In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh CWP No. 6948 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Jaspreet Singh …Petitioner Versus The Vice-Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vibhor, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has sought an appropriate writ for quashing Ordinance No. 6 with regard to frequency of taking of re- appear examination of odd years or even years. He has also sought the benefit of Chapter XIX of the General Ordinance pertaining to award of grace marks. The relevant part of the aforesaid Ordinance is reproduced hereunder:- “ CHAPTER XIX AWARD OF GRACE MARKS CWP No. 6948 of 2009 These Ordinances will apply to all the examinations unless otherwise expressly provided in the Ordinances for the examination concerned. Grace marks to be given shall be calculated on the basis of 1% of total aggregate marks of all the written and practical papers of the examination concerned. Marks for viva-voce/internal assessment/sessional work/skill in teaching shall not be taken into account for this purpose. If a fraction works out to half or more, it shall count as one mark and fraction less than half should be ignored. 1. Grace marks shall be given to the best advantage of the candidate to enable him: (i) to pass in one or more written papers or subjects, practical and/or to make up the aggregate to pass the examination but not in sessional work, internal assessment, viva-voce and skill in teaching; (ii) to earn compartment or exemption in one or more papers or subjects in the examination or parts thereof; (iii) to pass papers or subjects or parts of examinations in which the candidate has been allowed reappear or compartment; 2 CWP No. 6948 of 2009 (iv) to secure higher division. Under no circumstances can a candidate claim grace marks exceeding the limit as calculated above. 2. The total number of grace marks, as admissible under the above rules, shall be given to a candidate in qualifying subjects or papers also, but not in additional or optional subjects or papers. 3. Grace marks awarded to a candidate shall be added to his score. The marks awarded in the aggregate or for awarding higher division shall be added to his score in the paper in which he secures the lowest marks. Explanation (i) If in any examination 1% works out to 5 marks and the candidate earns exemption in certain subjects or papers without any grace marks, he shall be entitled to a maximum of 5 marks for clearing the papers in which he has got ‘reappear’ in one or more chances, as admissible under the rules. (ii) & (iii) xxx xxx xxx” 3 CWP No. 6948 of 2009 A perusal of the Ordinance shows that grace marks to the extent of 1% of total aggregate marks of all the written and practical papers of the examination concerned could be given. However, a perusal of the explanation shows that if in any examination 1% works out to 5 marks and the candidate earns exemption in certain subjects or papers without any grace marks, he was to be entitled to maximum of 5 marks for clearing the paper to which he has got reappear in one or more chances as per the rules. Therefore, the explanation clarifies that the maximum grace marks which could be availed by a candidate cannot be more than 5. The petitioner is a LL.B. (3 year course) student of 6th semester. He could not qualify the paper in the subject of ‘Law of Contract’ and re-appeared twice i.e. in December 2007 and December 2008. According to the declaration of result he has secured 31 marks whereas pass marks concerning every subject are 45. He also applied for re-evaluation. In so far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned that has already been rejected and Ordinance No. 6 has been upheld in the case of Ved Parkash Sehtiya v. Vice-Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala (C.W.P. No. 6950 of 2009, decided on 25.8.2009). On 1.9.2009, Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel for the respondent University had apprised the Court that on re-evaluation the marks of the petitioner have increased to 39. However, at the hearing today he has stated that the petitioner on re-evaluation of the paper of ‘Law of Contract’ has passed the paper and earlier statement 4 CWP No. 6948 of 2009 made was not in accordance with record. It has further been stated that in the paper of ‘Law of Evidence’ the petitioner has secured 39 marks after re-evaluation as against 31 marks obtained originally. He is still short of 6 marks, as the pass marks are 45. Even if the benefit of 5 grace marks is given, he would not be able to reach the required pass marks of 45. In view of above, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. The petitioner may take the examination in respect of ‘Law of Evidence’ in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance and other regulations of the respondent University. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) September 16, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 5