RAJBIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the rounding off of the marks for the purpose of being treated as successful in the written test conducted by the Punjab State Electricity Board for recruitment of Assistant Engineer (Electrical Trainee) is the short question which requires adjudication in this petition.

(2.) The petitioner applied for recruitment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical Trainee) in response to the advertisement issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board in February 1996. A written test was conducted by the Board on 29.9.1996. Result of that test was announced by the Board on 30.9.1996. In all 58 candidates have been shown to have succeeded in the test. Roll No. of the petitioner does not figure in the list of selected candidates because he has failed to secure 30% marks prescribed by the Board for the purpose of qualifying the written test. The petitioner represented to the Board on 29.11.1996 for rounding off his marks from 29.5% to 30% and to declare him pass in the written examination. That request of the petitioner has not been accepted and this is the reason why he has moved this Court for directing the respondents to give him the benefit of 0.5% mark by applying the rule of rounding off. In support of his assertion that the respondent-Board is duty bound to apply the rule of rounding off, the petitioner has relied on the orders passed in C.W.P.No. 83 of 1992, Asha Mehta v. State of Punjab and another,1993 3 SCT 237and C.W.P. No. 5401 of 1995, Ms. Shivali Sahi v. Panjab University, decided on 20.4.1995. He has also relied on the fact that in the electricity bills issued by the Board to about 45 lac consumers fraction of .5 is rounded off to one. According to the petitioner this practice also follows while paying salary to the employees and at the time of making purchases. He has also invoked instructions issued by the Indian Standard Institute regarding rounding off the numerical values.

(3.) Another grievance of the petitioner is that the Board has reduced qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes candidates but benefit even of fraction of marks has not been given to the general category candidate and in this manner the petitioner has been discriminated.