ORDER Bhave, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the Ravishankar University, Raipur, to declare the petitioner to have passed the Second Year Examination of the Degree Course in Engineering We dismissed this petition on 13th April 1967 and in our order passed on that date we had indicated that we would give our reasons in support of the conclusion rejecting the petition later. We do so now. 2. The petitioner during the material period was studying in Second Year of the Degree Course of Bachelor in Engineering of the Ravishankar University. The petitioner appeared in the Annual Examination held in April, 1966, but filed. He again appeared in the Supplementary Examination in only one subject in which he bad failed. He secured 47 marks out of 100 in that paper in the Supplementary Examination, but he was declared to have failed in the Examination as in the aggregate of all the theory papers he had secured less than 40 percent marks. The contention of the petitioner is that under the relevant Ordinances even though he had failed to secure an aggregate of 40 percent marks in all the theory papers, he was entitled to be placed in Pass Division and he should have been declared to have passed the Examination. 3. The Ravishankar University was established on 1-5-1964. Before that date the Colleges in the Chhatisgarh Division were affiliated to the Saugor University. The Vice-Chancellor of the Ravishankar University issued Ordinance No.4 which provided that the provisions of the Ordinances for various Examinations of the University of Saugor in force in that University on the date of establishment of the Ravishankar University shall govern the examinations of the Ravishankar University till the date on which they are replaced by the provisions of the Ordinances of the Ravishankar University. The relevant Ordinances of the Saugor University are Ordinances Nos. 1 and 2. Ordinance No.1 is styled as Ordinance for B.E. Examinations under Faculty of Engineering and Technology. Paragraph 11 of the said Ordinance reads as under – "11. The relevant Ordinances of the Saugor University are Ordinances Nos. 1 and 2. Ordinance No.1 is styled as Ordinance for B.E. Examinations under Faculty of Engineering and Technology. Paragraph 11 of the said Ordinance reads as under – "11. A candidate securing- (i) A minimum of 25% marks in each theory paper with a minimum of 40% marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers; (ii) A minimum of 40% marks in each Practical; (iii) A minimum of 60% marks in each sessional (excluding the mid sessional) and (iv) A minimum of 50% marks in the total aggregate of all the theory papers, practicals and sessionals (including the midsessional), will be declared to have passed the examination in Second Division." Paragraph 16 then provides that a candidate who fulfils conditions (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 11 but fails in any two theory papers only, or in any two practicals only or in one theory paper and one practical only will be placed in the compartment in (i) the above said two theory papers, (ii) the above said two practicals or (iii) in one above said theory paper and one above said practical only, as the case may be, provided that he has secured a minimum of 20 percent marks in each of the theory papers and a minimum of 30 percent marks in each of the practicals. Paragraph 17 provides that students clearing the papers of the compartment subjects will not be entitled to a class or division in that examination. 4. Ordinance No. 2 is designed to give the facility of appearing in the Supplementary Examination even to those students who have failed in one or two subjects but who are not entitled to be placed in compartment. Paragraph 2 of the Ordinance is as under- "2. Candidates who have failed in anyone subject or group as the case may be and have not been placed in a compartment in that subject or group, may, at their option, appear only in that subject or group in the next July August examination, and if they pass in that subject or group and further obtain in the aggregate not less than the percentage of marks required for placing the candidate in the compartment in that subject or group, they will be placed in the Pass Division Provided that this concession will be available only once. Explanation:- For purpose of the P.F. Examinations, the expression 'Candidates who have failed In any subject or group' means candidates who have secured a minimum of 60% marks in each sessional (excluding the midsessional) but have failed in (i) any two theory papers, of (ii) any two practicals or (iii) anyone theory paper and anyone practical (Amendments issued under No. Com/14-A dated the 18th July, 1964, Paras 1, 2 and 3). Provided further that the failures of the 1963 examinations may be given the benefit of this concession in the March-April examination of 1964 or if they have not availed of that examination, then in the examination of July-August of 1964". 5. In the annual examination held in April, 1966, the petitioner had secured marks as indicated below- fyf[kr iz;ksxkRed l=h; vad e/; l=h; vad iw.kkZad izkIrkad iw.kkZad izkIrkad iw.kkZad izkIrkad iw.kkZad izkIrkad Mathematics I Paper II 100 29 100 47 Mathematics II Paper II 100 33 50 Applied Mechanics II 100 37 50 42 50 Applied Physics II 100 27 50 34 50 Engineering Chem. II 100 (11) 50 28 50 329 Survey II 100 42 50 20 50 Engineering Materials and Constn. II 100 45 Principles of Electrical Engineering II 100 38 Heat Engines & Applied Thermodynamics II 100 46 Engineering Drawing II 100 40 100 Workshop Practices II 50 26 100 (348) 150 329 47(874) From the mark-sheet it is clear that the petitioner had failed in Engineering Chemistry 11 and had secured only 11 percent marks. He could, not, therefore, be placed in compartment, and was declared to have failed. At this stage, it may also he noted that the petitioner had secured only 348 marks out of 1000 in the aggregate of all the theory papers. 6. Though Ordinances Nos. 1 and 2 were in force when the annual examination was held, subsequently the Vice-Chancellor issued Ordinance No. 25. This Ordinance provided that Supplementary Examination in the Faculty of Engineering for the following categories of B.E. candidates would be held- (a) Candidates who have obtained at the annual B.E. Examination the requisite minimum marks for passing the examination in sessionals, the aggregate of theory papers, and the total aggregate and have failed only one theory paper or one practical and have not been paced in the compartment. (b) Candidates who have passed the annual B.E. Examination in all the theory papers, sessionals and practicals and have failed to secure the requisite minimum marks for passing the examination in either the aggregate of the theory papers or the total aggregate. This Ordinance further provides as under:- "2. A candidate included in para 1 (a) above may appear at the Supplementry Examination in the theory paper or practical in which he/she has failed at the annual B.E. Examination and if he/she passer in that theory paper/practical by obtaining that minimum marks required to pass in that paper/practical at the annual B.E. Examination he/she will be placed in the pass division. 3. A candidate included in para 1(b) above may appear in the thereby paper in which he/she has secured the least marks at the annual B.E. Examination and if he/she passes in that paper and theory improves .the theory aggregate/total aggregate marks obtained at the annual B.E. Examination and secures the minimum marks required to pass in the theory aggregate and the total aggregate at the annual B.E. Examination he/she will be placed in the pass division. Provided that if a candidate secures, the least marks in more than one paper he/she will have the option to select the paper in which he/she desires to appear at the Supplementary Examination". The Vice-Chancellor, therefore, took the decision that those students who had failed to secure aggregate of 40% marks in the theory papers were not entitled to appear for the Supplementary Examination. It appears that certain representations were made to the Chancellor of the University and the Chancellor by his letter dated 26th September 1966 (Annexture-4) expressed his opinion that candidates who took the examinations of the Engineering Faculty in April, 1966, had in their minds the provisions governing the examinations as they existed at that time, and, therefore, they should have naturally entertained the expectation that if for some reason beyond their control they did badly in one subject or a group, they would have the benefit of a supplementary examination under those provisions. In this view of the matter, all the students who could have appeared for the Supplementary Examined under Ordinance No.2 of the Saugor University were directed to be permitted to take the examination. In this view of the matter, all the students who could have appeared for the Supplementary Examined under Ordinance No.2 of the Saugor University were directed to be permitted to take the examination. The Chancellor, however, made it clear, as would appear from Annexure 5 to the Return, that only those students should be declared to have passed a, a result of the Supplementary Examination who have met the requirements of all the items stated in the B.E. Examination Ordinance (Ordinance No.1), as conditions for passing the examination. 7. The contention of Shri Tankha, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that under paragraph 2 of Ordinance No.2 the only requirement is that the student must clear the paper in which he has appeared again, that is to say, he should secure a minimum of 25 percent marks. The other condition necessary in that he should obtain in the aggregate not less than the percentage of marks required for placing the candidate in the compartment in that subject or group as per conditions III and IV in para 11 of Ordinance No. 1. In other words, he says that the candidate must obtain a minimum of 60 percent in each 5essional and a minimum of 50 per cent marks in the total aggregate of all the theory papers, practicals and sessionals, and that the condition that he must also obtain 40 percent in the aggregate of all the theory papers is not attracted in such a case in our view, the contention is without substance. 8. We have already referred to Ordinance No. 25 which was promulgated by the Vice-Chancellor before the Supplementary Examination was held. The petitioner was allowed to take the examination only as a matter of grace under the direction of the Chancellor. The Chancellor had made it clear that the condition, namely, that 40 percent marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers must be secured by a student to be declared to have passed, was obligatory. When the petitioner took the examination on the directions of the Chancellor, he was also bound by the other direction issued by the Chancellor. It is not disputed that the petitioner has not secured 40 percent marks in the aggregate in all the theory papers. The petitioner's claim that he has passed the examination cannot, therefore, be sustained. 9. When the petitioner took the examination on the directions of the Chancellor, he was also bound by the other direction issued by the Chancellor. It is not disputed that the petitioner has not secured 40 percent marks in the aggregate in all the theory papers. The petitioner's claim that he has passed the examination cannot, therefore, be sustained. 9. Even if it is held that Ordinance No. 25 was not retrospective and that the petitioner had acquired a right to appear for the Supplementary Examination under Ordinance No.2; the interpretation put by Shri Tankha cannot be accepted. For putting a student in compartment, what is necessary is that he must satisfy the third and fourth condition of paragraph 11; and only when he fails in one or two theory papers or one or two practicals, he is placed in compartment. Now, under clause (i) of paragraph 11 two conditions are required to be satisfied by a student to get himself declared passed, namely, he should secure a minimum of 25 percent marks in each theory paper and a minimum of 40 percent marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers. In order that a student may be placed in compartment, the only relaxation is that he may not have secured a minimum of 25 percent marks in one or two theory papers; but it cannot be said that the other requirement, namely, that he should have secured 40 percent marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers, is also relaxed In our view, a student who has not secured 40 percent marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers is not entitled to be put in compartment if he has failed in one or two subjects. In this view of the matter, it would be clear that under paragraph 2 of Ordinance No.2 a candidate who has cleared the paper for which he had appeared has to satisfy the other requirement, namely, that his marks should be such as would have warranted his being placed in compartment. This means that he must have secured 40 percent marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers. That condition the petitioner has not satisfied. Our interpretation of paragraph 11 is fortified by paragraph 17 which says that a student clearing the papers of the compartment subjects will not be entitled to a class or division in that examination. This means that he must have secured 40 percent marks in the aggregate of all the theory papers. That condition the petitioner has not satisfied. Our interpretation of paragraph 11 is fortified by paragraph 17 which says that a student clearing the papers of the compartment subjects will not be entitled to a class or division in that examination. This clearly indicates that though the student has secured the marks which would have ordinarily entitled him to be declared to have passed in the first or second division he will not be entitled to that division because he had once failed in one or two subjects. In other words, paragraph 17 envisages that the student must secure the required number of marks which would have warranted his being put in one of the divisions prescribed under paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the Ordinance. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the petitioner was properly declared to have failed in the examination.