JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner, a student of B.A. part-I has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing an endorsement in the mark - sheet issued to him showing that he has failed at the B. A. part-I examination held by the Gorakhpur University for the year 1984 - 85. The case of the petitioner is that on the marks obtained by him he was clearly entitled to be declared pass at the said examination, but the respondents have wrongly made the endorsement that the petitioner has failed. 2. Initially, the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner showed that the petitioner had passed the examination. In the result announced in the newspapers also he was shown to have passed the examination Subsequently, it is alleged that on account of the malice of the dealing clerk of the College from which the petitioner had appeared at the examination, the endorsement was changed from "passed" into "failed". Two counter affidavits have been filed one on behalf of University and the other on behalf of the College, namely, L.A.V. Snatakottar Mahavidyalaya, Azamgarh. In both while denying the allegations of mala fides, it has been asserted that on the marks obtained by the petitioner, he had clearly failed at the examination in view of the relevant Statutory provisions which would be adverted to later. 3. The petitioner had offered three subjects namely. Sociology, Political Science and Military Science. It was not disputed that the subject of Military Science involved both practical as well as theory papers. In the theory papers of Military Science, the petitioner had secured an aggregate of 30 out of 100 while in practical he had secured 31 out of 50. Learned counsel for petitioner did not dispute that the minimum pass marks for theory papers in Military Science was 33. If, therefore, we reach the conclusion that the petitioner had to pass both in theory papers as well as practical in the subject of Military Science, it is apparent that the petitioner would be deemed to have failed at the examination, having failed to secure the minimum pass marks in the theory papers. 4. We will, therefore, have a look at the relevant Statutory provisions. The ordinances and regulations framed under the Gorakhpur University Act laid down for B.A. Part - 1 examination the following criteria in 1968. 4. We will, therefore, have a look at the relevant Statutory provisions. The ordinances and regulations framed under the Gorakhpur University Act laid down for B.A. Part - 1 examination the following criteria in 1968. ; "In each subject, except General Hindi, Indian Culture, Religious & Moral Philosophy, Central Problems, and History of Freedom Movement in India, General English, Mathematics and Indian Music, the examination shall comprise two papers. In Mathematics there shall be three papers. A candidate shall be declared successful if he secures toe minimum pass marks in each subject. There will be a practical examination in Military Science, Psychology and Geography. In Indian Music there will be only one paper and practical Examination. Candidates will have to pass in the theory papers or paper and the practical separately in Military Science and Indian Music." (emphasis supplied') 5. These ordinances the is clearly provided that candidates will have to pass both in theory papers as veil as the practical separately in the subject of Military Science and Indian Music. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however placed reliance on an ordinance issued under the State Universities Act in 1980 which provides that if a candidate appearing at the A.B.Sc., B. Com., B.Sc. (Ag) part-I examination secures 20% marks in one Subject and in other subjects he secures 33% marks, he will be declared to have passed even though he may have secured less than 33% in one Subject. He submitted that in view of this ordinance the earlier ordinance quoted above making it obligatory for a student of Military Science to pass in theory papers as well as in practical must be deemed to have been repealed by implication. We find no merit in this contention The earlier ordinance dealt with a matter which has not been touched by the 1980 ordinance in so far as subjects in which both theory papers and practical examinations are prescribed such as Military Science and Music. The 1980 ordinance relied on by the petitioner does not deal at all with such subjects as Military Science or Music. It is completely silent as regards practical examinations. That being so, the ordinance quoted above, making it compulsory for a student of Military Science to pass both in theory papers as well age practical must be deemed to be continuing inforce and can not be taken to have been repealed by implication. 6. It is completely silent as regards practical examinations. That being so, the ordinance quoted above, making it compulsory for a student of Military Science to pass both in theory papers as well age practical must be deemed to be continuing inforce and can not be taken to have been repealed by implication. 6. As regards the allegations of mala fides, in our opinion, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of versions given by the respondents that the endorsement made in the mark-sheet showing the petitioner as failed was not actuated by any malice but was made entirely to correct a mistake committed earlier on account of in-advertence We are not satisfied that any case of mala fides has been made out by the petitioner. 7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed without any order to Costs.