CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4067 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 23, 2010 Arjun Yadav .....Petitioner VERSUS Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Virk, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. It may sound strange but the prayer in the writ petition filed by the petitioner is for seeking 5 grace marks to reach the pass mark level in the B.C.A examination taken by the petitioner in the year 2005, which he yet to completely clear. Having completed Ist of Bachelor of Computer Application, Correspondence Course, the petitioner appeared in IInd year examination in April 2005. He got re-appear in all the 6 subjects of the said course. He re-appeared in April 2007 and could CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4067 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: pass in two subjects that too with the grace marks. In one subject, he passed without the grace marks and, thus, he failed in three subjects. He made another attempt in December 2007 in these three subjects but again failed. The petitioner then availed another chance in April 2008 but could pass only in one subject that too after award of grace marks. He, thus, was given another chance to re-appear in December 2008 but still failed in these two subjects. One would be wondering as to how the University has been so benevolent to the petitioner in giving one chance after another. The petitioner, on his part appears to have followed the motto of “Try Try again”. The petitioner has lot of perseverance. He was given another chance to appear in the examination by the benevolent University in May 2009. He passed in one subject. Still, he could not clear in the remaining one subject. It is perhaps at this stage that he has now sought help from this Court to make prayer for grant of grace marks in the subject of Real Analysis where he has secured 30 marks. He prays for direction to grant him 5 grace marks so that he can finally qualify in the course. The University was put to notice and has filed reply. As per the stand of the University, the petitioner was required to clear all the six papers by taking two chances till April 2007. By then, he could only clear one paper on his own. He, however, was declared pass in two other subjects by awarding grace marks as per the rules. He was awarded 1 grace mark in the subject of Data File and 5 grace marks in the subject of Base Management System. The petitioner, thus, was required to be declared fail, yet he was given another additional chance to take examination of three remaining papers in December CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4067 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: 2007. The petitioner, however, still failed. Yet another additional chance was given to him in April 2008, where he passed in one subject that too by awarding 2 grace marks. For undisclosed reasons, he was still given chance to appear in December 2008 and yet another chance as a mercy chance to appear in the examination held in May 2009. He could clear only one paper and could not clear one paper even after award of grace marks and, thus, has finally been declared to have failed. The petitioner now is before the Court to seek direction for grant of grace marks. Would such a person have a legal right to seek direction for grant of grace marks? Would it be fair for the Court to interfere in such like matters, which ultimately would lead to diluting the education standards? This apart, the petitioner otherwise, does not seems to be having any right to seek five grace marks as per the provisions. The counsel for the petitioner would refer to Clause 17 of Kurukshetra University Ordinance Part B, Volume II, Chapter IV, to make prayer for grant of grace marks. This clause makes a provision for grace marks upto 1% of the aggregate marks of paper/subject in which he has actually appeared in that examination, if by addition of these marks, he can pass the examination or be placed in the compartment. On this basis, the petitioner claims that he would be entitled to 5 grace marks. The University, however, would dispute the same. As per the University, the petitioner would be entitled to only 2 grace marks as he had appeared in two papers only in May 2009 where he is failing in one subject. The reading of Clause 17 of the University Regulation would clearly support the stand of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4067 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: University. Grace marks upto 1% of the aggregate marks of the paper(s)/subject(s) in which he has actually appeared in that examination would amply show that only two papers/subjects in which the petitioner had appeared during May 2009 could be taken into consideration for seeing the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of grace marks. The reference is also made to Clause 7.2 of the University Calendar, which provides that a candidate who fails to pass whole examination within six years of his admission would require to repeat the course de novo. The prayer made by the petitioner for grant of grace marks is, thus, not legally tenable and is also not reasonable. The University has been quite indulgent to the petitioner but still he has not been able to qualify in the examination. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. July 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE