:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1321 OF 2008 Prashant Pankaj Kamdar .. Petitioner. Vs. The Vice-Chancellor, University of Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.B.B.Parekh for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Phadnis for respondent no.1. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. DATED : 16TH MAY, 2008. (Vacation Court) (Vacation Court) (Vacation Court) P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Ordinance 2658 of the Ordinances governing the conduct of examinations of the university provides as follows: "O.2658: A Candidate who has passed the Semester I and II examination and has satisfactorily completed the course for the Semester III will be permitted to enter upon the course for Semester IV. Such a candidate will not be permitted to appear for Semester IV examination unless he passed Semester I and II examination previously." 2. In the present case, the petitioner is declared to have failed in the examination subject of "Combinatorics and Probability". In that subject he obtained 39 marks out of 100. The pass mark is 45 marks out of 100. The case of the petitioner is that there were certain printing mistakes in the allotment of marks for the questions in the aforesaid subject and that by taking several permutations, the petitioner must be held to have obtained 39 marks, as case may be out of 94, 84 or 85 marks. In order to consider the tenability :2: :2: :2: of the submissions we have directed learned counsel appearing on behalf of the university to have the matter re-examined by the competent authority and to apprise the court thereafter. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the university had the entire issue examined afresh by the Controller of Examinations and his report has been placed on record. It appears that there were certain printing mistakes in the aforesaid question paper insofar as allotment of marks for that particular paper is concerned. However, immediately thereafter on 5th July, 2007, a circular was issued to all Examiners, correcting the allotment of marks. As a matter of fact, it has been clarified that for all the questions which were attempted by the petitioner he was assessed with reference to correct marks and he was assessed for 100 marks for the examination. We find that the university has taken necessary steps insofar as printing mistakes and allotment of marks are concerned and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner has been assessed for the questions attempted and since he has not attained the pass marks required, he cannot be permitted to appear for the 4th semester in terms of the provisions stipulated. We do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) :3: :3: :3: (K.U.Chandiwal, J.)