http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/02/1984

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR  919            1984 SCR  (3)  31  1984 SCALE  (1)399

ACT:      Punjab University  Calendar Vol.  11, 1976, Chapter III Rule 27.1(a)  interpretation  of-Whether  the  allowance  of grace  mark  under  Sub-Rule  (a)  or  (b)  will,  apply  to candidates reappearing in any subject-Award of grace mark at the Post Graduate level deprecated.

HEADNOTE:      Respondents in  each of  these appeals  could not clear the LLM  examination in  accordance with Regulation 7 of the Punjab University Regulations either in the first attempt or later  while   taking  on  compartmental  basis  even  after addition of grace marks as laid down in Rule 27(1)(b) of the University Regulations.  The respondents filed separate writ petitions praying  for a  direction to  give the  benefit of moderation grace mark as calculated under Rule 27(1)(a). The High Court  rejected the  plea of  the Appellant  University holding that  it was Rule 27(1)(b) that applied and not Rule 27-1(a). Hence the appeal by Special Leave.      Allowing the appeal, the Court ^      HELD :  A bare  reading of  the Rule 27 (referred to as the Regulations  by the  High Court)  makes  it  clear  that clause (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 he has been declared  eligible to  reappear. In each of these cases the candidate was reappearing to clear the paper in which he or she  had failed; clause (b) was clearly attracted and the benefit under  clause (a) was not available. The language of clause (b)  is such  as  would  squarely  apply  to  such  a situation. 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.  Once this is the position each of the candidates was not eligible to pass. [34GH, 35B- C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    [In view of the declaration dated 19.6.1980 made before the court,  that irrespective  of the result of the appeals, the candidates will be declared to have passed, the Court as a special case did not want to disturb the result.] [35D] 32      Observation:      The position  obtaining in  the  Punjab  University  in respect of  Post Graduate  degrees namely  grace marks being awarded is  disapproved. A Master’s degree in any speciality is considered  to be the highest qualification in the normal run. It  is very much necessary that 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 the  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. [35F-H]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6009 of 1983.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  19th April,  1983 of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 1484 of 1983.                             WITH           Civil Appeal Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 1980.      Appeals by  special leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated the  30th May,  1980 of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1759 and 1848 of 1980.      J.L. Gupta, D.N. Gupta and V.K. Verma for the Appellant in CA. No. 6009 of 1983.      J.L. Gupta  and C.M.Nayar  for the Appellant in CA. No. 1207 and 1208 and 1980.      Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA  J. Each of these appeals is by special leave and is directed against the decision of the High Court of Punjab  and Haryana  in separate writ petitions. A common question is  involved in  all the  three  matters  and  that relates to  a correct  interpretation  of  Rule  27.1(a)  in Chapter III of the Punjab University Regulations.      Respondents in  each of  these appeals was a student of the Punjab  University for  the Master Degree in Law (LL.M). Rule 33 7 of the Punjab University Regulations provides:           "7. The  minimum marks  required to pass Part I/II      examination, as the case may be, shall be:            (i) 45 per cent in each paper; and           (ii) 50 per cent in the aggregate."      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. Rule 27 reads as follows:           "27.1(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      to maximum  of 1  per cent of the total aggregate marks      (excluding marks  for internal  assessment) to  make up

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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;           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.           (b)  A  candidate  who  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  1%  of  the  total  marks  of  the      subject/s and  part/s in which he re-appears if by such      addition the  candidate can  pass in  that subject/s or      part/s." Each of  the respondents  failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule  7 and  being eligible to clear the subject in which he failed  on compartmental basis reappeared in such subject in the  next examination.  As  on  the  performance  of  the subsequent examination  each  of  the  respondents  was  not eligible to  pass by complying with the requirements of Rule 7, the  need for  invoking Rule  27  arose.  The  University authorities took  the  view  that  Rule  27.1(b)  authorised addition of the grace marks of up to 1 per cent on the marks secured in  the subject/s  in which the candidate reappeared and as  with that benefit given the candidates did not pass, they. were  found not  to have  been successful. That led to each of the 34 respondents filing  a separate  writ application  before the High Court.      The High Court referred to the rule and observed:           "The  only   question  to   be  seen   is  whether      Regulation  27.1(a)   in  Chapter  III  of  the  Punjab      University  Calendar,  Volume  II,  1976,  relating  to      Moderation  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 counsel 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 play if the candidate      is failing in the subject in which he or she reappears.      It is  quite clear  from the  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           The contention  of the  learned  counsel  for  the      University, that  clause  (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 has been contended before      us.           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."      A bare  reading of  the Rule  27 (referred  to  as  the Regulations by  the High  Court) makes  it clear that clause (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 he has been declared  eligible to  reappear. In each of these cases

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

the candidate was reappearing to clear the paper in which he or she  had failed; clause (b) was clearly attracted and the benefit under  clause (a)  was not available. The University had taken  that decision  and took the same stand before the High Court in answer to the rule nisi. We are clearly of the opinion that the 35 High Court  went wrong  in  taking  the  view  that  when  a candidate reappeared  to clear 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.      Once this  is the  position each  of the candidates was not eligible to pass. We, however, find that a direction was given 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 passed irrespective of the result of the appeals. Learned counsel appearing for the University before us  reiterated his  consent and  even agreed that the respondent in  the remaining  appeal may  be given  the same advantage as  the University  did not  intend  to  make  any discrimination. In  view of  this special  feature we do not disturb the  declaration of  the University that each of the respondents has passed the examination taken by him or her.      We  must  indicate  our  disapproval  of  the  position obtaining in  the Punjab University that in respect of post- 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 that 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 the 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. 36      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. To avoid confusion we reiterate that our  vacating the judgments of the High Court do not in any manner  affect the  declarations made  in favour  of the respondents by the appellant University in regard to passing of the Master Degree Examinations in law. S.R.                                         Appeal allowed. 37