IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1205 of 2009 Manju Sinha, Wife of Birendra Kumar, Resident of Village Kesharia, Post Office D.K. Sikarpur, District West Champaran, at present Resident of M.J.K. Hospital Campus, Bettiah, Police Station Bettiah, District West Champaran. ------------- Petitioner/Appellant -:Versus:- 1. B.N. Mandal University through its Registrar, Madhepura. 2. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 3. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 4. The Controller of Examination, B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. 5. Millia Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, B.Ed. Teachers Training College, Rambagh Purnia through its Secretary. ----------- Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Adv. For the B.N. Mandal Univ. :- Mr. B.K. Jha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Adv. ----------- 2 15.03.2010 In this appeal the appellant has called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9732 of 2009, whereby he has declined to interfere to issue a mandamus to the respondent University to confer the benefit of grace marks on the foundation that the writ petition was preferred after thirteen years. 2 It is submitted by Mr. Prasad that the learned single Judge should have taken note of the factum that the University has granted such benefit to many and, therefore, similar benefit should have been extended to the petitioner. Per contra, Mr. Ramchandra Singh, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge is absolutely flawless and does not warrant any interference. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it is patent that the examination was held in the year 1996, wherein the petitioner appellant was declared to have failed and she preferred writ petition for grant of grace marks after expiration of thirteen years. It is urged by Mr. Prasad that the University should have been well advised to show mercy to meet the cause of justice and the same having not been done, the order is absolutely vulnerable. True it is, justice has to be tampered with mercy but that does not necessarily mean law should 3 always succumb to mercy. When a student sleeps for a period of thirteen years only to rise like a phoenix on some realization being dawned, the concept of mercy, if we allow ourselves to say so, does not get attracted. The University might have committed mistakes, but the same cannot be treated as a foundation to extend the benefit to the appellant at such a belated stage. Additionally, the concept of negative equality is not attracted and, more so, when nothing has been stated in the petition, Mr. Prasad has urged with all humility at his command that this Court would ask the University to scan and re-examine the matter for the purpose of grant of grace marks, but it is difficult to accede to such a prayer. Though the conclusion of ours by such denial may manifestly seem to be merciless but award of grace marks can only be considered within the parameters of law and within a particular framework of time. If a student thinks he has the capacity and the ability to arrest time, we must say with certitude that he/she is absolutely mistaken. In the result, the appeal, being devoid of 4 merit, stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. Rishi (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)