B.R. Tuli, J.@mdashThe petitioner joined the Law Faculty of the Punjab University in the year 1967 and appeared in the F.E.L. Examination held in April, 1968. In that examination he obtained 40 marks in Paper I, 56 marks in Paper II, 50 Marks in Paper III, 41 marks in Paper IV, 51 marks in Paper V and 50 marks in Paper VI. The minimum number of marks for a pass is 40 so that, in every subject he passed but he could not get 50 per cent of the total aggregate marks in order to be declared successful in the examination. He obtained only 288 marks out of 600. According to Regulation 7.2 at page 329 of Punjab University Calendar 1968, Volume II, he was required to re-appear in Paper I and Paper IV in which he had obtained less than 50 percent marks. In other papers having obtained 50 or more than 50 per cent marks, he was exempted from re-appearing. The petitioner re-appeared in the Supplementary Examination held in September, 1968 in Papers I and IV and obtained 50 and 40 marks respectively in those papers. Counting the marks obtained in Papers II, III, V and VI in April, 1968 examination and the marks obtained in Papers I and IV in the examination held in September, 1968, he obtained 297 marks out of 600 and passed in every subject. He failed in the aggregate as he was short by 3 marks. He claimed 3 grace marks from the University but his request was turned down. He then filed the present writ petition in this Court on February 6, 1969.
2. The relevant regulations are as under:
Regulation 2 on page 116 of the of the Punjab University Calender, 1968, Volume I.
For examinations in the Faculties of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Engineering and Technology, Design and Fine Arts, Dairying and Animal Husbandry, and Law, a candidate who fails in one or more subjects (written, Practical or Viva Voce) and/ or the aggregate (if there is a separate requirement of passing in the aggregate) shall be given grace marks upto a maximum of 1% of the total aggregate marks in accordance with the rules approved by Syndicate, to make up the deficiency, if by such addition the candidate can pass the examination, or can earn compartment or exemption in a subject/s. Regulation 7.5 at page 329 of Punjab University Calender 1968, Volume II.
A candidate who fails in a paper or papers and/or aggregate, may be given grace marks, as stated below, upto 1% of the total aggregate marks of the University examination, to make up the deficiency-
(i) to the best advantage of the candidate to enable him to pass in the aggregate or in the paper/papers;
(ii) to earn exemption or compartment;
(iii) to clear the compartment or other papers in which he has been declared to reappear, grace marks up to 1 % of the total marks of the papers in which he reappears.
The petitioner has also relied on Rule 8 in Punjab University Calender 1966, Volume III, which is as under:
8. Bachelor''s examination in the Faculties of Agriculture, Commerce, Education (B.T. and B.Ed. only), Engineering and Technology, Design and Fine Arts, Dairying and Animal Husbandry, and Law.
A candidate who fails in one or more subjects and/or aggregate, may be given up to 1% of the total aggregate marks, to make up the deficiency, subject to the following conditions:
(a) 1% grace marks to be given shall be calculated on the basis of total aggregate marks of all the written papers only of the examination concerned (marks for practicals/Viva Voce/Internal Assessment/Sessional Works/Skill in Teaching and S.L.T. shall not be taken into account for this purpose);
(b) grace marks shall be given to the best advantage of the candidate to enable him to pass in the aggregate, written papers, practical and Viva Voce, Skill and Teaching and S.L.T. but not in Sessional Work/Internal Assessment;
(c) grace mark shall he given to enable a candidate to earn exemption or compartment in subject/s and part/s;
(d) A candidate who reappears to clear the compartment or subject/s and parts in which he has been declared to reappear, be given grace marks up to 1% of the total marks of the subjects and part/s in which he reappears, subject to minimum of 3 grace marks; and
(e) the total number of grace marks, as admissible under the above rules shall be given to candidates in qualifying subjects also, but not in the Additional/Optional subjects.
It has stated on behalf of the respondent that Rule 8, relied upon by the petitioner, has been superseded by Regulation 7.5 set out above. Regulation 7.5 came into force with effect from the new F.E.L. admissions of 1967. The Punjab University Calender 1988, Volume II, was printed in 1968 but the regulations with regard to the Degree of Bachelor of Laws Examination of which Regulation 7.5 is a part was published in the Government Gazette dated December, 2, 1967. According to Regulations 21 and 22 of the Punjab University Calnder 1968 Volume I, the Syndicate can make regulations u/s 31 of the Punjab University Act, 1947, by following the procedure prescribed in Regulation 21. These regulations have to be sanctioned by the Government and after the Government sanction is received, the Common Seal of the University has to be affixed to the regulations and they are to be published in the Punjab Gazette. The regulations so published are to take effect from the date of their publication in the gazette unless any other date is given therein as the date upon which these are to come into force. As I have stated above, these regulations which were published in the Government Gazette dated December 2, 1967 came into force with effect from the new F.E.L. admissions of 1967 and so the petitioner was governed by Regulation 7.5. According to that regulation a candidate who fails in a paper or papers and/or aggregate, may be given grace marks up to 1% of the total aggregate marks of the University examination, to make up deficiency to the best advantage of the candidate to enable him to pass in the aggregate or in the paper/papers. Since the petitioner was falling in the aggregate by 3 marks after his marks were counted in all the papers, whether he took the examination in April or September, 1968, he was entitled to grace marks up to 1% of the total aggregate marks of the examination (600) to enable him to pass in the aggregate. He did not require any grace marks to pass in any paper but he re-required grace marks to pass in the aggregate. In my opinion, therefore, he was entitled to grace marks up to 1 % of the total aggregate marks of examination to enable him to pass in the aggregate. It has to be remembered that the grace marks had to be given to the best advantage of the candidate and from that stand-point, in my opinion, it will be to the advantage of the petitioner if he is given 3 grace marks to enable him to pass in the aggregate.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that clause (iii) of Regulation 7.5 applies because the petitioner has been directed as a result of the April examination to reappear in two papers and he was entitled to only 2 grace marks, that is, 1% of 200 as each paper carried 100 marks. The interpretation of the respondent, in my opinion, is not correct. Clause (iii) of Regulation 7.5 applies only if the petitioner required any grace marks to pass in any paper in which he reappeared in the September, examination but if he passed those papers without the aid of grace marks, clause (iii) would not apply. His result has to be tabulated after taking into consideration the marks obtained by him in Papers II, III, V and VI in the April, 1968 examination and the marks obtained by him in Papers I and IV in the examination held in September, 1968 and after the result is so complied, he is entitled to grace marks in order to pass in the aggregate. 1 hose grace marks could be given to him up to 6 but he required only 3 marks to pass. It was therefore, incumbent on the University to give him 3 grace marks to enable him to pass in the aggregate.
4. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is accepted and the respondent is directed to award 3 grace marks to the petitioner to enable him to pass in the aggregate and thus declare him successful in the F.E.L. Examination held in September, 1968, Since this is the first case involving the interpretation of Regulation 7.5 which is a new regulation, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
