SHANTANU KADAM Vs. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.1/NBE to withdraw and cancel its communication dated 23.04.2012, whereunder he was informed that his request for being granted grace marks by rounding-off his marks from 49.66% to 50% and being declared as having passed the Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (in short FMGE ) Screening Test held on 25.03.2012, could not be acceded to as there was no provision for grant of grace marks in the said examination.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had completed his degree of Doctor of Medicine from Davao City, Philippines and had applied to the respondent No.1/NBE for appearing in the FMG Examination that was to be conducted by it on 25.03.2012. As per the Information Bulletin circulated by the respondent No.1/NBE in respect of the FMGE Screening Test, it was made clear that the applicant would be declared as having passed only if he/she obtains a minimum of 50% marks in the examination. The petitioner had secured 149 marks out of a total of 300 marks, which translated into 49.66% marks that were below the pass marks. In these circumstances, an application dated 21.04.2012 was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.1/NBE, seeking grant of grace marks by rounding off his result in the FMG examination to 50% and treating him as having qualified. The aforesaid request made by the petitioner was turned down by the respondent No.1/NBE vide letter dated 23.04.2012 by clarifying that he was declared as having failed in the FMG examination and there was no provision for grant of grace marks in the said Examination.

(3.) LEARNED counsel further fortifies his submission that grace marks could not have been granted to the petitioner by relying on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Public Service Commission and Anr. vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr. reported as 2011 (8) SCC 108, wherein the Court was considering an appeal filed against the judgment of the Orissa High Court, whereunder the High Court had permitted rounding-off of the aggregate marks of the respondents therein from 44.93 % to 45% alongwith two other candidates. During the course of arguments in the aforesaid case, counsel for the respondents therein had relied on some decisions of the Supreme Court including the case of Pawan Kumar Tiwari (supra). The Supreme Court had observed that the findings recorded in the said case were not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and that they were distinguishable for the reason that the said case had dealt with posts or vacancies where marks were allowed to be rounded-off to make one whole post and the said rounding off was permissible for the reason that there could not be a fraction of a post.