tu
Yy
. 31
THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC.
a
SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS ‘ February 27, 1984
[S. MurtTAZA Fazat ALI, A. VARADARATAN AND -RANGANATH MIRA, J],
- “punjab University Calendar Vol. I, 1976, Chapter II Rule 27.1 (a) interpretation of Whether the allowance of grace mark under Sub-Rule’(a) or (b) wil] apply to candidates reappearing in, any subjeet—Award of grace mark at Post Graduate level deprecated. . Ps
Respondents in each of these appeals could not clear the LLM examination in accordance with Regulation 7 of the Punjab University Regulations either in the first attempt or later while taking on compartmental basis even after addition of grace marks as laid down in Rule 21(1)(b) of the University - Regulations. The respondents filed separate writ petitions praying for a direction 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(1)(b) that applied and not Rule 27-I(a). Hence the appeal by Special Leave.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred ito as the Regulations by the High Court) makes it clear that clause (a) is applicable where the ful ‘examination is taken and clause (b) is attracted where the {candidate reappears ‘to clear the compartment or subject and partin which he has been declared eligible to reappear. In'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)
"ig 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 ote per cent of the total marks of the subject/subjects in which he reappears. Once clause (b) applies no referenee 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 fiot eligible to pass.
_ 34GH, 35B-C]
[In view of the- ‘declaration dated 19.6. “i980 n made before the court, that irrespective of the result of the appeals, the’candidates will be declared to have . passed, the Court as a Special case did not want to disturb the result. J s a, . BSD]
3G
32. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R.
Observation :
The position obtaining in the Punjab University in respect of Post
Graduate degrees namely grace marks being awarded is disapproved. A
‘"Master’s degree in any speciality -is considered to be ‘the highest qualification in the normal run. Itis very much necessary that 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 the 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 i in this country. [35F- Hi]
Cwit APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 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, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ‘in
' Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1759 and 1846 of 1980.
JL. Gupta, D.N. Gupta and V.Kx Verma for the Appellant in
CA. No. 6009 of 1983.
JL. Guptd and C.M, Nayar for the Appelt in CA, No. 1207
~ and 1208 and 1980.
Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. The J udgment of the Court was delivered by +
~ RANGANATH Misra J. Each of these appeals is® by special
Jeave and is directed against the decision of the High’Court-of
Punjab and Haryana in separate writ petitions. A common question is involved in. all the three matters and that relates to a correct
" interpretation of Rule 27.1(a) in Chapter Hil of the Punjab | Univer- 7 sity Regulations. “oo, .
Respondertts in each of these appeals | was a a studént of the
Punjab University for the Master _ Degree in Law (LL. M,). Rule —
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY y. SUNDER SINGH (Ranganath Misra, J.) 33 ye § 7 of the Punjab University Regulations provides : “7, The minimum marks required to pass Part 1/lE examination, as the case may be, shall be : - (i) 45 per cent in each paper; and (ii) 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: whilt Part-II . covers the temainder. Rule 27 reads as follows :
ed
“27.1(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 to maximum of | per cent of the total aggregate marks (excluding marks for inter-
~ nal 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 toa cane didate if by awarding such marks he can earn exemption or compartment in subject/s and part/s.
. (6) A candidate wha 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 1% of the total marks of the subject/s and part/s in which he ré-appears if by such addition the candidate can pass: in that we, subject/s or part/s.”
Each of the réspondents failed to to satisty the requirements of Rule y 7 and being eligible to .clear the subject in which he failed on ; compattmentel basis reappeared in such subject “in the next examination. As on the ‘performatice of the subsequent examination each of the: resporidenits was not eligible to pass by complying withthe requirements of Rule 7, theneed for invoking Rule 27 ‘ arose. The University authorities took the view that Rule 27.1(b), _ authorised addition of the grace marks of up to 1 per cent on the marks secured in the subject/s in which the candidate reappeared and as; with that benefit given the candidates did not pags, they .af were found:not to have deen. suecessial That led to each of the | q’s
‘ ook ry
34 7 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C:R:
respondents fling a separate writ applicatign’ before the High | Court. ;
The High Court referred to the rule and observed :
| . The only question to be seen is whether Regulation “OT, 1(a) in'Chapter II] of . the Punjab University Calendar, Volume II, 1976, relating te Moderation 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 ate unable to agree with the contention of Shri Gupta,’ the - _ learned.counsel 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 play if the. candidate is failing in the subject in which he or she reappears. It is quite clear from the 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 clause (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 has been ~ contended before-us.
For the reasons recorded above, we allow this writ application and direct the University to make available the behefit 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 clause (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 he has been declared eligible to reappear. In 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. taken that decision and-took the same stand before the High Court in answer to the rule nisi, Werare clearly of the opinion that the
The University had’
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY y, SUNDER SINGH (Reneanat Misra, J.) 38 :
High Court went wrong in taking the view that when a candidate a reappeared to clear 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 percent 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 teappearance. a
Once this is the position each of the candidates was not eligible to pass. We, however, find that’a direction was given 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 passed irrespective of the result of the appeals, Learned counsel appearing for the University before us reiterated his consent and even agreed that the respondent in the remaining appeal may be given the same advantage as the University did not intend to make any discrimination. In view of this special feature we do not disturb the declaration of the University that each of the respon- dents 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 ‘of post-graduate degrees grace marks are being awarded. A master’s degree in any speciality is considered to be the highest qualification in the normal run. It is very much necessary that 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 the 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 poste
‘graduate examinations the better it would be in the interest of higher education in this country.
xX
360 5: SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.cr.
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. Tp avoid confusion we reiterate that our vacating the the judgments of the High Court do not in any manner affect the declarations made in favour of the respondents by the appellant- University in regatd to passing of the Master Degree Examinations
" in law.
S.R. 7 . | oo . Appeal allowde.