THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC. versus SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS

RANGANi\.TH MiSRA J. Each of these appeals .is' by speaial leave and is directed against the decision of the High'Courtof Punjab and Haryana in separate, writ petitions, A common .'\uestion involved in all the three matters and that relat.es to a corre~t interpretation of Rule 27. l(a) in Chap.ter Ill of the Punjab University Regulations.

p. 32, margin A

Responderrts in each . of these appeals was a student of the · funjab·University for the Master De~ree in Law (LL.M,). Rill~

p. 32, margin A

v. siNGH (Ranganath Misra, J.) 7 of the Punjab University l!.egulations provides :

p. 33

"7. The minimum marks required to pass Part 1/U examination, as the case may be, shall be :

p. 33

· (i) 45 per cent in each paper; and

p. 33

Iii) 50 per cent in the aggregate."

p. 33

It may be · stated that 'there are eight papers in all each carrying 100 marks and Part-I covers four papers while Part-II covers the remainder. R.ule 27 reads as follows :

p. 33, margin B

"27.l(a). A candidate who appears in all subjects of an examination and who fails in one or more subject (written, practical, sessional or viva voce) and/or the aggregate (if there is a separate requirement of passing on the aggregate) shall be given grace marks up tq. maximum of I per cent of the total aggregate marks (excluding marks .for internal assessment) to make· up the deficiency if by such addition the candidate can pass the examination. . While awarding grace marks fraction working to 1/2 or more will be rounded to a whole; .

p. 33, margin B

Provided that grace marks be also awarded to .a candidate if by awarding such marks he can earn exemption or compartment in subject/s and part/s. ·

p. 33, margin D

(6) A candidate wh'? re-appears to clear the compartment or subject/s and part/s in which he has been declared · (eligible) to re-appear shall be .awarded grace marks up to I% of the total marks of the subject/s and part/s in which he re·appears if by such addition the cand.idate can pais in that

p. 33, margin E

subject/s or part/s." · Each of the respondents Jailed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 7 and being eligible to .clear the subject in which he failed compartmentel basis reappeared in such subject ·in the next exami.nation. As on the 'pe'rformalice of the subsequent eii:amination each of the respoli.dents was not eligible to pass by. complying wlth·-~l)e requirements of. Rule 7, the need for invoking Rule arose. The University authorities took the view that Rule 27.l(b), authorised addition of the grace !llarks of up to l per cent the marks s~cured in the suoject/s in which the Cal)didate reapp~a'r,ed and as: with that benefit given the c,andidates di!l not pa~s, f.hey w~efouqd qo\ \o haye l?~el! ~11¥cesef,ul, lhat led \o ea~ oJtb~ '~

p. 33, margin F

COURT [1984) 3 S.C:R• respondents filing a separate writ applicatiqn' before the High G:!ourt.

p. 34

lfhe High Court referred to the rule and observed :

p. 34, margin A

"The only ,Question to be seen is whether Regulation

p. 34, margin A

27. l(a) in Chapter III of . the Punjab University Calendar, Volume II, 1976, relating to Mo.deration of Question Papers and results of examinations, is applicable or not. We have gone through. clauses (a) and (b) of this Regulation very carefully and we find that clause (b) is not applicable. We are unable to agree with the contention of Shri Gupta; the . learned.copnsel for the University that the case would fall under clause (b). This contention is without any merit as it is clear that . this clause will only come into pliiy if tte candidate is failing in the subject in which he or she reappears. ·It is quite clear from ihe facts that the petitioner has not so far availed advantage as given in clause (b) so that she could get one per cent mark of the total marks in all the · subjects .... ,.

p. 34, margin B

The contention of the learned counsel for the University, that cla~se (a) will only apply if a candidate appears in . all the subjects in the examination, · is without any merit. The language of this provision does not show what bas been contended before·us.

p. 34, margin D

For the reasons recorded above, we allow this writ application and direct the University to make available the benefit of clause (a) of the said Regulation to the petitioner and declare the· result of the petitioner accordingly."

p. 34, margin D

A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred to as the Regulations by the High Court) makes it clear that ciause (a) is applicable where the full examination is taken and clause {b) is attracted where the · candidate reappears to clear the compartment or subject and part in which be has been declared eligible to -reappear. In each of these · cases the candidate was reappearing . to clear the paper in which be or she had failed ; clause (b) was· clearly attracted and the benefit nnder clause (a) was not available. The University had· taken th.at.decision and.took the same stand before the High Court ill ;1nswer to tl!e r11le pisi, We:ar~ clearly of the opinion that th~

p. 34, margin D

3, High Court we.nt w~ong in taking the view that when a candidate reappear~d to cl~ar a paper or a subject on being found eligible to do so, clause (a) was attracted. The language of clause (b) is such as would squarely apply to such a situation. Having taken the view that clause (a) governed the matter, the High Court had no occasion to express any' opinion as to if clause (b) applied what benefit the candidate would have got. The provision in· clause (b) is ·clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to grace marks of up to one per cent of the total marks of the subject/subjects in which he reappears. Once clause (b} applies no reference is available to the performance in the regular examination taken earlier and the benefit of grace marks to the extent indicated has to be confined to the performance 'at the reappearance.

p. 35

Once this is the position each of the candidates was not eligible to pass. We, however, find that·a direction was giyen in this Court.on 19.6.80 on· the concession of the University that the respondents in the ·two· appeals of 1980 would be declared to have pass_ed irrespective of the result of the appeals. Learned counsel appearing for the University before us reiterated his consent and even agreed that the respondent ln the remaining appeal may be · given the same advantage as the University did 11ot intend to make any discrimination. In view of this special feature we do not disturb the d~claration of the University that each of the respondents has passed the examination taken by him or her.·

p. 35, margin C

We must indicate our disapproval of the position obtaining in the Punjab University that in respect of po:;t-graduate degrees grace marks are being awarded. A master's degree in any speciality is considered to be the highest qualification in the normal run. It is very much necessary t.hat such a degree should be conferred only on the deserving students who having studied the subject and taken the appropriate examination conducted by the University at the end of such studies have deserved the degree on tQe basis of their performance. There should be no scope for looking for grace marks at such level and.the sooner the Punjab University abandons the ·practice of awarding grace marks in respect of post• graduate examinations the better it would be in the interest of higher education in this country.

p. 35, margin E

We allow each of these appeals. and ·set aside the judgments of the High Court in each of. the writ petitions without any order for costs. T>i avo.id confusion we reiterate that our vacat:Og the the judgments .of the High Court do not in any manner affect the declarations made in favour of the respondents by the appellantlJniversity in regard to passing ofthe Master Degree Examinatfons · in law.

p. 36

S.R. Appeal a/lowde.

p. 36

.. f.

p. 36