S. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case appeared in B. A. Part II Examination of 1971 of the Burdwan University. The marks he obtained in the said examination would be evident from the following table: Total Mark 200 200 300 100 Marks Obtained 68 66 110 50 Total marks of elective subjects & aggregate - 344. English Bengali Political Science Additional General Science The petitioner contends that under Regulation 7 of the University Regulations a candidate, to pass the said examination as also the degree examination has to obtain 33% marks in each subject and also 35% marks in aggregate. He obtained 33% marks in all elective subjects, his total marks being 344. But he was short of 6 marks in the aggregate. Regulation 18 provides that marks obtained in excess of 33% in additional subject are to be added to the aggregate of candidates. So that in this case 17 marks are to be added to aggregate secured by the petitioner raising his total marks to 361 while qualifying pass marks is 35% of the aggregate of the elective subjects that is 350. The petitioner further contends that he thus qualified for being declared to have passed the examination. But the University wrongfully and illegally refused to accept this contention in spite of representation by its letter of March 17, 1972 annexure 'b' to the petition and took to the position therein that marks in excess of 33% in the additional subject is to be added only in the case of successful candidates. Such interpretation is not warranted by the language of Regulations 7 and 18 and the later regulation does not state that marks in excess of 33% is to be credited only to successful candidates. The petitioner in these circumstances moved this Court in Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the University to rescind, withdraw or forbear from giving effect to the impugned order aforesaid and also for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the same. ( 2 ) ON the service of the rule the University authorities have entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-opposition disputing the contentions made in the petition and also opposing the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the writs. It was contended that Regulation 7 provides the conditions for qualifying for the Part II and Degree examinations. ( 2 ) ON the service of the rule the University authorities have entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-opposition disputing the contentions made in the petition and also opposing the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the writs. It was contended that Regulation 7 provides the conditions for qualifying for the Part II and Degree examinations. The conditions are securing 33% marks in each subject and 35% marks in the aggregate, both in the elective subjects. Regulations 18 and 19 make it clear that he marks in excess of 335 in the additional subject is to be added to the aggregate of successful candidates only and such marks are not to be taken into consideration for securing minimum pass marks in the aggregate obtained by a candidate. In view of the marks obtained by the petitioner the decision of the University in not declaring him successful in the examinations is a legal and proper decision. ( 3 ) MR. Ganga Narayan Chanda, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the literal meaning of the language of Regulation 18 is that the marks in excess of 33% in the additional subject is to be taken into account in computing the aggregate marks secured by a candidate. He submitted that there was no warrant for inserting the word "successful" before the word "candidate" in Regulation 18 as the provision of the Regulation is clear and unambiguous. He has referred me to a decision in the case of (1) Management, Sahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S. S. Railway Workers Union A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 513 in which it was observed that the court ought to give a literal meaning to the language used by Parliament unless the language is ambiguous or its literal sense gives rise to an anomaly or results in something which would defeat the purpose of the Act. ( 4 ) DR. Tapas Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the University authorities, has submitted on the other hand that Regulation 7 is not controlled by Regulation 18 and in construing Regulations 18 and 19, marks in excess of 33% is to be considered only after the candidate has fulfilled the conditions laid down in Regulation 7. ( 4 ) DR. Tapas Banerjee, the learned Counsel appearing for the University authorities, has submitted on the other hand that Regulation 7 is not controlled by Regulation 18 and in construing Regulations 18 and 19, marks in excess of 33% is to be considered only after the candidate has fulfilled the conditions laid down in Regulation 7. It was further stated that this construction of the Regulations, followed since 1965, is a reasonable construction of the relevant regulations which also should be followed by this case. ( 5 ) IT would be proper at this stage to consider the regulations relate to the Bachelor of Arts, Science and Commerce Examinations of the University of Burdwan. Regulations 7, 18 and 19 are as follows:"7. In order to qualify for Part II Examination, a candidate must obtain a minimum of 33% marks in the M. I. L. and a minimum of 30% marks in each of the elective subjects in Part I Examination. . . In order to pass Part II Examination and the Degree Examination as a whole a candidate must obtain 33% marks in each subject and 35% marks in the aggregate on the combined results of Part I and Part II Examinations. . . Regulation 18. Marks obtained in excess of 33% in the additional subject shall be added to the aggregate of candidates for Part II Examinations. Regulation 19. A candidate who passes and obtains 50% marks or above in the aggregate of Part I and II Examinations taken together including the excess marks in the additional subject, if any, will be declared to have passed B. A. Examination with Distinction. " ( 6 ) AS we have seen the elective subjects together total 1000 marks. There are two conditions laid down in Regulation 7 for passing the Part II and Degree Examinations. One is the minimum 33% marks in each subject and the other is 35% in the aggregate. This Regulation is prescribing the conditions for success in the examinations with reference to the subjects which are referred to in the earlier part of the same regulation and the subjects are the elective subjects only. At that point Regulation 7 is not providing the additional subject of the candidates. It thus obvious that Regulation 7 is no controlled by Regulation 18 in absence of any provision providing otherwise rather Regulation 18 is controlled by Regulation 7. At that point Regulation 7 is not providing the additional subject of the candidates. It thus obvious that Regulation 7 is no controlled by Regulation 18 in absence of any provision providing otherwise rather Regulation 18 is controlled by Regulation 7. Accordingly in its context Regulation 7 refers to only elective subjects. ( 7 ) TURNING now to Regulation 18 which with Regulation 19 deals with the additional subject, it would appear that provision has been made in the said Regulation to the effect that marks excess of 33% in the additional subject shall be added to the aggregate referred to in Regulation 7, secured by the candidate in the examination. This regulation does not say that such excess mark shall form part of the aggregate as defined Regulation 7. The excess mark absence of any further provisions is part of the aggregate contemplated Regulation 7. Accordingly it is obvious that the excess mark over 33% in the additional subject is not to be included in the aggregate defined in Regulation. ( 8 ) WHERE however such excess mark is to be taken into consideration for other purpose, as for declaring a candidate passing the examination with Distinction, there is express provision for including such excess mark in the aggregate as has been laid down Regulation 19. There is, therefore, ambiguity or anomaly in the literal meaning of the provisions in the Regulations themselves. For these reasons the action of the University in not declaring the petitioner as having passed B. A. Part II as also the Degree Examinations is, in my opinion, in accordance with law. The rule accordingly fails and is discharged without any order as to costs. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Rule discharged.