THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC.

SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS

Februay 27, 1984

[S. MuRTAZA fAZAL Au, A. VARADARAIAN AND

RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] •

Punjab University Calendar Vol. l/, 1976, Chapter III Rule 27./ (a) inter, prttation of-Whether the allowance of grace mark under Sub-Rule ·(a) or (b) wi// apply to candidates reappear)ng in all)' subject-Award of graCe n'1ark at Posl Graduate levl deprecated. ' •

Re.spondents in each of these appea]s could not clear the LLM examination in accordance with RegulatiOn 7 of the Punjab University Regulations D either in the first atte'mpt or later while taking on compar.tmcntal basis even aftet addition' of grace marks as laid down in Rule 27(1)(b) of the University -

Regulations. The respondents filed. separate writ pethions praying for a d-irection to give the benefit of moderation grace. mark as calculated under Role 27(1)(a). The High Court. rejected the plea of the Appellant University holding that it was Rule 27(l)(b) that applied and not Rule 27-l(a). f[ence the \ ". appeal by Special Leave.

' '

Allpwing the appeal, the Court

HELD : A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred !to as the. Regulations by the High Court) makes it clear that clause(•) is applicable where the fu 1 examinatioti is taken and clause (b) is attracted where the !candidate reappears to.clear the compartment or subject and part in which he has been declared eligible to re3; ppear.

Jn each of these cases the candidate was reappearing to clear the paper in which he or she had failed; clause (b) was clearly attracted and the benefit under clause (a)•was not .available. .The language of clause (b) -ris such as would squarely apply to such a .situation. The provision in clause

(b) is clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to grace marks

of up to OI!ll per cent of the total marks of the subjecvsubjecis in which he reappears. Once clauSe {b) applies no referenee is availabJeto the performance in the regular examination taken earlier and the benefit of grace marks to the extent indicated has to be confine_d to the performance at the reappearance.

Once this is the position each of the candidates was 6ot eligible to pass.

. (34GH, 35B-C] . .

[In view of the-declaration dated 19.6:1980 made . before the court that irrespective of the result of the appeals, the candidates will be declared to' have

passed~ t4e Court as a special ca~~ did n9t want to disturb the result.] u

" ' -

(35D] ' .

. '18

>>G

i-tH

(1984) 3 S.C.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS . .

Observation :

The J?OSition obtaining in (be Punjab University in re.s.pect of Post Graduate degrees namely grace marks beiag awarded is disapproved. A Master's degree in any specialityis con$idered to be the highest qualification in tha normal ruh. It is very much necessary that such a degree. should be conferred only on th.e deserving students who having studied the subject and taken the appropriate examination conducted by tho University at the end of such studies h:1ve d:!served the degree on the basis of their performavce. There should be no scope for looking for grace marks at such level and the sooner the . Punjab U !l'iversity abandons the practice of awarding grace marks in .. -respeCt of post-graduate examinations the better it would be in the interest of

higher eduCation in this country.'[35F-H]

CIVIL APPELLA'IE JURlSDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 6009 of 1983.

Appeal by.special leave from the Judgment and Order dated , the 19th April, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in .c.w.P. No. 1484 of 1983.

WITH

Civil .Appeal Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 1980.

Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th May, i980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Comif in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1759 and 1846 of 1980.

 J.L. Gupta, D.N. Gupta and V.K, Verma for the Appellant in CA. No. 6009 of 1983. i . . . ·.

J.L. Gupta and C.M, Nayar for the Appellant in CA. No.· 1207 and 1208 and \980.

Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by •

RANGANi\.TH MiSRA J. Each of these appeals .is' by speaial leave and is directed against the decision of the High'Courtof Punjab and Haryana in separate, writ petitions, A common .'\uestion i_s involved in all the three matters and that relat.es to a corret interpretation of Rule 27. l(a) in Chap.ter Ill of the Punjab University Regulations.

Responderrts in each . of these appeals was a student of the funjabUniversity for the Master Deree in Law (LL.M,).

Rill~

-:' .. -! ;

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY v. SUNDER siNGH (Ranganath Misra, J.) 33

7 of the Punjab University l!.egulations provides :

"7. The minimum marks required to pass Part 1/U examination, as the case may be, shall be :

 (i) 45 per cent in each paper; and

Iii) 50 per cent in the aggregate."

It may be stated that 'there are eight papers in all each carrying 100 marks and Part-I covers four papers while Part-II covers the remainder. R.ule 27 reads as follows :

"27.l(a). A candidate who appears in all subjects of an examination and who fails in one or more subject (written, practical, sessional or viva voce) and/or the aggregate (if there is a separate requirement of passing on the aggregate) shall be given grace marks up tq. maximum of I per cent of the total aggregate marks (excluding marks .for internal assessment) to make up the deficiency if by such addition the candidate can pass the examination. . While awarding grace marks fraction working to 1/2 or more will be rounded . . to a whole;

Provided that grace marks be also awarded to .a candidate if by awarding such marks he can earn exemption or comp

0artment in subject/s and part/s. E

(6) A candidate wh'? re-appears to clear the compartment or subject/s and part/s in which he has been declared ·

(eligible) to re-appear shall be .awarded grace marks up to I% of the total marks of the subject/s and part/s in which he reappears if by such addition the cand.idate can pais in that subject/s or part/s." .

Each of the respondents Jailed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 7 and being eligible to .clear the subject in which he failed on compartmentel basis reappeared in such subject in the next exami.nation. As on the 'pe'rformalice of the subsequent eii:amination each of the respoli.dents was not eligible to pass by. complying

wlth-l)e requirements of. Rule 7, the need for invoking Rule 27

-- arose. The University authorities took the view that Rule 27.l(b), authorised addition of the grace !llarks of up to l per cent al). the marks scured in the suoject/s in which the Cal)didate reappa'r, ed H and as: with that benefit given the c, andidates di!l not pas, f.hey . ·

wefouqd qo\ \o haye l?el! ~11¥cesef, ul, lhat led \o ea~ oJtb~

"! '~

. E

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1984) 3 S.C:R• • respondents filing a separate writ applicatiqn' before the High G:!ourt.

lfhe High Court referred to the rule and observed :

"The only , Question to be seen is whether Regulation ·: 27. l(a) in Chapter III of . the Punjab University Calendar, Volume II, 1976, relating to Mo.deration of Question Papers and results of examinations, is applicable or not. We have gone through. clauses (a) and (b) of this Regulation very carefully and we find that clause (b) is not applicable. We are unable to agree with the contention of Shri Gupta; the . learned.copnsel for the University that the case would fall under clause (b). This contention is without any merit as it is clear that . this clause will only come into pliiy if tte candidate is failing in the subject in which he or she reappears. It is quite clear from ihe facts that the petitioner has not so far availed advantage as given in clause (b) so that she could get one per cent mark of the total marks in all the subjects .... ,.

The contention of the learned counsel for the University, that clase (a) will only apply if a candidate appears in . all the subjects in the examination, is without any merit.

The language of this provision does not show what bas been contended beforeus.

For the reasons recorded above, we allow this writ application and direct the University to make available the benefit of clause (a) of the said Regulation to the petitioner and declare the result of the petitioner accordingly."

A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred to as the Regulations by the High Court) makes it clear that ciause (a) is applicable where the full examination is taken and clause {b) is attracted where the candidate reappears to clear the compartment or subject and part in which be has been declared eligible to -reappear. In each of these cases the candidate was reappearing . to clear the paper in which be or she had failed ; clause (b) was clearly attracted and the benefit nnder clause (a) was not available.

The University had taken th.at.decision and.took the same stand before the High Court ill ;1nswer to tl!e r11le pisi, We:ar~ clearly of the opinion that th~

"'

.... ;

PUNJAB UNiVERSiTY v. SUNDER SINGH (Ranganath Misra, J.) 3,

High Court we.nt wong in taking the view that when a candidate

reappeard to clar a paper or a subject on being found eligible to do so, clause (a) was attracted. The language of clause (b) is such as would squarely apply to such a situation. Having taken the view that clause (a) governed the matter, the High Court had no occasion to express any' opinion as to if clause (b) applied what benefit the candidate would have got. The provision in clause (b) is clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to grace marks of up to one per cent of the total marks of the subject/subjects in which he reappears. Once clause (b} applies no reference is available to the performance in the regular examination taken earlier and the benefit of grace marks to the extent indicated has to be confined to the performance 'at the reappearance.

Once this is the position each of the candidates was not eligible to pass. We, however, find thata direction was giyen in this Court.on 19.6.80 on the concession of the University that the respondents in the two appeals of 1980 would be declared to have pass_ed irrespective of the result of the appeals. Learned counsel

appearing for the University before us reiterated his consent and even agreed that the respondent ln the remaining appeal may be given the same advantage as the University did 11ot intend to make any discrimination. In view of this special feature we do not disturb the dclaration of the University that each of the respondents has passed the examination taken by him or her.·

We must indicate our disapproval of the position obtaining in the Punjab University that in respect 1 of po:; t-graduate degrees grace marks are being awarded. A master's degree in any specia- lity is considered to be the highest qualification in the normal run.

It is very much necessary t.hat such a degree should be conferred only on the deserving students who having studied the subject and taken the appropriate examination conducted by the University at the end of such studies have deserved the degree on tQe basis of their performance.

There should be no scope for looking for grace marks at such level and.the sooner the Punjab University abandons the practice of awarding grace marks in respect of post• graduate examinations the better it would be in the interest of higher education in this country.

'<,'

 ~PRE"'B COURT REPORTS

[1984] 3 S.C.R.

We allow each of these appeals. and set aside the judgments of the High Court in each of. the writ petitions without any order for costs.

T>i avo.id confusion we reiterate that our vacat:Og the the judgments .of the High Court do not in any manner affect the declarations made in favour of the respondents by the appellantlJniversity in regard to passing ofthe Master Degree Examinatfons in law.

S.R.

Appeal a/lowde.

' •