B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, despite Ordinance 28-A having been framed, the marks secured by a candidate in an examination, which he had repeated continued to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining his eligibility for the award of Prizes or Medals, provided that the candidate had passed the course within the minimum span period prescribed. It is contended, that it is only in the year 1980-81 that the matter was investigated in detail and legal opinion was obtained. The legal opinion given to the University was that, on a correct interpretation of the said Ordinance, a candidate absenting himself from an exam. in a paper was to be treated on the same footing as the candidate who failed to pass a paper, and if the latter became ineligible for the award on account of his not having passed the exam. in the normal course within the minimum span prescribed, then there was no reason why the disqualification should not apply equally to a candidate who had absented him- self from the exam. in a paper. According to the respondents, similar would be a case where a candidate repeats the paper in a subsequent semester. According to the respondents, in all such cases with regard to the said paper, for the purposes of deciding as to whether that candidate is entitled to an award of Prize or a Medal, the marks obtained by that candidate in that paper would be taken as zero. ( 2 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the interpretation sought to be placed by the University was clearly unwarranted. According to him, the words of the Ordinance do not postulate the candidate being required to pass every paper at the first available opportunity ; if a candidate obtains the highest marks in the minimum span which is relatable to the exam. , namely, two years in the case of M. A. , then that candidate would be entitled to get the medals/prizes irrespective of the fact as to whether he had repeated any paper or not. Mr. , namely, two years in the case of M. A. , then that candidate would be entitled to get the medals/prizes irrespective of the fact as to whether he had repeated any paper or not. Mr. Mridul, the learned counsel for the respondent-University, on the other hand, reiterated the stand of the University, the moment a student does not appear in a paper or fails in it or repeats that paper then, for the purposes of Ordinance 28-A, that student must be regarded as getting zero marks, notwithstanding the fact that. the student may have completed his course of study within the stipulated period of two years. ( 3 ) from the above it is clear that the only issue which arises for consideration is as to what is the correct interpretation of Ordinance 28-A. It is not disputed that if the marks obtained by the petitioner in paper X, which she had to take in the 3rd semester, are taken into consideration then she would be entitled to the aforesaid five prizes/medals as, admittedly, she has obtained 5. 70 average grade points and has gradation o . (Outstanding) ( 4 ) UNDER Ordinance 28 different prizes/ medals are to be awarded. These five prizes/ medals, with which we are conceined in this petition, have been set-up by virtue of endowments/trusts. The medals/prizes are to be awarded to those candidates who obtain the highest percentage of marks in the M. A. exam. provided the candidate obtains a first division. The terms of the awards, as set-out in the said Ordinance, do not contemplate medals/ prizes being given to candidates who do not obtain the highest percentage of marks. ( 5 ) IT is in the aforesaid background that Ordinance 28-A has to be interpreted. If the interpretation sought to be placed by the University is to be accepted then the effect of that would be that candidates who have not secured highest percentage of marks would be given the ditferent awards. In the present case, respondents 3 to 5 have, in the M. A. or M. Sc. exam. , got lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner. Nevertheless, the University is proposing to give awards to respondents 3 to 5 and not to the petitioner. In the present case, respondents 3 to 5 have, in the M. A. or M. Sc. exam. , got lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner. Nevertheless, the University is proposing to give awards to respondents 3 to 5 and not to the petitioner. Giving all these awards to respondents 3 to 5, in preference to the petitioner, would per se be contrary to Ordinance 28 and the terms of the said award. ( 6 ) IS there anything in Ordinance 28-A which compels the University to ignore the marks of the exam. in any one or more papers which are repeated or taken in any subsequent semester, even though the candidate obtains the M. A. degree within the minimum period provided, namely, two years ? ( 7 ) A close scrutiny of Ordinance 28-A would show that the stand of the University is clearly untenable. The said Ordinance provides that, in order to determine the eligibility of a candidate for the award, only those marks shall be taken into consideration which are obtained by him in any exam. in which, in his course of study, he should have appeared in normal course, within the minimum span period prescribed. The said Ordinance is applicable to all types of examinations held by the University. Some courses of study have semester system, other courses do not. The semester system, as provided by the Rules of the University, entitles a candidate not to take all the papers at the first instance. A candidate may take one or more papers in the first semester, and if he abstains to take any exam. in any of the papers he can take the same in the subsequent semester, as provided in the aforesaid rule 9. Similarly, the said rule entitles a candidale to improve the percentage of his marks by repeating the paper in a subsequent semeter. In such a case, however, the candidate has to give an undertaking in writing that the marks obtained in that paper, which he wants to repeat, should be treated as cancelled. The effect of this is that if in the subsequent attempt, in that very paper, the candidate obtains lesser marks then he cannot insist on the marks obtained by him on the previous occasion being continued. The effect of this is that if in the subsequent attempt, in that very paper, the candidate obtains lesser marks then he cannot insist on the marks obtained by him on the previous occasion being continued. It is only the marks which the candidate gets in the paper which he repeats which will be taken into consideration in the final computation. The word "in the normal course" occuring in Ordinance 28-A would mean in the course in which a candidate is normally expected to follow in accordance with the rules. In the semester system it would be in the normal course if a candidate repeats a paper or abstains from the taking exam. in a paper and takes the same subsequently. It would be a normal course because the rules provide for the same. The further requirement of the said Ordinance is that the examination must be taken by the candidate within the minimum span prescribed. The expression examination in Ordinance 28 is the examination with respect to which the award is to be given. The exam. in question in the present case is M. A. exam. and not the exam. of various papers in each semester. The minimum span prescribed for M. A. exam. is two years. Therefore, within the period of two years, whatever marks a candidate obtains the same have to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Ordinance 28-A, irrespective of the fact as to whether the candidate has repeated a paper or had abstained from taking that paper at the first available opportunity. ( 8 ) THE expression in the normal course occuring in Ordinance 28-A does not mean at the first available opportunity. In our view it will be making a mockery of semester system if the marks of the papers which are repeated are to be ignored for the purposes of awards and prizes. It will not be logical that, for the purposes of determining the eligibility of a candidate for the award of any prize or medal, the marks secured by that candidate in any exam. which he repeats should not be taken into consideration. The candidate takes a risk when he repeats an exam. in the paper. As already noted, he has to give in writing that he surrenders the marks which he has obtained earlier. which he repeats should not be taken into consideration. The candidate takes a risk when he repeats an exam. in the paper. As already noted, he has to give in writing that he surrenders the marks which he has obtained earlier. According to the respondents the moment he surrenders the marks then, for the purposes of Ordinance 28-A, it will be regarded as if that candidate gets zero in that paper. This will be clearly shuntting one s eyes to the realities of the situation. Supposing a candidate, like the petitioner, had obtained in paper X in the 3rd semester 85% marks. She being a bright student, may not be satisfied -with that. She is entitled to surrender her marks and repeat the said paper. Supposing in such a case she gets 95% at the second attempt. According to the respondents, though for the purposes of the award of the M. A degree the marks which will be taken into consideration would be 95% but, for the purposes of giving an award under Ordinance 28, the marks for that paper would be taken as zero, she having surrendered the marks of 85% obtained by her earlier and the later marks not being taken into consideration. It is conceivable that, in the example which we have given above, the petitioner may still be having the highest percentage if the marks obtained at the earlier attempt in that paper are taken into consideration. But according to the University, because she surrendered those marks then for the purposes of giving of an award the marks to be taken into consideration would be zero. We find it very difficult to accept an interpretation which is sought to be placed by the University on Ordinance 28-A, which will lead to such incongruous results. ( 9 ) THE semester system had been adopted from abroad. The main idea in introducing the semester system was that bright students should get an opportunity of improving their performance. There should be no pressure of annual exam. on thestudents and they should be entitled to take the exam. as and when they feel that they are ready to take them. The main idea in introducing the semester system was that bright students should get an opportunity of improving their performance. There should be no pressure of annual exam. on thestudents and they should be entitled to take the exam. as and when they feel that they are ready to take them. If for the purposes of the awarding of a degree, the marks in a repeated paper or of the paper taken in the subsequent semester are to be taken into consideration, we fail to understand the logic in not taking those marks into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether or not a candidate is to be given the award of a prize or of a medal. ( 10 ) THERE is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the contention of the respondents is correct, and the exam. in a paper is to be taken at the first available opportunity, then the words "within the minimum span period prescribed" would become redundant, as the first available opportunity must necessarily be within the time prescribed. The expression in the normal course may, possibly, exclude supplementary exam. which may be held within the prescribed two years period or will certainly exclude any exam. which is held in consequence of a permission which may be granted under Ordinance X-C, which enables the Academic Council to grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinances, inter alia, governing exami- nations. If, therefore, by a resolution of the Academic Council under Ordinance X-C a special exam. is held then, possibly, that may not be regarded as an exam. being taken in the normal course and the marks obtained in such an exam. may not be counted for the purposes of an award. The exam. taken by a candidate by repeating a paper cannot, however, be equated with a supplementary exam. or to an exam. being taken by an ex-student. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the University, for the purposes of considerating the eligibility of the petitioner for the grant of the aforesaid five prizes, medals, ought to have taken into consideration the marks obtained by her in paper X which she had taken along with other papers in the fourth semester. being taken by an ex-student. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the University, for the purposes of considerating the eligibility of the petitioner for the grant of the aforesaid five prizes, medals, ought to have taken into consideration the marks obtained by her in paper X which she had taken along with other papers in the fourth semester. Because the aforesaid marks have to be taken into consideration, it must follow that the petitioner would be entitled to receive the aforesaid five prizes/medals, as she had admittedly got higher percentage of marks than respondents 3 to 5 and she thus becomes entitled to receive the awards. The list of the awardees prepared by the University in respect of the aforesaid five medals/prizes has to be quashed to that extent. Petition allowed