ORDER S. P. Srivastava and K.N. Ojha, JJ.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. It is not disputed that taking into account the aggregate of marks obtained by the petitioner-appellant in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as disclosed in the mark-sheet issued for the Senior School Certificate Examination, 2002, he had secured, only 49.66% marks to his credit and thus did not satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria fixed for being considered for admission to the vacant seat for the B.Tech course in the Technical Institute affiliated to the U. P. Technical University.
3. The learned single Judge vide the impugned order has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be taken to have secured 50% marks which was the minimum simply on the ground that the percentage of marks to his credit being 49.66% was liable to be rounded of to 50% marks.
4. It may be noticed that the present one cannot be taken to be a case where any Selection Committee was to examine the suitability of the candidate. The provision fixing the minimum eligibility criteria had statutory force. Since the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria, the decision of the concerned authority to refuse admission cannot be taken to be vitiated in law so as to warrant an interference in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. The learned single Judge, while negativing the claim of the petitioner-appellant, had placed reliance on the ratio of the decision in the case of Vani Pati Tripathi v. Director General, Medical Education and training, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg. Lucknow and Ors., 2003 (1) UPLBEC 427, distinguishing the decision in the case of Rameshwar Dass Mehla v. Om Prakash Saini and Ors., 2002 (6) Supreme Today 545. In fact the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Professional Examination Board, M.P. and Anr. v. Prashant Agarwal and Anr. 2002 (4) ESC 65, also supports the impugned decision.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to draw support from the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dass Mehla v. Om Prakash Saini and Ors., 2002 (6) Supreme Today 545. A perusal of the judgment in the aforesaid case indicates that the Apex Court had not found any justifiable ground to interfere in the assessment of the suitability of the candidate by the duly constituted Selection Committee which had found the marks secured by the candidate concerned to be as good as 55%. The marks obtained by the candidate in that case were 54.85% in the Master's Degree and the Selection Committee was trying to find out as to who would be a suitable candidate and whether he possessed necessary qualification with reference to the appointment to be made and it was in that connection that it had been held by the Selection Committee that marks obtained by him were as good as 55%. The Apex Court had indicated that the decision of the Selection Committee cannot be subject matter of the judicial review. The Apex Court declined to interfere in the assessment of the Selection Committee.
7. The ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be said to be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the present case, there was no question of assessment of suitability and the admission to the course in question was dependent on the candidates having satisfied the minimum eligibility criteria for being considered for admission.
8. The ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Professional Examination Board. M. P. and Anr. v. Prashant Agarwal and Anr., 2O02 (4) ESC 65, however, squarely stands attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. No justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge.