Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurvinder Kaur And Anr. vs Punjab University, Chandigarh And Anr. on 6 August, 1970
Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 384
JUDGMENT C.G. Suri, J.
1. Twelve Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2198, 2201, 2286, 2287, 2342, 2355, 2356, 2358, 2359, 2360, 2368, and 2395 of 1970 filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been heard together as they raised certain common questions of law. It would be easier to dispose of each case separately on its own facts after the basic general principles have been settled by reference to the rules and regulations of the respondent University of Punjab and also by reference to the case law on the subject.
2. The petitioners in all these cases appeared in one or the other examination conducted by the respondent University in the months of April or early May, 1970. The Rules and Regulations concerning such examinations are contained in the University Calendar for the year 1969 but certain amendments to these rules and regulations, particularly in regard to the award of grace marks, were under the contemplation of the University authorities at that time. These amendments of the University regulations were finally approved by the Central Government under Section 31 (1) of the Punjab University Act, 1947 on 18-4-1970 and were published in Part III, Section 4 of the Gazette of India, dated 30-5-1970 on pages 337-360 as required by Section 35 of the said Act. Regulations governing the functions of the Senate have then been framed under Sections 11 (2) and 31 (2) (c) of the Punjab University Act and are contained in Chapter IV of the Punjab University Calendar 1969 Volume I at pages 52-58. Regulation 21 on page 57 lays down the procedure for making regulations under Section 31 and requires that regulations passed by the Senate have to be forwarded to the Government for sanction and that after the sanction has been received, the common seal of the University has to be affixed to the regulations and that they have to be published in the Punjab Gazette. Regulation 21 then says that the regulations take effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette unless any other date is named therein as the date on which it is to come into force.
3. General results of some of these examinations held in April-May 1970 were declared on 30-5-1970, the date on which the amendments to the University Regulations had been published in the Government of India Gazette, while results of some other examinations held during these months were declared on later dates. The petitioners in all these cases were declared to have failed on the assumption that the regulations, as amended, were applicable to them. Results of some of these petitioners had been held over as the letters 'R. L. ' appeared against their names in the general results. I am told that these letters stand for the words "Results Later". The reason why the declaration of these results was held up is not very clear on the record unless it was the intention that the candidates may not be able to take advantage of certain observations made in the earlier rulings of this Court. It may appear that even if the University authorities had tried to keep themselves on the right side of the phraseology, they had been trying to circumvent the real spirit or the ratio decidedness of these rulings which would be discussed in greater detail further on in this judgment.
4. The general contention of the petitioners in all these cases is that if the old regulations which were in force at the time when they took the tests in the months of April-May, 1970 were to be applied, they were to be given grace marks in accordance with those old regulations, and that they would have either been declared successful or placed in compartment in certain subjects. These grace marks would have enabled the students to save a year or two by appearing again in one or more subjects in the compartmental or supplementary examinations which are generally held half-yearly. The position taken up by the respondent University in all these cases however is that the regulations as amended were applicable to the examinees taking the tests in April-May, 1970 and that the results had been correctly declared in accordance with the rules and regulations in force at the time of the declaration of the results. Moreover, it is urged that the amendments to the regulations had been duly approved by the Syndicate and the Senate before the examinations were held in April-May 1970 and that the rules and regulations which have been applied in the case of the petitioners were in force when they took their examinations and that the amendments to the regulations had been given retrospective effect as these were made in the Punjab University Calendar for 1969.
5. The main question for decision is whether the rules and regulations of the respondent University with regard to the award of grace marks could be changed or amended to the detriment of the examinees after they had appeared in these examinations. The question how far the changes or the amendments to the rules and regulations could be given a retrospective effect is a mere corollary the answer to which would depend on the main question having been suitably answered.
6. These questions are not coming up before the Courts for the first time and luckily there are rulings to guide us in disposing of these writ petitions. A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court was faced with a similar situation in the case of Virendra kapur v. University of Jodhpur, AIR 1964 Raj 161 (FB). The petitioner Virendra Kapur had joined the Bachelor of Engineering course in an Engineering College at Jodhpur in July, 1961. This College was affiliated to the Rajasthan University at that time. In 1962 the University of Jodhpur was established and the affiliation of the College was transferred from Rajasthan University to the University of Jodhpur. In 1963 the petitioner appeared in the Second year B. E. examination and secured more than 55 per cent, marks in aggregate but failed in one of the papers. According to Regulation 38 of the University of Rajasthan he was entitled to keep term in the next higher class and to re-appear and pass in the paper in which he had failed. As the petitioner fulfilled the conditions of the regulation, he was permitted to reappear in the supplementary examination held in August, 1963 but he failed again in the same subject. According to the regulation of the Rajasthan University he was entitled to appear again n that subject and to keep attending the higher classes as well, but Regulation 38 of the Rajasthan University had been adopted by the University of Jodhpur with certain modifications according to which the petitioner was required to revert to the Second Year B. E. class and attend classes in that class as a regular student. The contention of the petitioner was that he was governed by the regulations which wherein force when he joined the Engineering Course in 1961 and that these regulations could not be changed to his detriment until he had gone through the entire course and passed out of the college. This contention may seem to go to an extreme and even though Virendra Kapur's petition had succeeded it cannot be said that the proposition as so broadly stated had been accepted as correct without any reservations. The modifications of Regulation 38 had been made by the Jodhpur University just one day before the declaration of his result and were held to be not applicable to him. These modifications had been made with the avowed intention of affording additional facilities to students studying in the Engineering classes at different Universities in view of the National Emergency created by the Chinese aggression. The petitioner therefore claimed that he should be permitted to continue in the Third Year B. E. class and be allowed to re-appear in the subject in which he had failed. This he was entitled to do in accordance with the regulation 38 of the University of Rajasthan as originally formulated. One of the main points of attack raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the modification in the regulation introduced by Jodhpur University did not repeal its counterpart as formulated by the Rajasthan University and the petitioner's case was properly governed by Regulation 38 without any modification and that the modification could not in any case be given retrospective effect so as to adversely affect the rights of the petitioner who had already taken his Second Year B E. examination when the old Regulation was in force. it was the common case that the old regulation gave certain concessions to only those students who failed in one paper and secured 55 per cent, marks and that the modification extended the facility of a supplementary examination to candidates who failed in more than one written paper and who secured only 45 per cent, marks in the aggregate. It was however realised that new regulation also imposed certain disadvantages or disabilities as compared with the old one as the candidate who had failed again in the same paper in the supplementary examination could, under the old regulation, appear later as a private candidate. In other words, he was not liable even if he failed again to revert to his original class and he could study as a repeater and pass the examination in all the written papers in the higher class. On the other hand, the new regulation as modified made it obligatory on candidate who had failed in the supplementary examination to revert to his old class a regular student. While dealing with the petitioner's contention, Modi J. who wrote the main judgment for the Full Bench was pleased to observe as follows :-
"The correct position, therefor, is that whether we call a right like this a vested right of the student or not in the sate of things which existed at the time he took his admission in the University or at any like juncture may be a matter of mere terminology; but the point of substance is that he had jointed the University or taken an examination on the faith of a certain state of things and the University as a statutory body was and would be under a duty to act upto that faith, then the aggrieved party would have a legitimate cause of grievance calling for redress. "
It was further held that the University must obey the rules and regulations by which it professes to be bound and not adversely affect the rights of others. It was held that the petitioner having had the benefit of old regulation No. 38, had acquired a valuable right which could even be called a privilege and that this right or privilege was certainly not without value and could not therefore be interfered with by a subsequent notification to the disadvantage of the examinee. While dealing with the contention of the University that the modifications in the regulation were intended to have a retrospective effect, it was observed as follows :-
"It also seems to us that accepting that the old Regulation 38 stands by necessary implication repealed and replaced by the new regulation Ex. 1, the latter should be given a prospective effect only. For it is a fundamental principle of Indian no less than English law relating to the interpretation of statutes that a statute should have a prospective and not a retrospective effect that it shall not be construed so as to have a retrospective operation unless its language is such as plainly and necessarily to require such a construction. It has been further laid down that a statute should not be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. We have closely examined the new regulation enacted by the Vice-Chancellor and are unable to hold form its language that it is expressly or by necessary intendment retrospective in its operation in the sense that it deprives a candidate of the benefit of the old Regulation 38 which he had doubtless acquired, it being already in force in the case of the petitioner when he had taken his annual examination for the Second Year B. E. in April 1963. "
7. This Full Bench decision was cited before a Division Bench of this Court in Sewa Ram v. Kurukshetra University, L. P. A. No. 97 of 1967, D/- 17-7-1968 (Punj). The ruling in Virendra kapur's case AIR 1964 Raj 161 (FB) was distinguished as facts in the two cases were arterially different. In Sewa Ram's case, L. P. A. NO. 97 of 1967, D/- 17-7-1968 (Punj) the changes in the rules and regulations had come into effect a year or two before he had taken the last examination. It was felt that there was sufficient time for him to get used to the new amended regulations by the time he had appeared in the examination and that there was no reason why he should not have been ale to conform to the amended regulations. That was a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of my Lord, Mr. Justice Narula, and his observations that the University was an autonomous body and had every right in the matter of altering the requisite rules concerning the conduct of examination and of prescribing the qualifying marks necessary for the degree, were approved but a rider was added that the changes in the regulation were to be made well in advance of the examination which a candidate was required to take.
8. Another case in which the University regulations were changed to the detriment of the examinee after he had appeared in the examination was that of Jiwandhar Kumar v. Punjab University, 1968 Cur LJ 505 (Punj & Har). Regulation 10 which was applicable in that case prescribed that minimum marks required for passing in the examination were 33 per cent, in each subject. It was further provided that a candidate who failed in one or more subjects by not more than one per cent, of the total aggregate marks could be given the marks required to pass the examination and that these grace marks were to be given to his best advantage. Regulation 10 was however amended and the percentage of minimum marks for passing was raised from 33 to 35. The petitioner in that case had appeared in the examination held in April 1967 and the results of the examinations were published in the month of June that year. The Senate of the Punjab University had approved of the amendments raising the minimum pass marks from 33 per cent to 35 per cent in December 1966 but the amendments were published in the Gazette of India in August, 1967. The petitioner, Jiwandhar Kumar had obtained 48 marks in English and 50 Marks in Mathematics and he was declared to have failed in these two subjects. The grace marks permissible under the rules would have enabled him to pass the examination if the minimum pass percentage had continued as 33 per cent. it was however the case of the respondent University that the amended regulation prescribing the minimum pass percentage of 35 was applicable and that the award of grace marks of one per cent, would also not be of any valid to the petitioner. The University claimed to have acted within the four corners of its jurisdiction and the new regulation was described to have a retrospective effect. The short question that arose in that case therefore was whether the old Regulation 10 or the new regulation as amended would govern the case of the petitioner. the learned Single Judge who disposed of that writ petition was of the view that the new regulation had been made retrospective in its operation and that the petitioner having failed to secure the minimum of 35 per cent marks had rightly been declared to have failed. On Letters Patent appeal the Division Bench was of the view that the new regulation had not been rightly applied the appellants' case in declaring his result. In that case also the Academic Council of the Punjab University had resolved to increase the pass percentage in September, 1966. The proposal had been approved by the Syndicate later during the same month and by the Senate in the month of December that year. The new regulation was sent for obtaining the sanction of the Government of India which had not been received upto May 1967 and the amendments were published in the Government of India Gazette in August 1970. It was held that without the sanction of the Government of India the proposals had no force and that these proposals became operative only when they were published in the Gazette. It was contended, inter alia, on behalf of the petitioner that the amendments made in Regulation 10 could not be given retrospective effect to his detriment and that the new regulation had neither been published nor brought to the notice of the exminees before the examination had been held. While dealing with these contentions, it was observed by the Court as follows :-
"From these provisions it is evident that before a Regulation framed by the Senate becomes operative or can be enforce, its sanction by the Government has to be obtained under Section 31, and it has to be published in the Gazette as provided in Regulation 22 reproduced above. It is only on its publication in the Gazette that a Regulation becomes operative. Admittedly, when the appellant's result was declared, the amended Regulation, on the basis of which he was declared to have failed in the Pre-Engineering Examination, had not been published, and thus was not in force. having taken recourse to a Regulation which had not yet come into force, the University Authorities have clearly overstepped their jurisdiction as they were not competent to apply the Regulation in anticipation of its enforcement. On this short ground the appellant's writ petition was entitled to succeed. "
9. It was contended on behalf of the University that Regulation 10 was adopted by the Senate in December 1966, before the appellant had taken his examination and that the amended regulation was therefore applicable to the examinations held in 1967. It was also claimed that the amended regulation had retrospective effect and that the appellant had no vested right to have his results declared on the basis of the regulation a stood before its amendment. All these contentions of the learned counsel for th University were repelled with the following observations:-
"It is true that in this case the Senate had approved the amendment of Regulation 10 in December, 1966, before the appellant's examination commenced, and in the amended regulation approved by it, it was stated it would take effect from the examination of 1967, yet the fact remains that it was after the appellant's examination in April 1967, had concluded that the amended regulation was sanctioned by the Government, and it was still later, after the appellant's result had been declared, that this amended regulation on the basis of which he is stated to have failed was published. As it is only on the publication of a Regulation, as provided in bye-law 22 appearing at page 54 of Volume I of the University Calendar, 1967, that it comes into force, it could not be made the basis for declaring results before its actual publication in the Gazette when it had no legal existence. Mr. Sodhi is no doubt right in contending that even under Regulation 22, a regulation or rule or bye-law framed by the University would come into force not necessarily on the date of its publication, but on some other date if such date is pacified therein, but it must be remembered that even a provision which is expressly made retrospective cannot be applied before the date of its enforcement, and it is only after it is promulgated in accordance with law that it would operate retrospectively.
xxxx xxxx The regulation 10, on the basis of which the appellant had been declared to have failed must be held to have come into force only on 5th August, 1967, when it was published in the Gazette of India, and since it had not received the assent of the Central Government by the time the appellate had taken his examination and it was not published before the appellant's results were declared, it could not be applied to the appellant's case to his detriment. As the appeal must succeed on this ground alone, we doe not consider it necessary to deal with the questions whether the University Authorities could amend the Regulation to the disadvantage of a candidate during the period of his study for a particular examination and whether the rule-making authority can give retrospective effect to a rule made by it without such power having been conferred on it by the statute. "
10. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the impugned result of the appellant Jiwandhar Kumar, was quashed. The concluding portion of this judgment may seem to give the impression that the date of the declaration of the results is the material date though from the body of the judgment it would be clear that if the amendments have to be enforced to the detriment of an examinee, they should have into force before he appears in the examination.
11. According to the observations of the Division Bench in the unreported case of L. P. A. No. 97 of 1967 (Punj), the amendments in the regulation should have been made well in advance of the examination which a candidate is required to take. The question how far the amendments in the rules and regulations can be given a retrospective effect has, in a way, been decided in the cases of Sewa Ram, L. P. A. No. 97 of 1967 (Punj) and Jiwandhar Kumar, 1968 Cur LJ 505 and it has been ruled that there should be a sufficient time lag between the publication or enforcement of the amended rules and regulations and the holding of the next examination to enable the examinees to get adjusted to the changes in the rules and regulation. The learned counsel for the respondent University, Shri Sarhadi, seeks to create that time lag but in the opposite or reverse direction. By a magical deeming effect of legal fiction he seeks to turn the examinees into Rip Van Winkles by suggesting that because of their pre-occupations with their studies and tests the examinees had remained oblivious to the changing world outside the examination hall and had not realised in time that the targets that they had been striving so hard to achieved had been placed still further beyond their reach. In any case, this was a type of breach of confidence by a University that had come in for severe criticism by a Full Bench in Virendra Kapur's case AIR 1964 Raj 161 (FB) and then again by a Division Bench of this Court in Jiwandhar Kumar's case, 1968 Cur LJ 505. Legal fiction is a device generally employed to meet th exigencies of a critical situation. It is an enabling trick which can be justified only in so far as it succeed in getting govern a difficulty. A legal fiction is rarely employed to operate harshly on any person. We have not been referred to any provisions in the Rules and Regulations or the Act governing the respondent University which authorises it to change the rules and regulations to the detriment of the examinees with retrospective effect and the notification incorporating the amendments also does not say anywhere that it is intended to have any such effect. It has no doubt been said that the amendments have been made in the University Calendar for 1969 but that does not mean that these amended regulations become applicable to all the examinations which had already been held earlier during that year. Every amending Act mentions the year of the main Act that it seeks to amend but that alone does not imply that the amendments have been made to take effect over the years that have intervened between the passing of the main and the amending Acts.
12. A rough idea as to how the amendments made in the University regulations by the notification dated 30-5-70 operate to the detriment of the examinees can be had from the minute of the meeting of the Syndicate held on 16-11-1968 and 20-9-1969 (Annexes R-1 & R-2). The provision for the award of grace marks for earning a compartment in the B. A and B. Sc examinations were proposed to be withdrawn by the first resolution R-1 but the decision was modified in the meeting of the Syndicate held on 20-9-1969. All examinations were included of purposes of award of one per cent. grace marks but the provision for the grant of such grace marks for compartment candidates was done away with. The provision for award of grace marks were to be contained only in the regulation and wherever the Syndicate had provided for award of grace marks in the rules, the provision was to be deleted. These decisions taken by the Syndicate behind the four walls of a building located in the security of the University campus are not expected to have come to the knowledge of the students living far and near all over the State. It was only the publication of the amendments in the official Gazette that could be expected to have fixed the candidates with the knowledge of the amendments made in the regulations. As these amendments which operated harshly to the detriment of the examinees came into force after the examinations had been held, these amendments cannot be applied for the declaration of the results of the candidates appearing in various examinations held in the months of April and early May, 1970. The holding up of the results until after the publication of the amendments would also be of no avail to the respondent University as the students were not given enough time to adjust themselves to the changes and they could not be expected to be able to stretch out for the targets which ad been placed still higher by the University.
13. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the respondent University, Shri Sarhadi, that the award of grace marks was a matter of mere discretion and that it did not confer any title on the exminees. No autonomous body can afford to appear lacking in grace more so in disregard of its own rules and regulations. A grace has also be doled out with an eve hand and there cannot possibly be any discrimination. Noblesse oblige may be so compelling that they may seem to confer a title on the beneficiary. My Lord, Mr. Justice Narula had observed in Satinder Mohan Mehta v. Punjab University 1967 Cur LJ 191 (Punj & Har), that this court would not interfere in the internal management of the University authorities unless it was shown that the petitioner had been denied something to which he was entitled as a matter of right. Award of grace marks was a concession to which the petitioner was found entitled as a matter of right. The same view way appear to have been taken in two other Single Bench decisions of this Court in Sadhu Ram Singal v. Punjab University, 1969 Cur LJ 27 (Punj & Har), where the Court intervened to correct a wrong interpretation placed by the University on the relevant regulation with regard to award of grace marks to the candidates.
14. The plea that the respondent University was an autonomous body and that there could be o interference with its internal management or private affairs was rightly not pressed by Shri Sarhadi though it had been taken in the returns filed in the court. In fact the matter before us does not relate entirely to the internal management of the University.
15. In a nutshell, my conclusions are that the rules and regulations governing the award of grace marks cannot be changed to the detriment of an examinee after he has appeared in a examination. The learned counsel for the respondent University has not referred us to any provision of law under which the amendments could be given a retrospective effect and the notification incorporating the amendments does not specify any date from which these amendments are to take effect. According to the Division Bench ruling in 1968 Cur LJ 505 (Punj & Har ), these amendments comes into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
16. I may now deal with the case of each and every petitioner separately to see whether the award of grace marks in accordance with the old rules and regulations would enable him to pass the examination or be placed in compartment as the case may be.
17. Civil Writs Nos. 2198, 2286 and 2287 deal with candidates who appeared in B. Sc. , Home Science Part I examination held in April 1970. Though the general results of most of the candidate were published on 30-5-1970, the results of the petitioners were held up and the letters "R. L. " appeared against their names in the result sheets. It was finally on 24-6-1970 that these petitioner were declared as having failed. The reasons for the holding up of the results until after the publication of the notification incorporating the amendments is not clear on the record unless it was an attempt to comply with the letter if not the spirit of the ruling in Jiwandhar Kumar's case, (1968 Cur LJ 505). The petitioners in all these cases claim that if they were given the grace marks according to the old rules and regulations they would be entitled to be placed in compartment. The calculations on which they base their claim are given in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petitions and the correctness of these calculations in accordance with the old rules and regulations has not been controverted in the written statements filed for the respondent University. The pertinent regulations have been reproduced in the writ petitions as also the marks obtained by the petitioners in different subjects. All that is reiterated in the written statements is that the results of these petitioners would be governed by the new set of rules as amended by the notification dated 30-5-1970. That defence having been negatived, these petitioners are found entitled to be placed under compartment and to join provisionally the next higher class. These three writ petitions are accordingly allowed with costs.
18. In Civil Writ No. 2201, the petitioner Miss Parmjit Kaur joined the Three Year Degree Course (T. D. C) for B. A. 1968. She appeared in Part I examination in April 1969 and passed in three subjects but failed in English. According to the rules he was placed under compartment and was allowed to join provisionally classes for Part II. She appeared in the compartment examination in English and in all the subjects for Part II in May, 1970. She was declared to have failed in the compartment examination and the result for Part II examination was held up. The detailed marks sheet, Annexure 'A' shows that in the compartment examination she had got 34 marks in English out of the maximum marks of 100. She needed one more mark for passing that examination and according to the old regulation she was entitled to one per cent grace marks. According to the amended regulation these grace marks are not admissible in the compartment examinations. She has therefore been severely hit by the amendment made to her detriment after she had appeared in the examination. She is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for that she be declared to have passed the B. A. Part I (T. D. C) Compartment examination. This writ petition is also allowed with costs. the provision applicable in her case is Regulation 18 on page 67, Volume II of the Punjab University Calendar for 1969.
19. In Civil Writ No. 2368, the petitioner Kumar Santosh Malik appeared in B. A. (T. D. C) Part II examination held in April, 1969. She passed in two papers as also in Hindi optional but failed in English paper in which she got 25 marks, thereby earning a compartment in that paper. She appeared in English paper in the compartment examination held in September, 1969 but failed again. She re-appeared in April 1970 and this was her last chance. She secured 33 marks out of the maximum of 100 marks. In compartment examination, a candidate is entitled to 1 per cent grace marks only in the subject in which she has appeared. She is therefore short of the coveted target by one mark even if she is allowed grace marks admissible according to the old Regulation No. 18 on page 67, Volume II of the Punjab University Calendar for 1969. Her counsel Shri Keer relies on 1969 Cur LJ 27 (Punj & Har) but this ruling does not govern the case where a candidate ha appeared only in a compartment examination. Grace marks are admissible only on the maximum marks of the subject in which the candidates appears in compartment and not on the aggregate marks of the whole Part II examination. This petition is therefore dismissed with costs.
20. Civil Writs Nos. , 2355 and 2356 relate to candidates who appeared in B. Sc Part II, T. D. C. Examination in April 1969. Regulation 18 ibid is applicable and it is conceded that if these candidates were to be granted 1 per cent. grace marks in accordance with the old rules and regulations, they would earn a right to appear compartment examination in one subject as claimed by them. The right to join the next higher class provisionally follows as a necessary corollary. These two writ petitions are also allowed with costs.
21. Civil Writs Nos. 2358 and 2360 relate to candidates who appeared in one subject in Part III of B. Sc. (T. D. C) examination held in April 1979. In this examination, the petitioners secured 34 examination out of 100 and were short by only one mark. They were entitled to that coveted mark in accordance with the old regulations which said that one per cent. grace marks were allowed even in compartment examination. The relevant regulation is No. 18 ibid. These two writ petitions are also allowed with costs.
22. Ajaib Singh petitioner in Civil Writ No. 2359 of 1970 joined the Bachelor of Laws in the Department of Laws in the Punjab University in 1967. He was promoted to the S. E. L. Class in 1968. He took his Second Examination in Law (S. A. E. ) in April 1969 and was placed in compartment in three papers. According to the regulations then in force he was provisionally admitted to the final LLB. Class and was allowed to appear in compartment examination in three subjects in which he had failed. He took this compartmental examination in September 1969 and cleared one paper but failed in the other two. He had one more chance to appear in these two papers in a compartment examination which he took in April 1970. His result was declared in July 1970 and he was shown to have failed. The detailed marks sheet. Annexure 'A' shows that he has passed in all the subjects having secured more than the minimum of 40 percent marks in each subject but the aggregate is short by three marks as in the aggregate he was required to get 50 per cent marks. If he is allowed 3 grace marks in the aggregate, he would pass the LLB. Examination. He was entitled to make good this shortage in his aggregate marks under the old regulation which allowed on per cent grace marks to be added. The relevant regulation is 6. 5 (iii) on page 339 of Volume II of the Punjab University Calendar 1969. 1969 Cur LJ 500 (Punj & Har) also lays down that the petitioner is entitled to one per cent. grace marks on the aggregate. He has been denied this concession because of the later amendment of the rules and regulations. This petition also deserves to succeed with costs. Ordered accordingly.
23. Jaswant Kuma petitioner in Civil Writ No. 2342 of 1970 appeared in the Pre- University examination in the month of April 1969 and was shown to have been placed under compartment in English. He appeared in that subject in November, 1969 but failed again. He took the second and the last chance in April 1970 and his result card, Annexure 'A' shows that he secured 64 marks out of a maximum of 200 marks. Under the old regulation he was entitled to 1 per cent, grace marks on the total marks of the subject in which he had appeared and he would have just made the target under the old regulation. The new regulation however provided that o grace marks were to be awarded to students appearing in compartment examinations. The relevant regulations are Nos. 7-9 which appear on pages 26 and 27 of Volume II of the Punjab University Calendar for 1969. He has therefore passed the compartment examination in English and has the right to join the next higher class. This writ petition also succeeds with costs.
24. Bhopinder Singh petitioner in Civil Writ No. 2395 of 1970 also appeared in the Pre- University examination conducted by the respondent University in April 1970. He is shown to have failed and the marks sheet (Annexure A) own that he got only 56 marks out of 200 when the minimum pass marks were 66. He has also failed in Punjabi. He is short of 10 marks in English and 1 per cent. of grace marks on the aggregate of 800 marks would not make up the deficiency. Chapter XXXV relating to moderation of results on pages 260 -262 of the Punjab University Calendar, volume III is not applicable as it does not cover the case of Pre- University students Bhopinder Singh does not pass or earn compartment even under the old regulations. His writ petition is dismissed with costs.
25. In the final result, Civil Writs Nos. 2368 and 2395 are dismissed while the other 10 are allowed. Costs to follow the event in each case.
R. S. Narula, J.
26. I agree.
26. Orders accordingly.