IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 4490/2008 (OA No. 1456/96) Decided on: 21.4.2009. Satish Kumar ..…Petitioner Versus H.P.S.E.B. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner in terms of the present petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order dated 28.4.1993 (Annexure A-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the result declared by respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-4) with respect to Paper No. 2 of S.A.S. Part-II Examination may also be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to re- declare the result of applicant for the examination conducted by respondent No. 2 in October 1992 by giving him the benefit of grace marks as envisaged in notification dated 20.8.1986 and they may be directed to issue revised result card in favour of the applicant. 2 (iv) That the applicant may be considered for further promotion alongwith similarly situated persons.” Annexure-A3 is the result card for session July 1991 showing the petitioner to have secured the following marks:- Sr. Subjects Maximum Marks Result No. Marks obtained 1 Precis & Draft 150 69 Pass 2. Advance Accounting 200 45** Fail & Auditing 3. Industrial and 100 50 Pass Commercial Laws 4. Accounts Rules & 200 106 Pass Procedures. **IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN 60% MARKS IN THE NEXT EXAMINATION. Annexure A-4 is the result card for session October 1992 showing the following marks obtained by the petitioner:- Sr. Subjects Maximum Marks Result No. Marks obtained 1 Precis & Draft 150 - - 2. Advance Accounting 200 118** Fail & Auditing 3. Industrial and 100 - - Commercial Laws 4. Accounts Rules & 200 - - Procedures. **IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN 60% MARKS IN THE NEXT EXAMINATION. The petitioner vide his representation dated 20th of April 1993 requested for two grace marks, in accordance with the policy which stood rejected in terms of letter dated 28th of April 1993, Annexure A-8. 3 The petitioner was employed with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) initially as clerk but lateron promoted as Upper Division clerk. Keeping in view the provision of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Service (Examination) Regulations-1978, the petitioner appeared in S.A.S. Part-I Examination in the year 1983. He qualified the same and was offered appointment as Divisional Accountant. Subsequently, petitioner appeared in S.A.S. Part-II Examination in accordance with the prevalent rules. The respondents have issued the Regulations known as “Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Revised Supervisory Accounts Service (Examination) Regulations, 1985” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”. Clause-4 of the said Regulations reads as under:- “PASS MARKS. (a) A candidate who secures atleast 45% marks in each subject shall be declared successful. A candidate, though failing in the examination but secured a minimum of 60% marks in any subject shall not be required to appear in that subject. (b) A candidate who has passed three out of the four subjects of any part of S.A.S. examination shall have to obtain 60% marks in the remaining subject viz. in the subject in which he has not secured a pass earlier. (c) A candidate who secures more than 60% marks in three out of four subjects of any part of S.A.S. Examination shall be required to obtain at least 45% marks in the remaining subject viz. in the subject in which he has not secured a pass earlier. INTERPRETATION/CLARIFICATION ON CLAUSE 4(a), 4(b) &(c): The intention of Rule 4 (a) is that any candidate who secures 60% marks in any subject is exempt from appearing in 4 that paper and has to got only 45% marks in the other papers. Thus if a candidate secures above 60% marks in 1,2 and 3 papers, he has to get only 45% marks in the other paper. Rule 4 (b) comes into operation when a candidate passes in three papers but does not get more than 60% marks in all the three papers. In such a case, the candidate will have to got 60% marks in the 4th paper. If a candidate secures 60% marks in two papers, passes in the third paper and fails in the 4th paper, the candidate has a choice of either claiming exemption under clause (1) and re-appear in the remaining two papers in which case he will have to secure only 45% marks in those two papers. Alternatively, he can claim the benefit of clause (b) and re- appear only in the failed subject but he will have to secure 60% marks in that subject. In a case where the candidate secures 60% marks in three papers and fails in the 4th paper, the candidate can claim exemption from three papers under clause (a) and reappear only in the 4th paper and in such a case he will have to secure only 45% marks”. (Emphasis supplied). The said Regulations stood amended w.e.f. 29.7.1986 and following clause-4(d) was inserted therein:- “i) appear in all the four papers of part-I &/ or II examination and passes in three papers but is short of marks upto five in one paper to pass the examination. ii) having secured exemption in one paper appears in remaining three papers, passes in two papers but is short of marks upto 5(five) in one paper to pass the examination. 5 iii) having secured exemption in two papers, appear in remaining two papers, passes in one paper, but is short of marks upto 5 (five) in one paper to pass the examination. iv) having secured and exemption in three papers, appears in remaining one paper but is short of marks upto 5 (five) to pass the examination”. While appeaing in S.A.S. Part-II examination in July 1991, petitioner evidently secured more than 45 marks in three papers. When he sat for examination to clear his 4th paper he secured 118 out of 200 marks and was declared failed as he could not secure 60% marks as stipulated under clause Clause- 4(b) of the Regulations. Noticeably, the petitioner was short of only two marks. Petitioner’s case squarely fell within clause 4(d) as he was entitled for five grace marks which is evidently clear from the Regulations reproduced hereinabove. The petitioner’s representation was rejected by passing the following order:- “I am directed to inform you that your representation dated 8.2.1993 on the subject noted above has been considered and rejected.” No reasons have been assigned for rejection of the same. The respondents in their return are conspicuously silent as to why the benefit of Clause-4(d) could not be accorded to the petitioner. Hence, in the facts and circumstances, the respondents contention that in order to qualify the examination the petitioner was required to obtain 60% marks in the 4th paper needs to be rejected. The Annexure-A8 is thus quashed and the respondents are directed to declare the petitioner’s result for the examination conducted in the year 1992 by awarding two grace 6 marks. As a corollary of the same, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. The necessary action be positively taken on or before 30th of June, 2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is allowed. (Sanjay Karol), April 21, 2009. Judge. (vs)