( 1 ) THE petitioner is a third year law student in the BMS College of Law, b'lore. He had appeared for the University Examination held in the month of April 1974. He has been declared to have failed in the said Examination. His complaint in this petition is that he has not been awarded grace marks which he is entitled to under the University Regulations. ( 2 ) THE marks obtained by the petitioner in the subject of Taxation law is only relevant for considering the question urged in this petition. He has secured 29 marks out of 100 in that subject. The minimum required for pass is 33-1/3. He was thus short by 4-1/3 marks. His contention ia that he is entitled to 8 more marks. Reliance is placed, in particular on regulations 3, 4 and 7. For immediate reference, the said Regulations are set out hereunder :" 3. The total marks for gracing shall be one per cent of the maximum marks of the subject of the examination which the candidate has taken. 4. Subject to Regulation 3 above, gracing in any subject shall not exceed 2 per cent of the maximum marks of that subject. 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the above Regulations in addition to the gracing made in the subjects or part|s if any the aggregate of a part or parts or of the whole examination can be graced by one per cent of the total marks of the subjects or partis taken by the candidate. " ( 3 ) THE question is, whether the petitioner is entitled to 8 grace marks as he contended for. In my view, he is not Regulation 3 provides that the total marks fox gracing shall be one peacent of the maximum marks of the subject or subjects, It is admitted that the petitioner has taken examination in all six subjects carrying the maximum of 600 marks. By Regulation 3, he is therefore entitled to one per cent of the, maximum marks. It works out to be 6 marks. That is however, subject to the estriction imposed by Regulation 4 which states that gracing in any subject shall not exceed 2 per cent of the maximum marks of that subject. The subject, 'taxation Law' carries the maximum of 100 marks. It works out to be 6 marks. That is however, subject to the estriction imposed by Regulation 4 which states that gracing in any subject shall not exceed 2 per cent of the maximum marks of that subject. The subject, 'taxation Law' carries the maximum of 100 marks. The petitioner, therefore, shall not get more than 2 per cent of the maximum, that is not more than 2. By reading Regulations 3 and 4, it is now obviqus that the petitioner can get not more than two grace marks. ( 4 ) NOW, let me consider the scope of Regulation 7. It opens with a non obstante clause stating notwithstanding anything contained in the above Regulations in addition to the gracing made in the subjects or parts if any, the aggregate of a part or parts or of the whole examination can be graced by one per bent of the total marks of the subjcets or parts taken by the candidate. This Regulation could be invoked only to make up the deficiency in the aggregate and not to grace the subject or part of the subject which are governed by Regulations 3 to 6. The aggregate could be graced by one per cent of total marks of the subjects or parts taken by the candidate. This appears to be the clear meaning of Regulation 7. The petitioner has obtained the required aggregate and therefore he cannot call into, aid the said Regulation. By Regulation. 3 he is entitled to only two graco marks. If that is added on to 29 in the Taxation Law, he would not get the minimum required for a pass in that subject. ( 5 ) IN the result, the rule issued in this petition is discharged. Petition stands dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .