IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 3828 of 2010 Decided on: 15th September, 2010 Geeta Ram Sharma Petitioner Versus State of H.P. through Secretary, HPSEB Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge For the Appellant: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The issue raised in this writ petition is with regard to the claim made by the writ petitioner for grace marks. An identical issue was considered by the learned Single Judge of this court in CWP(T) No. 4490 of 2008 Satish Kumar Vs. H.P.S.E.B. and others and in appeal, we have held as follows:- “Respondent is the appellant. This is an appeal filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment, dated 21.4.2009 in CWP(T) No. 4490 of 2008. The dispute is in narrow compass as to whether the writ petitioner was entitled to get grace marks under the H.P. State Electricity Board Supervisory Accounts Service (Examination) Regulations, 1985. There are four subjects. The writ petitioner in the first attempt secured more than 45% marks in three subjects, but failed to secure the required 45% marks in fourth subject. It is seen that he was treated as having passed in 3 subjects, though he secured 45% and he was permitted to appear only in one subject in which he had not secured 45% marks. In the second attempt, the petitioner secured 118 out of 200 marks . The regulations require that such candidate should secure 60% marks. The writ petitioner claims the benefit of grace marks. The provision regarding grace marks clearly states, as extracted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that in case a person has been exempted from appearing in some paper and in the remaining paper/papers in case the candidate is short of five marks, he will be entitled to grace marks upto 5. The learned Single Judge held in favour of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the Electricity Board came in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Board vehemently contended that the question of grace marks arises only in case a candidate has been exempted from re-appearing in any paper, having had secured 60% marks or above in any other subjects. Admittedly the petitioner had not secured 60% or above in three out of four subjects in his first attempt. Yet, the candidate was exempted from re- appearing in all the three papers. He was required to appear only in one paper. If that be so, the very conduct of the Board in having permitted the writ petitioner to have taken examination in only one paper out of four papers, it is to be taken that there was deemed exemption and thus the writ petitioner was entitled to grace marks. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The writ petitioner shall be entitled to grace marks and consequential benefits.” 2. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to grace marks and consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), September 15, 2010(K) Judge