S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Corporation three petitioners who had appeared at the 1st LL. B. examination from Rajkot centre in April 1983 have challenged the action of the first respondent-University in not giving grace marks to the students appearing from Rajkot centre while giving such grace marks to the students appearing at the very sane examination from other centres. The aforesaid action of the respondent University has been challenged on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) IN order to highlight the grievance of the petitioners it is necessary to note a few relevant facts The petitioners alongwith other students appeared at the first LL. 3 examination conducted by the respondent-University in April 1983 The petitioners appeared from the Rajkot centre. They had appeared in 7 papers. The petitioners contend that after the papers of the concerned subjects were examined the University by its resolution dated 30-7-1983 decided to give grace marks to the students who had appeared in the first LL. B. examination in April 1983 from the University. Mr. Nanavati for the University has placed on record a copy of the said resolution. It stated that those students who had appeared in 1st LL. B. examination held in April 1983 and had obtained not less than 30 marks in the paper of 100 marks and who had not got benefit of A. T. K. T. (allowed to keep terms) and had failed could be given grace marks totalling to 15 so that they could pass out after obtaining benefit of statutory marks (i. e. condonation marks ). But it was further resolved in the very same resolution that this benefit of addition of grace marks will not be available to those students who had appeared at the very same examination from Rajkot centre meaning thereby that this benefit of grace marks was to be available to the students who had appeared in the first LL. B. examination of April 1983 from centres other than Rajkot centre. B. examination of April 1983 from centres other than Rajkot centre. The petitioners who had appeared from Rajkot centre contend that the aforesaid decision of the University is patently arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14-The first respondent which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 could not have adopted the aforesaid discriminatory treatment and could not have picked and chosen a group of students similarly situated for being conferred the benefit of grace marks and could not have singled out the petitioners who appeared from Rajkot centre and who are otherwise similarly situated for a different and hostile treatment. The petitioners there-fore contend that the respondent-University should be directed to give equal treatment to all concerned including the petitioners for being conferred the benefit of the aforesaid policy decision of addition of 15 grace marks as per the said resolution. ( 3 ) NOTICE was ordered to be issued to the respondent-University. In para 1 of the affidavit-in-reply the case of the respondent-University has been highlighted by its Deputy Registrar (Legal ). It will be profitable to extract the averments in the said para with a view to appreciating the defence of the respondent-University. I say that the meeting of the committee of settlement of the results consisting of the Chairman and 11 examiners was convened on 30th July 83 The said committee after careful consideration of the results of the variouscentres of 1st LL. B. examination held by the respondent No. 1-University in April 1983 inter alia came to the conclusion that except in the case of Rajkot centre the grace marks upto the limit of 10 may be added in each case in order to make the result reasonable. I say that the said committee found that in the case of Gondal centre the result of successful candidates was 17. 2% in the case of Jamnagar the result was 26. 9% in the case of Junagadh it was 23. 6% in the case of Rajkot it was 76. 6%. I say that having regard to the aforesaid percentage it was decided by the committee that in the case of Rajkot the result was fairly liberal and therefore it was not necessary to liberalise the result by adding the grace marks in each case. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant record at the time of hearing. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant record at the time of hearing. I say that having regard to the aforesaid the petitioners have no right to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Honourable court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A mere look at the above averments shows that the only defence put forward by the respondent-University in support of its action of not granting grace marks to the students appearing from Rajkot centre is that the result from Rajkot centre was fairly liberal. The short question is-as to whether the said defence is justified on the touch-stone of Article 14 of the Constitution. In order to answer this question it is necessary to note a few admitted and well established facts on the record of this case: (1) The petitioners as well as other students who appeared at the 1st LLB. examination conducted by the respondent University in Apirl 1983 had completed their course of 1st LL. B. and appeared at the very same examination conducted by the respondent-University. They had appeared in the same papers and the answer papers were examined by the concerned examiners appointed by the respondent-University. (3) Papers of the students appearing from different centres were examined by different examiners appointed by the respondent-University and it is not the case of the respondent-University that separate examiners were appointed to examine the papers of students appearing at the same examination centre-wise meaning thereby there were no separate examiners to examine the answer papers of students from different centres. Thus the pattern of question papers and the pattern of examination of these question papers was a uniform one. In the light of the aforesaid admitted and well established facts the short question arises as to whether it is open to the respondent-University to pick and choose students appearing at the very same examination and answering the very same papers for the purpose of granting grace marks to them and whether the respondent-University can refuse to adopt the same uniform policy of awarding grace marks to students appearing from Rajkot centre. Mr. Prima facie such an act on the part of the university show total hostile and discriminatory treatment to the students appearing from Rajkot centre. Mr. Mr. Prima facie such an act on the part of the university show total hostile and discriminatory treatment to the students appearing from Rajkot centre. Mr. Nanavati for the respondent-University vehemently contended that assessment of marks of students appearing at the very same examination from different centres showed such a marked difference that a view could reasonably be taken that students from Rajkot centre might have committed some misconduct and might have indulged in mass copying as a result of which their result got inflated. Now if this was the apprehension of the respondent-University it was open to the respondent-university to take disciplinary steps against the concerned examinees on the ground of misconduct. It is not the case of the respondent-University that any misconduct of the concerned examinees was detected at Rajkot centre when the examination was conducted and therefore no disciplinary steps were taken against these students. If that is so it is difficult to appreciate how the respondent-University can decide to give grace marks only to students appearing at the 1st LL. B. examination of April 1983 from centres other than Rajkot centre. May be the result of Rajkot centre would be more healthy as compared to the result of students appearing at the very same examination from other centres. But that may be due to number of factors. Students at Rajkot centre might have worked better and might have answered question papers better. But that would surely not be a disqualification for these students who appeared from Rajkot centre and who failed to get passing marks in the concerned paper of 100 marks. In the absence of any disciplinary actions for misconduct on the part of such students it is not open to the respondent-University to give them hostile treatment by not giving them the benefit of grace marks for which it had already taken a policy decision so far as the 1st LL. B. examination of April 1983 was concerned. Once such a decision was taken all students who appeared in the said examination may be from different centres had to be given uniform treatment. All the 1st LL. B. students who appeared at the April 1983 examination conducted by the university formed one class. Any sub-classification centrewise would be totally arbitrary on the facts of the present case. Once such a decision was taken all students who appeared in the said examination may be from different centres had to be given uniform treatment. All the 1st LL. B. students who appeared at the April 1983 examination conducted by the university formed one class. Any sub-classification centrewise would be totally arbitrary on the facts of the present case. The first respondent has nothing to offer by way of rational explanation as to why Rajkot students were treated to be a separate sub-class for the purpose of being deprived of uniform policy of awarding of grace marks. Mr. Nanavati for the respondent-University submitted that to give grace marks or not is in the realm of discretion of the university and that as the very term grace suggests it is out of sympathetical consideration or out of a sense of awarding bounty to the concerned students that grace marks are given. To obtain grace marks is nobodys right. To that extent he is right. But his submission falters on the touch-stone of Article 14 once it is visualised that in the present case the respondent university in its wisdom decided to give gace marks as per the impugned resolution dated 30-7-1983 to all the 1st LL. B. students who appeared in April 1983 examination conducted by the respondent-University and still Rajkot students were singled out and were not made recipients of this grace. become gracious it has to be gracious uniformly to all students similarly situated. It cannot arbitrarily extend grace to some and refuse grace to others though otherwise identically situated. Such a course if adopted would falter on the touch-stone of Article 14. ( 4 ) MR. Tanna for the petitioners invited my attention to resolution No. 4 passed by the syndicate of respondent No. 1 on 2-8-1980. The said resolution reads that the concerned examiners and concerned paper setters should be intimated that when they decide to give grace marks in their meetings for settlement of marks grace marks should be uniformly given to all examinees and such gracing should be done for the entire examination. Mr. Tanna submitted that the aforesaid resolution of the syndicate is in consonance with the principle of equality and that this resolution has held the field all throughout till today. Mr. Mr. Tanna submitted that the aforesaid resolution of the syndicate is in consonance with the principle of equality and that this resolution has held the field all throughout till today. Mr. Nanavati for the university does not dispute that such a resolution of the syndicate operates the field and did operate even at the time when the examination in question was held in April 1983. However he submitted that the respondent-university in its academic whom decided to depart from the requirement of the aforesaid resolution as it found that the students appearing from Rajkot centre were no longer in need of grace marks as their result reflected a very high percentage of passing as compared to the students who appeared from other centres and consequently they adopted the impugned resolution of handed gracing. It is difficult to countenance this contention of Mr. Nanavati. It is not the case of the respondent-university that students appearing at the 1st LL. B. examination should not be given any grace marks at all. If that would have been so the petitioners could not have made any complaint to get grace marks as if is nobodys right. However once the respondent-university in its academic wisdom decided to give grace marks to the students appearing at the first LL. B. examination conducted by the respondent-University in April 1983 it could not have allowed the said policy decision to cover only students appearing at this examination from come of the centres and could not have left out the students appearing from Rajkot centre. Higher percentage of passing as found from the result of students from Rajkot centre cannot improve the lot of those students who had failed to get passing marks in the concerned subject even though they had appeared from Rajkot centre. So far as they were concerned they were in no way better than those students who appeared at the very same examination from other centres and had all filled to get passing marks. It is pertinent to note that gracing of marks as resolved by the university was to be given to those students who had filled to get passing marks in the concerned subjects. So far as they were concerned higher percentage of passing marks obtained by any other students was totally irrelevant. It is pertinent to note that gracing of marks as resolved by the university was to be given to those students who had filled to get passing marks in the concerned subjects. So far as they were concerned higher percentage of passing marks obtained by any other students was totally irrelevant. Under these circumstances for becoming recipients of grace marks the fact that the concerned students appeared from one centre or another was totally an irrelevant factor. The respondent-university cannot pick and choose from amongst students who appeared at the very same examination from different centres. In that view of the matter impugned action of the respondent-university in singling out students of Rajkot centre and in depriving them the benefit of grace marks is totally unjustified arbitrary and is violative of the guarantee under Article 14 of the Constitution. the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The respondent-university is directed by a writ of mandamus to give the same treatment to the petitioners who appeared from Rajkot centre at the 1st LL. B. examination held in April 1983 as far as grace marks concerned as was meted out by the respondent-university to the students appearing at the 1st LL. B. examination April 1983 from other centres. It is true that the present petition is filed by three examinees only. But the respondent university being an academic body would be expected to give same treatment to other students similary situated like the petitioners and who also appeared at the 1st LL. B. examination from Rajkot centre in April 1983. If that is done those other students can be spared cost of filing petitions for similar reliefs. That would avoid unnecessary waste of time and costs to all concerned. I hope and trust the respondent university will rise to the occasion and do the needful for such other examinees also. The respondent university shall examine the cases of petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid resolution dated 30-7-1983. The respondent-university is also directed to consider cases of the petitioners for granted condonation marks as per the relevant ordinances in the light of the grace marks awardable to them. Having considered their cases the respondent university shall reissue duly corrected marksheets to the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent-university within two weeks of the receipt of the writ at its end. Having considered their cases the respondent university shall reissue duly corrected marksheets to the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent-university within two weeks of the receipt of the writ at its end. ( 5 ) RULE issued in the petition is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case there be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .