Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1981 DIGILAW 790 (ALL)

Kumari Rashmi Tewari v. University of Allahabad

1981-09-07

K.C.AGRAWAL, V.K.KHANNA

body1981
JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - Km. Rashmi Tewari, the petitioner appeared in B.Sc. Part 1 Examination of the Allahabad University in the year 1980. She offered Chemistry, Botany and Zoology as her subjects. According to the prospectus of the University each subject had two papers, one was practical and the other theory'. The marks assigned to theory papers of these three subjects was 100 whereas 50 marks had been allocated for practical. In the examination she secured the following marks. I Paper II Paper III Paper Total Theory - Chemistry 16 22 13 51 Practical 48 Theory - Botany 15 17 32 Practical 26 Theory - Zoology 19 10 29 Practical 36 Total Marks obtained 222 2. According to the Ordinance of the University minimum pass marks of 36 per cent of the aggregate in each subject had to be secured. In the present case the petitioner got 32 marks in Botany (theory) and 29 marks in (Zoology) (theory). Having thus obtained less than 36 per cent marks in two subject site was declared failed. The petitioner, however, applied for re-examination in accordance with the Ordinances of the University which are known as Ordinances relevant to second examination". The clause relied upon before us was 2. The relevant portion of that clause reads as under :- "A candidate who : (a) has failed, (b) has partly failed to appear or (c) has passed but is dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him her at the Annual Examination in written papers, may appear at the Second Examination in : (1) One or more written papers of any one subject of the B.A. Part I, B.Sc. Part I, B.A. Part II and B.Sc. Part II Examinations, and/or the practical within the subject, provided that a candidate would be permitted to appear in the practical only in case he has failed or failed to appear in the Practical and not for: improvement of marks." 3. On the basis of the marks secured in the three subjects stated above, the petitioner claimed that she was entitled to appear at the School Examination, according to "Ordinances relating to Second Examination". She applied to the Registrar for permission to appear in that examination. The Deputy Registrar, Examinations took the view that as the petitioner had failed in two subjects, she was not eligible to appear at the Second Examination. She applied to the Registrar for permission to appear in that examination. The Deputy Registrar, Examinations took the view that as the petitioner had failed in two subjects, she was not eligible to appear at the Second Examination. A copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure 3 to this writ petition. Upon the receipt of that letter from the Deputy Registrar, Examination, the petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, Examination Committee claiming that that merely because the petitioner had failed in two subjects, she could not be held to be eligible to appear at the Second Examination. On 22nd May, 1981, the petitioners representation was rejected and the stand taken by the Deputy Registrar, Examinations was reiterated. The petitioner thereafter filed this writ petition in this Court claiming that the stand of the University was illegal and that she was entitled to appear at the Second Examination under the ordinance framed by it, On 23-5-81 the writ petition was admitted and the petitioner was permitted an appear at the Second Examination of the Zoology (two papers) of the B.Sc. Part I which was to be held on May 25, 1981. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Allahabad University challenging the claim of the petitioner to appear at the Second Examination. The University has asserted that a candidate who was failed in one subject only arid the marks in that subject fall short of the pass marksby 5 or less is entitled to award of grace marks. The University asserted that as the petitioner had failed in more than one subject she was not entitled to the award of grace marks. On this basis, the University pleaded that the petitioner could not treat herself as entitled to either to the award of grace marks or that she was entitled to appear at the Second Examination. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are opinion that the submission made by the petitioners learned counsel is riot correct. In sub-clause (i) of clause 2 of the Ordinances relating to Second Examination it would be found that a candidate who was failed in one subject is entitled to appear at the Second Examination. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are opinion that the submission made by the petitioners learned counsel is riot correct. In sub-clause (i) of clause 2 of the Ordinances relating to Second Examination it would be found that a candidate who was failed in one subject is entitled to appear at the Second Examination. The interpretation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the irrespective of number of paper in which a candidate might have failed, he or she is entitled to appear in one subject is not correct. If a candidate fails in two papers, he or she is not entitled to the second chance. That being the position, he or she could not be said to have qualified to appear at the Second Examination. 6. In connection with the entitlement of grace marks, counsel for the petitioner urged that grace marks are award able to a student irrespective of the fact that a candidate has failed in two subjects. For this purpose we may refer to the rules for the awarded of grace marks. The relevant rule is as follows: "In addition to the marks awarded by the examiners, grace marks on the following scale shall be given in the Degree, Faculty of the University in Arts, Science and commerce : - (1) A student who fail in one subject only and passes in the aggregate may be given grace marks as follows : - For every 10 marks or part thereof in excess of the minimum, he may be given one additional grace mark for every 30 marks above the minimum aggregate upto a limit of five marks in all. (2) A student who passes in every subject, but fails in the aggregate by not more than two marks may receive one or two grace marks as the case may be." 7. After having considered the aforesaid rule we find that grace mark is available to a student' who fails in one subject only. It may further be mentioned here that grace marks are available only to a candidate who has passed in the aggregate otherwise arid independently of the grace marks added to it. After having considered the aforesaid rule we find that grace mark is available to a student' who fails in one subject only. It may further be mentioned here that grace marks are available only to a candidate who has passed in the aggregate otherwise arid independently of the grace marks added to it. For the entitlement of grace marks, therefore, two conditions are necessary The first is that he must have failed in one subject and the second that he has passed in the aggregate prescribed for passing the examination in which he or she has appeared. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed in two subjects, hence she was not entitled to get any grace marks. 8. For the reasons given above we find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief being given to her. In the present case, she was neither entitled to appear at the Second Examination nor to get the grace marks under the Ordinances and the rules for the award of grace marks respectively. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner will not be entitled to the declaration of any result on the basis of her appearance at the Second Examination under the stay order passed by this court on 23-5-81. There shall be no order as to costs.