JUDGMENT P. Govindan Nair, J. 1. The petitioner is a student who was studying in the B.Sc. class in the Government Brennen College, Tellicherry, which college was affiliated to the Calicut University. He had taken Zoology Main and Botany and Chemistry as Subsidiary subjects for Part III of the Degree Examination of Bachelor of Science. Ordinances 5, 6, 7 and 8 placed before us by counsel appearing in the case, it is agreed before us, contain provisions on the basis of which declaration will have to be made that the candidate has passed the examination in any of the parts. Since the question involved in the case turns on the interpretation of these Ordinances we extract them in full. "5. No candidate shall be declared eligible for the degree of Bachelor of Science (General) unless he has completed the course of studies prescribed and passed the examination in all the subjects under the three parts of the examination, viz., Part I English, Part II” Second Language,-Part III” Optional Subjects. 6. Pass Minimum.” A candidate for the Degree of Bachelor of Science shall be declared to have passed the examination in” (i) Part ”English”of the examination if he obtains not less than 35 per cent of the aggregate marks in the three papers comprised in that Part. (ii) Part II Second Language of the examination if he obtains not less than 35 per cent of the aggregate marks in the three papers comprised in that Part. (iii) Part III Optional Subjects of the examination, if he obtains not less than 35 per cent of the aggregate marks for the main subject with not less than 30 per cent of the marks for each Division of the examination in the main subject and 35 per cent of the aggregate for each of the two subsidiaries. Candidates will have to appear for Part I at the end of the second year and for all the subsidiary subjects at the end of the second year and in the main subject at the end of the third year. Candidates who fail in any one of these need appear again only for the subject in which they have failed. The results of the main subject will be released only after passing all the subsidiary subjects. 7. Candidates who fail in any one of these need appear again only for the subject in which they have failed. The results of the main subject will be released only after passing all the subsidiary subjects. 7. The Divisions of the examination in Part III shall be as follows: Group (i) Mathematics and Group (vii) Statistics (a) Main subject. (b) Written and practical examination in each of the subsidiary subjects. Other groups: (a) Written examination in the main subject. (6) Practical examination in the main subject. (c) Written and Practical examinations together in each of the subsidiary subjects. 8. Classification of successful candidates.-Successful candidates who obtain not less than 60 per cent of the marks in any of the Parts I, II or III shall be placed in the First Class in that Part. Successful candidates who obtain less than 60 per cent and not less than 50 per cent of the marks in any of the Parts I, II or III shall be placed in the Second Class in that Part. All other successful candidates obtaining less than 50 per cent of the marks in any of the Parts I, II or III shall be placed in the Third Class in that Part. No candidate who has passed any part or parts of the examination shall be allowed to appear again for that part or parts of the examination passed by him." 2. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to insist that he be allowed to ignore the examination in Botany that he took and that successfully in the II year of the three year degree course in April 1971 and insist, that he be allowed to sit for all the papers and practicals in Part III applicable to him in the examinations that followed. He petitioned the Controller of the Examinations and sought permission to sit for Botany as well in the examination that was to be held next after the examination in April 1971. Ext. P-2 Memo was then issued to him which reads as follows: "UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Calicut University P.O., No. Ex. V-12/71 10th September 1971. MEMO In response to the directions contained in the Judgment to O.P. No. 3675 of 1971, of the Honourable High Court of Kerala Sri M. C. Premachandran, candidate with Reg. No. 8638, II B. Sc. Ext. P-2 Memo was then issued to him which reads as follows: "UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT Calicut University P.O., No. Ex. V-12/71 10th September 1971. MEMO In response to the directions contained in the Judgment to O.P. No. 3675 of 1971, of the Honourable High Court of Kerala Sri M. C. Premachandran, candidate with Reg. No. 8638, II B. Sc. Degree Examination May 1971 is informed that as per sub clause 3 of clause 6 of the ordinances relating to the B. Sc. Degree Examination candidates who get 35 per cent of the aggregate for each of the two subsidiary subjects shall be declared to have passed the examination in that particular subject. He is also informed that as per paragraph 4 of the clause 8 of the, same ordinance no candidate who has passed in part or parts of the examination shall be allowed to appear again for that part or parts of the examination passed by him. In the circumstances his request for cancelling the examination passed by him and for permitting him to appear for the September 1971 examination in that subject cannot be granted. (Sd.) Controller of Examinations. To Sri M. C. Premachandran, Laxmi Nivas, Parapfam, Pinarai, Tellicherry. Copy to : The Principal, Government Brennen College, Tellicherry for information." 3. Permission having been thus refused he approached this Court and this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to sit for all the papers in the examinations held in the subsidiary subjects in Part III and it is agreed before us that the petitioner appeared for all the papers. The answer papers have not been valued, we are told, and the results have not been published pending disposal of this petition. 4. The petitioner when he appeared in the April 1971 examination did the theory paper in Botany and scored 73 marks out of 120. He did not appear for the practicals in Botany, it is said, because he was taken ill due to eye disease, conjuctivatis. He had therefore withdrawn from the examinations. He had written also for the Chemistry paper in the same examination. For this paper he got only 40 marks out of 120 for the theory. 5. He did not appear for the practicals in Botany, it is said, because he was taken ill due to eye disease, conjuctivatis. He had therefore withdrawn from the examinations. He had written also for the Chemistry paper in the same examination. For this paper he got only 40 marks out of 120 for the theory. 5. It will be clear from the provisions in Ordinance 6 which we have extracted above that the petitioner passed in the Botany subject that falls under Division (c) in " other groups " in Ordinance 7 and that he failed in the other subject in that division namely Chemistry because he had not obtained the 35 per cent of the aggregate marks for the Chemistry subsidiary as required by Ordinance 6 (iii). The question is how we should interpret the last paragraph of Ordinance 6 which for easier reference we will extract again: "Candidate will have to appear for Part I at the end of the second year and for all the subsidiary subjects at the end of the second year and in the main subject at the end of the third year. Candidates who fail in any one of these need appear again only for the subject in which they have failed. The results of the main subject will be released only after passing all the subsidiary subjects." It is the contention of the Government Pleader who appeared on behalf of the University and the Controller of Examinations that the expression " candidates who fail in any, one of these need appear again only for the subject in which they have failed" necessarily mean that they shall not appear for the subjects in which they had passed. If this interpretation is accepted the Ordinance will contain a prohibition against appearing for a subject in which the candidate had passed in a former examination, in the following examination and this petition will have, then to be dismissed. If this interpretation is accepted the Ordinance will contain a prohibition against appearing for a subject in which the candidate had passed in a former examination, in the following examination and this petition will have, then to be dismissed. But counsel for the petitioner submits that Ordinances 6, 7 and 8 when read together will clearly show that the declaration of having passed an examination has reference to Parts detailed in the Ordinance 6, namely Parts I, II or III and that the inhibition that a candidate who had passed in an examination shall not sit again for the examination will apply only to candidates who had passed in a Part or Parts of the examinations as is evident from Paragraph 4 of Ordinance 8, which we have already read. The argument appeals to us. No declaration of a pass in any unit such as a subject or a division is contemplated by the Ordinances. No doubt the last paragraph of Ordinance 6 to which reference has been made twice, talks of failure in subjects, naturally taking note of passes in other subjects in a division and provides that a candidate "need" only appear in subjects in which he had failed. We, however, understand this as an enabling provision; enabling the candidate to take the subjects in a Division or arPart piecemeal, one at a time and then finally get a declaration in his favour if he, succeeds in his repeated attempts. Does it necessarily mean that candidates who are more ambitious and who are desirous of getting a class in a Part and who are willing and are courageous enough to discard the results of a paper they had taken in an earlier examination and try de novo in all the subjects with a view to better their performance, are debarred for doing so ? Unless there be something in, the rules which either expressly or by necessary implications spell such an inhibition it would be difficult for this Court to say that there is such an inhibition. If the matter is to be decided on a question of policy or desirability, which of course, is not a matter for this Court, it goes without saying that one should encourage students who are willing to discard the results of examinations they had taken ,and with which results they Ire dissatisfied. If the matter is to be decided on a question of policy or desirability, which of course, is not a matter for this Court, it goes without saying that one should encourage students who are willing to discard the results of examinations they had taken ,and with which results they Ire dissatisfied. It is refreshing that the Kerala University has accepted this policy and has embodied it in' a circular specifically stating that those who are desirous of improving , their results may try again. 6. We feel we are justified in taking the view that there is no implicit inhibition there is none expressly and it was not even contended that there was as contended by the University that a candidate shall not appear for a subject in which he had passed. 7. No exact decisions on similarly worded sections of statutes have been placed before us but we have been able to find a decision referring to such expression as ' need be' in Fromant v. Ashley I E. & B. 725 where Campbell, C.J. was inclined to think that 'need be' suggested that further things could be done by the plaintiff if he chose. The learned Judge was interpreting the section which enacted that in a case "the endorsement shall be considered as particulars of demand, and no further or other particulars of demand need be delivered, unless ordered by the court or a judge". It was ruled that the plaintiff, if he chose, could supply further particulars. On behalf of the respondents, it was suggested that the wording of the Ordinance will not enable us to apply the principle of the above decision. We are unable to discern any difference in the wording particularly in the context in which the last paragraph of Ordinance 6 occurs in the series of Ordinances 5, 6, 7 and 8 and in the light of the express prohibition differently worded in paragraph 4 of Ordinance 8. We hold that the provision in the last paragraph of Ordinance 6 is a provision which confers a benefit on a candidate who chooses to avail himself of the benefit. If he so chooses he can pass the Part piecemeal. This does not preclude him from writing the examination in the subjects in which he had already passed ignoring his earlier results. 8. If he so chooses he can pass the Part piecemeal. This does not preclude him from writing the examination in the subjects in which he had already passed ignoring his earlier results. 8. In the light of the above, we direct that the papers of the petitioner in Part III in the B.Sc. in Botany and Chemistry and practicals taken in 1971 as a result of the interim order passed by this court in C.M.P. 11688 of 1971 and Zoology taken in 1972 be valued and his results for Part III declared on the basis of the marks obtained in this examination alone ignoring the marks that he had obtained in the Botany examination which he took in April 1971. 9. This petition is ordered on the above terms. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs.