B.C. Patel, J.@mdashAppellant, original petitioner, having been declared failed by the Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the University) in the first LL.B. General examination, Faculty of Law, for the Academic'' year 1981-82 has approached this Court by filing Special CA No. 4228/82 and having failed in his attempt to get success before the learned Single Judge on 15/18th October 1982, has preferred this appeal on 28th April 1983.
2. It seems that after filing the appeal no attempt was made for early hearing . The matter was lying in the cold storage for a period of about more than six years and six months and only on 22.1.1990, the Division Bench issued notice and it appears from the docket that after some adjournments, the matter was admitted on 23.2.1990.
3. The facts may be summarised as under :-
3.1 Appellant secured 230 marks in aggregate and failed in one subject and she was declared failed. The appellant secured 50 marks in Constitutional law, 57 in Law of Torts and Easement, 59 in law of contract. It can be said that thus she was entitled to get exemption in three subjects. So far as the subject of Law of Crimes is concerned, the appellant secured 41 marks i.e. secured minimum required marks for passing in a subject. However, in the subject of Sale of Goods Act etc. the appellant secured only 23 marks and was declared failed.
4. Before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed on Ordinance Law (hereinafter referred to as the OL) 6, 7 and 8. By OL 6, minimum required marks per subject and minimum marks required for passing etc. are provided. OL 7 provides a scheme to allow a student to keep the terms (hereinafter referred to as ATKT) and to appear for the 2nd year examination for the degree of LL.B. General in case a student has failed in one subject. OL 8 provides for exemption in case a student has obtained 50% of marks in subject/s but does not provide to keep the terms and allow to appear at 2nd LL.B. examination for the degree of Law.
5. For convenience we reproduce below the Ordinances which are at Annexure ''A'' to the Special Civil Application, pages 31 and 32 of the compilation.
OL.6 "To pass the examination a candidate must obtain 40% of full marks in each paper and 50% of the full marks obtainable. Those of the successful candidates who pass in all the papers at the same examination and obtain not less than 50% of the total marks obtainable will be placed in the Second Class and those of the successful candidates, who obtain not less than 66.2/3% of the total marks obtainable will be placed in the First Class."
OL.7 "A candidate who has passed with 50% of the full marks in all the papers but one at the First Examination of the Degree of LL.B. of this University, will be allowed to keep terms and to appear for Second Examination for the Degree of LL.B. (General) after keeping two terms, provided however that he shall not be declared to have passed the LL.B. (General) degree Examination unless he has passed in accordance with OL.6 in the remaining paper of the First Examination for the Degree of LL.B. held either in previous or in the same season. Such a candidate shall not be eligible for a class prize or scholarship."
OL.8. "A Candidate who obtains 50% of the marks in any of the papers at the examination, may, at his option, be excused from appearing in that paper or papers at a subsequent examination and will be declared to have passed the whole examination, when he has passed in all the papers of the examination, provided that in the paper or papers in which he appears on the last occasion he shall obtain the minimum in each paper and 50% marks obtainable as required by OL.6. Candidates passing the examination in this manner in compartment will not be eligible for a class or for a prize or scholarship to be awarded at the examination.
OL.9 "No candidate shall be admitted to this examination, unless after passing the First Examination for the Degree of LL.B. (General) of this University or an examination considered equivalent to it, he has kept two terms, and has undergone course of instruction in the prescribed subjects at the Faculty of Law and produces a certificate in the prescribed form from the Dean, Faculty of Law that he has kept two terms at the Faculty of Law and has satisfactorily carried out the work prescribed by the University."
5.1 There is another scheme to push up a student who has failed in one head of passing or two heads of passing. Ordinance 282 (ii)(a), (b), (c), (d), (iii), (v)(a), and (b) reads as under :-
O.282 (ii) (a). Where a candidate at a University Examination fails in only one head of passing by not more than 2 marks, where the total of that head is less than 100; by not more than 3 marks where the total of that head is 100; or by not more than 4 marks where the total is more than 100 but not more than 200; or not more than 2% of the total of the head where the total is more than 200; such failure shall be condoned subject to the maximum of 8 marks.
(b). Where a candidate fails in two heads of passing and the total of his deficiency in marks in the two heads taken together does not exceed the maximum number of marks condonable in the head of passing in which the extent of failure condonable is higher in accordance with the basis of condonation laid down in O.282 (ii) (a), his failure in each of the two heads shall be condoned to the extent of condonation permissible in the respective heads under the said O.282 (ii) (a).
(c). If a candidate fails in a head of passing which is included in another head of passing, he shall be entitled to the benefit of condonation in both the heads, if necessary, subject always to the maximum of marks prescribed in (ii) (a) above.
(d). Notwithstanding what is stated above, if the standard of passing in the different subjects at the examination is 50% or more, condonation to the extent mentioned in para (a) shall be given in more than one subject.
(iii). Where a candidate who appears in all the subjects of a University Examination fails in one or two heads of passing and where the total deficiency in his marks in one or both the heads taken together is not more than 10 marks, his deficiency in marks in the head or the two heads of passing taken together shall be condoned on the basis of one mark for everyone percent by which the total marks secured by him in all the subjects exceed the total of the minimum marks required for passing in all the subjects. For the purpose of condonation half a mark or more than half shall be computed as one mark.
This ordinance will also be applicable to the cases of candidates appearing in compartments at the examination at which a minimum percentage is prescribed for passing in the grand total and where the marks obtained by the candidates on the earlier occasion are carried over to the purpose of deciding whether the candidates have secured the minimum percentage of marks in the total required for passing.
(iv). xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(v). (a). A candidate whose failure is condoned under this Ordinance shall be eligible for classes in the same way as other successful candidates but not for scholarships and other awards.
(b). A candidate will not be allowed the benefit of this Ordinance to enable him to earn exemption, but he will be entitled to the benefit of condonation to enable him to keep terms in a higher class according to O.269.
6. It was submitted that in view of OL 7 as appellant in aggregate secured 50% marks in four papers, should have been permitted to keep the terms and should have been allowed to appear in the 2nd year examination. It was further contended that in view of Ordinance 282, the appellant was entitled to secure 9 marks as grace marks. It was submitted that for making the total 40 or 50 to some other students three grace marks were given per paper, then in the subject of Law of Crimes, petitioner was entitled to get three marks with which total in that subject would come to 44. With grace marks as declared by adhoc committee to be given to the students in accordance with the resolution (upto 6 marks), the appellant would have secured 50 marks and thus would have not got only the marks needed for exemption but would have been entitled to get the benefit of ATKT as the appellant was failing in one subject only. It was also further contended that the relevant ordinance would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India if it is not interpreted in the way in which it is suggested on behalf of the appellant. However,learned Single Judge, considering the detailed submissions did not accept any of the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the petition.
7. In the matters pertaining to University or educational institutions, the Apex Court pointed out as to what should be borne in mind by the Courts while deciding the petition.
8. We would first revert to OL 6, 7 and 8 which is meant for professional course, viz. field of law. A plain reading of ordinance clearly indicates that in each subject candidate must obtain 40% of the marks and 50% of the full marks obtainable. Thus, in the case where there are five papers each of 100 marks, two requisite conditions are required to be fulfilled, i.e. one must obtain 250 marks in all and at the same time one must obtain minimum 40 marks in a subject. OL 7 allows the student to keep terms and to appear for the 2nd year examination for the degree of LL.B. General. According to the appellant, as per OL 7 if in four papers in aggregate 50% of marks are obtained and has failed in one subject, then candidate should be allowed to keep terms and to appear for the 2nd year examination. The language of OL 7 reads as under :
"A candidate who has passed with 50% of the full marks in all the papers but one at the first examination of the degree of LL.B. of this University will be allowed to keep terms ..."
8.1 Learned Single Judge held that use of the language "all the papers but one" makes it clear that 50% of the full marks must be obtained in four subjects out of five. Mr. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the ordinance is framed by experts in the filed of law and have intentionally used the words "each paper" in OL 6 for the purpose of declaring a student passed in a subject, while in OL 7, no such phrase is used and it is stated "50% of the full marks in all the papers but one" and would mean 50% of the total marks in four papers.
9. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the University pointed out that from the day on which the ordinance came into force, the ordinance is made applicable in case of all the candidates who had secured 50% of marks in each of the subject except one. It is stated by Mr. H.C. Dholakia, Dean, Faculty of Law in his affidavit that "the ordinance has been consistently interpreted by the University in this manner and the construction placed for the reading of the ordinance by the petitioner is wholly incorrect." It is requested on behalf of the University that this Court should not depart from the practice followed by the University in applying this ordinance. It is specifically stated in detail by the deponent that "50% of the full marks in all the papers but one" is understood to mean that in each subject the candidate must have obtained 50% marks except one.
10. Mr. Desai submitted that the makers of the rule should not be allowed to interpret the rule. He submitted that in the case of Hilder and Others vs. Dester reported in 1902 L R A 474 Earl of Halsbury L.C. observed as under :
"My Lords, I have more than once had occasion to say that in construing a statute I believe the worst person to construe it is the person who is responsible for its drafting. He is very much disposed to confuse what he intended to do with the effect of the language which infact has been employed.
10.1 The aforesaid case was pertaining to raising working capital of a company for which shares were offered at par to the appellant of that case and some other persons with an option to take further shares at par within a certain time. The appellant subscribed for shares, and the market price having risen to a premium desired to take up the further shares. Reading the views it appears Earl of Halsbury L.C, refrained from giving any judgment except concurring with the judgment which the other learned Judges delivered in the matter. Mr. Desai submitted that Earl of Halsbury L.C was the draftsman of the statute which was required to be interpreted in that case and therefore, refrained from construing that statute. Mr. Desai further submitted that in view of this, Prof. H.C. Dholakia who was draftsman of OL 6, 7, 8 and 9 should abstain from interpreting the OL in the way in which he has interpreted it in the affidavit. In the affidavit Mr. Dholakia has pointed out how the ordinance has been consistently interpreted and followed by the University. The University, for the purpose of this statute and ordinance requires to take assistance of the persons who are conversant with the subject and who are members of committee specifically appointed for this purpose. It is not the case that one person alone was responsible for drafting the ordinance or statute. The same is required to be approved by the University through its senate. The view expressed by the University through the affidavit of Mr. Dholakia stating that the university is interpreting consistently in the manner referred to hereinabove is accepted by the learned Single Judge. It should be noted that Mr. Baxi was required to place before the Court views of the University and after considering the same, learned Single Judge has accepted. The question of interpreting "all the papers but one" was seriously argued before the learned Single Judge and before us also. The University placed before the Court its view which the learned single Judge accepted after interpreting. Thus the decision cited cannot assist the appellant.
11. Mr. Desai submitted that in view of the OL.7 where in the later part it is provided that after keeping exemption in the subject/s if he appears at the examination at a later occasion, he obtains minimum i.e. 40% in each paper and 50% marks obtainable as per OL.6 will be sufficient to declare him pass. He has to obtain minimum marks in each paper and 50% of marks obtainable as required by OL.6. He submitted that in view of this, for passing the examination a student is required to secure 40% of the full marks in each paper. If a student is appearing in two papers each having 100 marks, then 50% of the total comes to 100 which will have to be secured by the student but it is not necessary that he should secure 50 marks in each subject. In one paper he may secure 40 marks and in the other paper he may secure 60 marks, totalling to 100 which will qualify him to have passed as per OL 8. OL 8 permits the student to excuse himself from appearing at the examination if he has obtained 50% of the marks in any of the papers at an examination at his option. According to Mr. Desai, OL 7 and 8 if read together it becomes clear that 50% of the total marks in four subjects is the only requirement, ofcourse with a rider that there must be minimum 40% of marks in a subject. 50% of the full marks in all the papers has been construed by the learned Single Judge as 50% of the full marks in each subject, that is, four subjects and not 50% of all the papers taken together.
12. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel for the University drew our attention to the Law Lexicon by P. Ramnath Aiyar, 2nd edition 1997 where ''all'' is defined as under :
All is equivalent to "each and every"; but by context it may mean "any".
13. Whether all the papers would indicate collectively or not and if it was intended to provide for securing 50% of the marks in each paper, then whether it was necessary to use the term "in each paper" instead of "all the papers" or not, is the moot question.
14. We have to bear in mind that from the date on which the Ordinance came into force, the University has interpreted words contained in OL 7 "all the papers" to mean "in each paper". In the book we have mentioned aforesaid at page 90 the author has written what "all" means. Mr. Desai submitted that the OL 7 is to be read as it is and the word "all" should be read collectively for all the subjects and not for each subject. As pointed out by us earlier this is interpreted not in the manner in which it is canvassed by Mr. Desai but even learned single Judge has interpreted that "all the papers but one" would mean four subjects out of five (as there were five subjects).
15. Court has to bear in mind that when university authorities acted honestly and reasonably would it be proper for the Court of law to substitute its own wisdom and discretion? Mr. Shelat drew our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
"It is hardly necessary to emphasis that in dealing with matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the High Court should normally be very slow to pass exparte interim orders, because matters falling within the jurisdiction of the educational authorities should normally be left to their decision, and the High Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice."
16. Mr. Desai submitted that this decision has no application on the facts of the present case as (i). it relates to attendance of a student in the class room either by way of tutorials or practicals; (ii). case was pertaining to an interim order passed by the High Court; and, (iii). The statute has expressly used the word "each". What is relevant is 75% of the lectures, tutorials and/or practicals as the case may be delivered or provided in that subject meaning thereby there must be 75% attendance if there are practicals in that subject there must be attendance of 75% in practicals, if there are tutorials, then 75% attendance in tutorials, and 75% attendance in lectures, and not collectively 75% of all the three. Mr. Shelat pointed out this decision only with a view to point out as to how the matters pertaining to university or the interpretation of a regulation framed by the academic council of a university is to be interpreted. The Apex Court pointed out that:
"Even on merits, we think we ought to point out that where the question involved is one of interpreting a regulation framed by the Academic Council of a University, the High Court should ordinarily be reluctant to issue a writ of certiorari where it is plain that the regulation in question is capable of two constructions, and it would generally not be expedient for the High Court to reverse a decision of the educational authorities on the ground that the construction placed by the said authorities on the relevant regulation appears to the High Court less reasonable than the alternative construction which it is pleased to accept.
16.1 After reading this, Mr. Shelat submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that the construction propounded by Mr. Desai is acceptable one, however, the same should not be accepted by the Court because the university has construed the ordinance which has been approved by the learned Single Judge of this Court. According to him even if two interpretations are possible, the one which is interpreted by the University long before should not be substituted.
17. In view of what we have stated hereinabove, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge when it is stated that all the papers but one means four subjects out of 5 in the instant case. Therefore, it requires no interference.
18. Mr. Desai submitted that there is hostile discrimination in the instant case if the interpretation of the university is accepted inasmuch as the student who has to pass in all the subjects has to secure only 40 marks per subject whereas a student who has to get ATKT is expected to get atleast 50 marks in each of the four subjects.
19. So far the later part is concerned, OL 6 is to be read for the purpose of declaring a student clearing the examination as a successful candidate. As observed by us in the beginning, requirement of obtaining 40% of the full marks in each paper and 50% of the full marks obtainable is for the purpose of declaring student as a successful student and for no other purpose. OL 6 is for passing the examination without the addition of marks by way of grace or in any other manner whatsoever provided in the ordinance. In other words, that is indicating a passing standard without assistance of any ordinance. So far as OL 7 is concerned, the same is for the purpose of ATKT and if one wants to get the benefit of OL.7 he has to accept the OL 7 as it is because other similarly situated students are given benefit in the same way. A student failing in one subject having exemption in remaining four subjects may opt to appear in all the five subjects in the next examination for the purpose of obtaining a higher grade. For securing class, he has to obtain marks as per OL 6. If he has taken the advantage of OL 7 for the purpose of ATKT by keeping exemption in four subjects and has secured 50% of the marks in the remaining paper in the examination, he will be declared as a pass class student only though his total may be higher than first class. Thus, it is for the student, looking to these Ordinances which ordinance he intends to opt. There is no question of discrimination as other students similarly situated are treated in the same fashion. Nothing is pointed out that a particular student though similarly situated as the appellant was differently treated. It is required tobe noted that OL 6 and 7 are operating in different fields. Benefit of OL 6 will be given in a case wherein minimum 40% of the marks in each paper are obtained and 50% of the full marks are obtained stand in a different category. The students having 40% of marks in one subject, 50% of marks in three subjects each, failing in one subject and also having less than 250 marks stand in a different category. In our view, both these categories being different, there is no question of hostile discrimination at all.
20. It is further required tobe noted that OL. 8 comes into picture when a student exempted himself from appearing at the paper and has opted to appear in the papers wherein he has secured less than 50% marks. The students opting for OL. 8 is not allowed to prosecute higher studies. He has to appear in the subject wherein he has secured less than 50% marks and he is excluded from appearing where he has obtained 50% or more than 50% marks but in the scheme of OL 7, the student is permitted to prosecute further studies viz. 2nd LL.B. (General). Strict standard is, therefore observed in OL 7. Student allowed to keep terms is expected very much closer to passing the examination having better performance in all the subjects except one while under OL 8, that is not the case. In our view, it is rightly followed by the University.
21. Mr. Desai contended that considering the avoidance of acamedic waste adopted by the University which is found in OL. 270.1.A for the faculty of technical and engineering and electronic provides to keep terms in higher class is also required tobe borne in mind. According to him, the policy of ATKT is with a view to prevent a loss of year and at the same time to give opportunity to the student to improve the studies without loss of a year. It contemplates that candidates who come under certain minimum standard of performance be allowed to keep terms in the next higher class. It is required to be noted that here also, the words used are minimum standard of performance and not minimum standard of passing, viz. 40 in the instant case. It appears that keeping this principle in mind, the university, much earlier has provided for OL. 7 and has kept in mind the minimum standard of performance. One may not forget that this is a professional course wherein students, after obtaining a graduation, will be permitted to conduct cases of litigants wherein the stake involved may be from one paise to Crores of Rupees. He may be required to defend accused for the offence wherein the sentence may be either fine / admonition or sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court or the sentence to death. When the students are prosecuting their studies with the aim to learn law, it is the duty of the University to see that there is better performance so that ultimately the citizen who may not be knowing all the laws, may be properly defended. We would not like to interpret the regulation in the manner in which it is suggested and as we have pointed out earlier, there is no question of hostile discrimination by asking the student to obtain 50% (instead of 40% which is the standard of passing) in an individual subject for ATKT.
23rd November 1998:
22. OL 6 is independent of other Ordinance Laws. OL.7 permits a student who has secured 50% of full marks in all the papers except one, and is permitted to prosecute studies while OL. 8 permits a student to carry forward the marks if he has secured 50% of the marks in the subject. OL 7 and OL 8 are at the option of the students. It is also required to be noted that these are ordinances for law faculty. If OL. 269 is read along with OL 7 it makes much clear that a student is allowed to join the next higher class because he has obtained exemption in all the subjects but one in which he has failed. As per Ordinance 269, he is not to be permitted to appear in the higher examination unless he has previously passed in the remaining subject and if he is appearing simultaneously at the higher examination, then he will not be considered to have passed the higher examination unless he has cleared one subject of the examination in which he failed.
23. Ordinance 282 (ii)(a) deals with a case where the candidate fails only in one head of passing the examination. If that head is of 100 marks, then three marks or if the total is more than 200 marks, then by 2% but not more than 8 marks can be condoned. Under Ordinance 282 (ii) (b) a candidate fails in two heads of passing, his failure in each of the two heads can be condoned to the extent of condonation permissible in the respective heads under OL. 282 (ii) (a). Thus, in a given case, if a student has secured 37 marks of the subject where the total of head is 100, then he can be given three marks to make 40 for the purpose of passing. Or if under the head of total marks there is a shortage of marks, the same can be condoned maximum upto 8 in view of the later part of clause (ii) (a) of OL. 282.
24. Sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of Ord. 282 provides that if a candidate fails in the head of passing which is included in another head of passing, then benefit of condonation will be made available but the same is made subject to maximum prescribed in clause (ii) (a) referred to hereinabove.
25. Sub-clause (d) of clause (ii) of OL 282 provides for condonation to the extent mentioned in 282 (ii) (a) in more than one subject. Sub-clause (3) of Ordinance 282 takes care where a student has failed in one or two heads of passing and where the total deficiency in his marks in one head or taken together is not more than 10 marks. Over and above the condonation given to the student as per clause (ii) of OL 282, one has to bear in mind that the result of the University examination before the declaration are to be submitted before the Adhoc Committee as provided in sub-clause 4 of OL., 282 and it is for this committee to recommend to the Vice-Chancellor the result. A person who is given benefit for the purpose of declaring him a successful candidate however he is not to be considered for scholarship and other awards as per clause (v)(a) of OL 282. Sub-clause (b) of clause (v)(a) of OL. 282 is relevant. A simple reading clearly indicates that the benefit of OL. 282 was not to be extended for the purpose of earning exemption as mentioned in OL 8. However, the same permits to have the benefit of addition to enable him to keep the terms in higher class according to OL. 269. Reading clause it is very clear that exemption cannot be earned but condonation will not come in the way of getting ATKT. In the case before us, the total marks secured by the candidate at the examination is 230. The student is failing in Sale of Goods Act etc. and has secured only 23 marks while in Law of Crimes has secured 41 marks one mark more than the minimum required for passing. However, the student has obtained 57 marks in Law of Torts, 59 in Law of Contract and 50 in Constitutional Law. Here, the contention raised by the learned advocate is that it is not necessary to consider the question of addition of marks as the question is considering only four subjects wherein student has secured in all 207 marks. OL. 282 will not apply in any case and benefit of 282 may not be available.
26. However, what the learned counsel is suggesting that all the students where there was shortage of 3 marks either in securing minimum i.e. 40 or in securing 50% for getting exemption then in that case, students were given 3 marks and appellant should also be given 3 marks. His contention is that all should be treated equally and if three marks are given in a subject, then there is no reason why the appellant should not have been given 3 marks. We have pointed out earlier the scheme of OL 282 and it is not possible for us to say that a student who has passed in the subject should also be given 3 marks, that is to say in the instant case, three marks in Law of Crimes so as to make it 44 and thereafter by giving benefit of resolution passed on 30.6.82 of giving six marks as a grace. Learned Single Judge has considered OL. 282 and the submission made by the learned counsel that the appellant was entitled to 9 marks by way of grace, with a view to make 50 marks in a subject, viz. Law of Crimes. It has been pointed out in the affidavit that grace marks were given to candidates who passed in different papers at the said examination. OL. 282 permits condonation of marks in a given subject/s in which the candidate has failed to secure the minimum marks required for passing in that subject/s. So far as OL 282 (ii)(b), 282 (ii) (c) and 282 (ii) (d) with regard to failing in two heads, failing in one head which is included in another head and condonation in more than one subjects are concerned, condonation is permissible subject to maximum of marks prescribed in 282 (ii) (a). Sofar as 282 (iii) is concerned, condonation is on the basis of one mark for everyone percent for which total marks secured by him in all the subjects exceed the total of minimum marks required for passing in all the subjects. In the last case, one must have more than 250 marks considering sub-clause. The appellant''s case is not covered by any of these provisions. One has to bear in mind that ordinance 282 (ii) (a) speaks about addition of 3 marks in case one fails if the total of that head is 100 or addition of 8 marks (maximum) in the grand total. Considering the relevant provisions, learned Single Judge has rightly held that "the ordinance, however, does not state as many as 9 marks can be added to a subject in which the candidate has secured the minimum marks required for passing with a view to enabling him to claim exemption". The appellant passed in the subject of Law of Crimes by securing 41 marks, i.e.by securing minimum marks for passing. If the student has failed in that head, the total of which being 100, three marks for passing could have been given. But as one has obtained minimum passing, benefit cannot be extended.
27. As pointed out by us earlier, OL 7 refers to exemption in all the four subjects and student must secure 50 marks in each paper. We have pointed out earlier that clause (v)(b) of OL 282 in terms states that the candidates will not be allowed the benefit for earning exemption. The Committee recommended upto 6 marks for the purpose of allowing a candidate to keep terms. This is outside OL. 282 and, therefore, the gross marks cannot be totalled up and added to the paper so as to make it 50 for securing exemption in a subject. It may be pointed out that as stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the University that as claimed by the appellant, to no student three marks were given as contended. Thus, it is stated on oath by the University that similarly situated students were not given three marks. Whether a favour given to a student is undue or not is also required tobe considered. In the instant case, if the appellant would have secured 37 marks and the committee of examiners of that subject not knowing the marks obtained in other subjects would have given three marks by way of grace for making the total to 40 with a view to see that the student passes in a subject so that if in other subjects performance is better, he may clear the examination. However, if he would have obtained 47 marks and the Committee of Examiners decide to give three marks not knowing the result of other subjects, he may get the benefit of exemption. We find no merits in the submissions made by the appellant''s counsel.
28. We would make a note in this matter that in the instant case though the petition was dismissed on 15/18th October 1982, the appeal was lodged on 28th April 1983 and the appellant has not bothered to get it numbered in accordance with the rules for circulation till the beginning of 1986. Counsel for the appellant has not taken any steps to see that the matter is placed for admission before the Court taking up the LPAs and as late as 22.1.1990 the matter was placed. It clearly indicates that for the purpose of academic interest the matter is being persuaded. A bonafide student would have requested the Court to take up the matter immediately.
We find no merits in the matter. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal with cost.
