to call them for viva-voce - HELD: No rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and E unambiguous language of r. 24 - High Court has also committed an error apparent on the face of the record by allowing two more persons, who secured marks between 44. 5% and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even parties before it - Judgment and order of the High Court set '"' F aside - Interpretation of statutes. Respondent no.1, who secured 337 out of 750 i.e. 44.93% of marks and more than 33 % of marks in each subject in the Main Written Examination of the Orissa Judicial Service Examination, 2009, but was not called for G viva-voce test, filed a writ petition before the. High Court ... with a prayer that the fraction of marks, i.e., 44.93 % l secured by her, should have been rounded off to 45 % and, thus, she fulfilled the criteria as per Rule 24 of the H 748 ' ORISSA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. RUPASHREE 749 ~ CHOWDHARY ~: .. ,+ Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial A Service Rules, 2007 and, as such, she should have been called for the viva-voce test, The High Court allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the Orissa Public Service -t Commission filed the appeal. ..... B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of Rule 24 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to c obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers 'r and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the Main examination. When "" emphasis is given in the Rules itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said D minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned, there cannot be a question of relaxation or . rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/ Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum E requirement. No such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation. F [para 9-1 OJ [754-A-D] District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and '...+ Another. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi 1990 (2) SCR 559 = G . ~ (1990) 3 sec 655 - relied on. State of Orissa and Another v. Damodar Nayak 1997 (3) SCR 456 = (1997) 4 SCC 560, State of U.P. and Another v. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others 2005 (1) SCR 21 = (2005) 2 SCC 10, Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar 2007 (10) H 750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. A SCR 41 = (2007) 8 SCC 100 and Bhudev Sharma v. District Judge, Bu/andshahr and Another 2007 (11) SCR 730 = (2008) 1 sec 233 - held inapplicable. 1.2 When the words of a statute are clear, plain or 8 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 C 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. [para 13) [755-B-D] D 1.3 The High Court has also committed an error apparent on the face of the record by allowing two more persons, who secured marks between 44.5% and 45%, to be called for interview who were not even parties before it an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.