IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8320 of 2008 Himansu Shekhar S/o- Dr. Murlidhar Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Ramnagar, Post Office- Politechnic, Police Station-Mronga, District- Purnea. …………… Petitioner. Versus 1. The Vice Chancellor, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 2. The Registrar, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 3. The Examination Controller, Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura. 4. The Principal, Gorelal Mehta College, Banmankhi, District-Purnea. …………. Respondents. ------------ 03 20.10.2008 The petitioner had appeared in Bachelor of Science Examination conducted by the Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University. In the second year he had passed with 10 grace marks given by the decision of the Examination Board in general. He then sat for examination for the part third and passed. He was issued marks sheet but when he demanded the graduation certificate the same has been refused, which has brought the petitioner to this Court. Today a counter affidavit has been filed by the University, in which it is stated that the Examination Board has now resolved that grace marks as were granted earlier was irregular and therefore in all cases where students had passed because of such grace marks and even though the marks sheets were issued to them certificates would not be issued. Thus, the question is as to the validity of such decision. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2 It is not in dispute that the Examination Board of the University took a general decision to award grace marks up to 10. This decision was not specific to the case of the petitioner alone. On the strength of this decision the petitioner was shown as passed in the part second examination and was thus permitted to appear in part third examination, which he successfully passed. Now, after so may years the Examination Board cannot revise its decision and withdraw the grace marks granted to the petitioner. Petitioner had nothing to do the decision taken in the earlier. He only benefited from it as to the other students. He was promoted and passed part third examination. It could only be arbitrary and highly iniquitous to permit such decision being taken after such a long time. Authorities of University should keep in mind that their decisions affect the future prospects and career of students. Such decisions should not be taken casually or in a cavalier manner. Thus, the decision to withhold the graduation certificate of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The decision is declared to be vitiated and invalid and the University is directed to issue the graduation certificate forthwith. The acting Controller of Examination is personally present in the Court, pursuant to order passed earlier by this Court, his presence is dispensed with. The writ petition thus stands disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)