IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9450 of 2008 3 18.11.2008 Shiv Nath Yadav son of Sri Baldev Yadav, resident of village Doria, P.O. Haldhara Hat, PS Kursakanta, District Araria VERSUS 1. Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura through its Vice Chancellor 2. Registrar, BN Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura 3. Deputy Registrar, BN Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura 4. Examination Controller, BN Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura 5. Principal, Araria College, Araria -------- For the Petitioner : M/s Satish Chandra Jha, Kumar Ravi Shankar and Pushpa Rani, Advocates For the University : Mr H.P.Singh, Advocate ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent University. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of original certificate for BA (Honours) History examination conducted by the respondent BN Mandal University in December 2001. He was a regular student of the University for the session 1997- 2000. The only reason why the petitioner is not being issued original certificate is admitted fact that in BA Part I examination, he was given grace marks for clearing one of the subjects in which he had otherwise failed. The stand of the University is that the relevant regulations provide for giving only 5 grace marks in the final Honours examination for the 2 purpose of enabling the student to secure Honours or to secure first division. A large number of cases from the same University raising similar dispute have been decided by this Court. In some of those cases the resolution of examination board and the university taken on 10.11.2001 in its meeting no.90 in respect of item no.6 (ga) has been noticed. According to that decision, the examination board took a conscious decision by way of policy to the effect that no grace marks is to be given to such failed candidates. However, the decision also showed that the examination board decided not to touch the results of examinees published earlier on the basis of grace marks. Clearly, in view of such policy decision, the results based on grace marks given earlier to 10.11.2001 were not cancelled by the University. Such decision of the examination board appears to have been reiterated on 5.2.2004 also as is clear from a letter sent by the Vice Chancellor of the University to the Hon’ble Chancellor dated 28.2.2004, a copy of which was produced before the Court and has been taken on record. In the present case, the petitioner was granted grace marks in one of the subjects in Part I examination held in the year 1998 which was clearly much earlier to policy decision of the examination board dated 10.11.2001. 3 In the facts of the case, following earlier judgments that the earlier decision to give grace marks prior to 10.11.2001 shall not be touched by the University, the University is directed to issue the original certificate to the petitioner at an early date and in any case within four weeks from today. Although several other judgments in similar cases have already been passed by this Court but it is deemed necessary to point out that this decision is also based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurushetra University, Kurushetra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 because in the present case grace marks appear to have been permitted upto a particular date by way of policy by the University and the concerned examinee cannot be held guilty of fault or misrepresentation. The writ petition is allowed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk