' NASIM SIKANDAR; J.--- This Intra-Court Appeal assails an order recorded by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No,2509 of 1997 on 24-9-1998.
2. The appellant Punjab Public Service Commission on the requisition of the Home Department Province of the Punjab announced holding of a competitive examination for recruitment to 122 posts of Inspector Legal males and 25 females. In the advertisement No,7 of 1996 terms and conditions of the recruitment were detailed. One of them being that the candidates must obtained at least 33 per cent. Marks in individual papers and in aggregate 50 per cent. Of the total 550 marks. It was explained that no candidate shall be summoned for interview unless he had obtained at least 50 per cent. Marks in written portion of the examination.
3. The respondent appeared as a candidate and admittedly secured more than 33% marks in each paper. However, he was declared to have failed in the written portion of the examination on the ground that he had failed to secure 50% aggregate in the written portion of the examination. On this first he made an application before the Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission and on his failure approached this Court. In the Constitutional petition it was averred that in all he obtained 273 marks which amounted to 49.63% of the total marks and in view of the statistical rule of rounding off a number to the next whole he ought to have been declared successful inasmuch as 49.63% marks would be rounded of to 50% marks.
4. Learned Judge in Chamber readily agreed. It was found to be a "settled principle of arithmetic's, scientific approach and statistics that where a figure appearing after the point on the right side is 5 or above that is to be taken as complete one". Therefore, the petition was allowed and the aggregate of 49.63% was ordered to be considered as 50%. In consequence of that order it appears that the present respondent appeared in Psychological test and viva voce and obtained 81 out of 150 marks.
5. For the appellant Commission it is inter alia contended that the so-called statistical rule on the basis of which relief was allowed to the present respondent did not apply to the facts in hand; that reference in the impugned order to SOR-III-1/86(B), dated 18-6-1986 was impertinent inasmuch as the same pertained to an amendment in the West Pakistan Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1962 which had no relevence to the recruitment of Inspector Legal; that there is no concept of grace marks under the rules; that total marks of written portion of the .Examination being 550 the respondent was required to obtain at least 275 marks while he had obtained only 273 marks. In support of the submission reliance is placed upon a case cited as Jalil Ahmad v. Punjab Public Service Commission 1998 CLC 435. Lastly it is repeated that general principle of statistics of ignoring fractional shortfall could not be pressed into service to hold the respondent to have fulfilled the minimum requirement of 50% marks.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, supports the impugned order for the reasons stated therein. It is pointed out that in a subsequent, advertisement for the same position viz. Inspector, Legal through advertisement No,1 of 1998 the aggregate had been changed from 50% to 275 marks out of 550 marks. According to the learned counsel there is a difference between 50% of 550 marks and obtaining of an aggregate 275 marks out of 550 marks. It is further submitted that all the advertised vacancies were not filled due to shortage of qualified candidates and the respondent missing it only by the skin of a tooth needs to be accommodated. In support of the submission that in the facts of the case and particularly the respondent having cleared the other portion of the examination by obtaining 81 out of 150 marks he was entitled to be declared successful, reliance is placed upon re: Abdul Rehman v. Prof. Ghulam Rasool Tnawir and others PLD 1985 Lah. 426, re: Punjab Public Service Commission etc. v. S. Maruf Ahmad Ali PLD 1988 SC 356, re: Punjab Public Service Commission etc. v. S. Maruf Ahmad Ali. Other cases cited at the bar in support of the impugned order being ... Re: Sajid Karim v. Government of Punjab etc. PLD 1996 Lah.
575, re: Jalil Ahmad v. Public Service Commission 1998 CLC 435; re: Dr. Zia Suleman Farooq v.
Punjab Public Service Commission etc. PLD 1994 Lah. 55, re- Jamil Ahmed Qureshi v. S.H.O. PLD 1980 Lah. 119, re: Dr. Muhammad Iqbal etc. v. Haji Muhammad Akram PLD 1991 Lah. 8 re: Riaz-ul-Haq v.
Selection Committee Constituted for admission to Bolan Medical College etc. 1997 SCMR 1845, re: Chairman Selection Committee/Principal King Edward Medical College etc. v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad etc. 1997 SCMR 15, re: The Province of East Pakistan and another v. Siraj-ul-Haq Patwari and another PLD 1966 SC 854, re: Kalsoom Malik v. Assistant Commissioner 1996 SCMR 710 and re: Ch. Manzoor Elahi v. Federation of Pakistan etc. PLD 1975 SC 66.
7. On consideration of rival arguments, we are persuaded to hold that the' impugned order is not based upon proper appreciation of the facts in hand. The general principle of rounding off a figure to the next whole will not be attracted unless it is so provided in the applicable rules. Therefore, the respondent could not succeed on the basis of such a provision for any other examination including Rule 8, Chapter IV of the University of Multan (Book of instructions for Examiners) where it is provided that half-marks should be raised in the total only to the next whole. The so-called rule of rounding off a fraction to the next whole is only one of convenience and not that of law. It A is applicable only in cases where a division in fraction has to be made per force and then to attain clarity and certainty a figure is rounded off to the next whole.
8. The facts in hand, however, did not justify invocation of the aforesaid rule of convenience for a number of reasons. Firstly; the respondent obtained 273 marks while 50% of 550 marks come to
275. He was two marks below the figure which was sought to be shown insignificant by expressing it in percentage. It will be noted that the respondent was not appearing for an academic certificate or a degree. He was appearing in a competitive examination which, on meticulous fulfillment of all requirements and the prescribed criterion, still guaranteed appearance on the list of recommended candidates without an assurance of offer of the position which was dependent upon a number of things including the number of positions available, the quota restrictions etc. Prescribed under the Rules. It is not his case that he had been discriminated against in any manner or that any person securing less than 50% marks was called for interview or was ultimately appointed to the position. In the Constitutional petition and even before us it is his case that 49.63% amounts to 50% on the basis of the aforesaid statistical rule. Obviously he had reached the percentage by converting his 273 marks in mathematic sense. This was done in order to show that only a small fraction of one mark was less and that the same could be allowed to grow to one complete number. If he had made the prayer that his 273 marks amounted to 275 marks then of course he could not have been successful on the basis of the aforesaid number. He showed and enlarged only that side of the picture which suited him. In fact his case precisely was that his 273 marks out of 550 should be taken as 275 marks. We are afraid this could not be done.
9. It is our considered view that in competitive examination even the smallest fraction cannot be allowed to increase grows or add so as to bring into existence or to complete basic requirement.
Particularly where no such provision is available in the Rules. Even a fraction of second less than 60 seconds will not make it a minute nor 999 grams or still a little more than that will amount to one Kg. A minute comprises of 60 seconds and an hour of 60 minutes. Even the smallest fraction less than that will be identified in a different manner and sense than to become either a minute or an hours. We are not trying to be pedantic. A hard and fast principle needs to be strictly followed in cases when it comes to the achievement of a position for which a number of persons are converting. Even if there is a single candidate for a number of positions still the settled standards cannot be lowered for that reasons alone. The requirement of rules once sacrificed, a deviation when condoned, wittingly or unwittingly gives way to even greater breaches and serious defalcations in the times to come. If today 273 marks are read as 275 marks or the way the petitioner tries to put it 49.63% are taken to be equivalent to 50%, then the doors will be thrown open for accommodation of greater deficiencies. For, a slide down the hill is usually swift and forceful.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to support the aforesaid principle of rounding off a figure in matters where a minimum standard has been fixed in a certain form. In spite of our sympathy with the young man and his desire to achieve the position we cannot allow the minimum standards to be pushed even further below to accommodate a candidate only for the reason that a number of positions are available while the candidates are less in number. It will always be in the interest of system that a position is kept vacant instead of lowering the prescribed standards. Of course, where a situation arises that persons possessed with the minimum qualifications are not found, then one may go for the change in the minimum standard instead of manipulating the standard and to employee a person who did not come up to these standards. In that case the possible lowering of standard shall be given due publicity and all interested should know it before stepping on the weighing scale.
11. For the above reasons, we find a lot of force in the submissions made at the bar for the appellant Commission. For Constitutional institutions like that of the appellant it is all the more necessary that the prescribed standard is not lowered in any case irrespective of the abundance of the positions and paucity of candidates. The relaxation in rules, directly indirectly or through the process of favourable interpretation is not conducive either for the system or the prestige and respect of an institution. The objectives like compassion, sympathy, accommodation and relaxation have absolutely no relevance to an institution like Public Service Commission. We have not been able to find out any principle in the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the respondent nor even elsewhere to hold that a figure of 273 in any circumstances or case could be read as 275. Even if their percentage qua the total is kept in sight still we find that 49.63% do not and cannot amount to 50%. At any rate 273 marks obtained by the respondent do not amount to 275 marks or 50% of 550 marks fixed as the minimum standard in the aforesaid recruitment rules. Therefore, we will allow this C appeal and set aside the impugned order.
12. Resultantly, Constitutional Petition No,2509 of 1998 filed by the present respondent shall stand dismissed.