JUDGMENT 1. - Shyam Sunder Pathak, the petitioner in this writ petition, was a student the M. B.B S. degree course of the University of Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the University) in the S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur. He joined the said course in January, 1980. after selection in the Pre-Medical Test held in 1979. The M.B.B.S. degree course is divided into three phases, each of about 18 months duration. Phase I consists of Pre-Clinical Subjects and examination for those subjects is known as 1st M.B B S. examination. Phase II involves teaching in Para- clinical;clinical subjects which is followed by the second M.B.B.S examination. Phase III is continuation of the study of clinical subjects and it is followed by the final M.B.B.S. examination. The petitioner passed the 1st M.B.B S. examination, in September. 1981 and secured 511 marks out of 750 marks i.e. 68% marks. He appeared at the second M B.B.S. examination held in August, 1982 and secured 355 marks out of 600 marks which works out to 59%. The final year M B.B.S. examination was held in February, 1985 and the result of the examination was declared on 29th May, 1985. The final year M. B. B. S. examination consists of following subjects : 1. Medicine including paediatrics. 2. Surgery including Orthopaedics. 3. Obstretrics and Gynaecology, Family Planning and Nutrition. 4. Opthalmology, Ear, Nose and Throat. 5. Community Medicine. 2. Marks for all these subjects are apportioned between Theory papers and Clinical examination. In the subject of Surgery including orthopaedics, out of a total of 400 marks, 250 marks are prescribed for theory papers and 150 marks are prescribed for examination in Clinical. The Clinical examination consists of one long case carrying 60 marks and three Short cases carrying 90 marks. For the purpose of passing a student is required to obtain at least 50% marks in the subjects of Medicine, Surgery. Obstratics and Gynaecology and Opthatmology with a minimum of 50% marks in Clinical of each subjects and he is required to obtain 50% marks in Theory and Clinical separately in the subject of Community Medicine. The petitioner obtained the requiste pass marks in the subjects of Medicine including Paediatrics, Obstratrics and Gynaecology Opthalomology Ear. Nose and Throat and Community Medicine. Obstratics and Gynaecology and Opthatmology with a minimum of 50% marks in Clinical of each subjects and he is required to obtain 50% marks in Theory and Clinical separately in the subject of Community Medicine. The petitioner obtained the requiste pass marks in the subjects of Medicine including Paediatrics, Obstratrics and Gynaecology Opthalomology Ear. Nose and Throat and Community Medicine. In the subject of Surgery including orthopaedics, the petitioner secured 154 marks out of 250 marks in Theory and in Clinical he secured 45 marks out of 90 marks in three short cases, but zero mark in the long case. Thus he obtained only 46 marks out of 150 marks in the Clinical. Since he failed to secure minimum of 50% marks in the Clinical of Surgery including Orthopaedics, he was declared failed. On 30th May, 1985 the petitioner submitted a petition (Annexure 8) before the Registrar of the University wherein he submitted that some error had been committed in awarding zero mark to him for the long case in the Clinical of Surgery including Orthopaedics and that the awarding of the said zero mark to him for the long case in the Clinical should be reviewed. In this connection the petitioner also referred to the fact that throughout he has had a brilliant academic career. The said representation of the petitioner was referred to Dr. Gopi Chand Patni, who is Adviser to the Vice Chancellor in matters pertaining to examinations and on his advice the written long case history record of all the candidates was sent for from the Principal, S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur. The Principal, S.M.S Medical College, Jaipur informed the University that the written material of all the candidates who had appeared in the written examination had been destroyed as per report of the concerned Professor of the Surgery Department, and the same could not, therefore, be supplied. The case of the petitioner is that he thereafter met Dr. Patni on June 26, 1985 and Dr. Patni being convinced that the petitioner has been victimised, recommended that the petitioner be examined afresh in the subject and the marks obtained by him. may he considered for declaring his result. The petitioner has stated that the said recommendation of Dr. Patni has not found favour with the University. The petitioner has. Patni on June 26, 1985 and Dr. Patni being convinced that the petitioner has been victimised, recommended that the petitioner be examined afresh in the subject and the marks obtained by him. may he considered for declaring his result. The petitioner has stated that the said recommendation of Dr. Patni has not found favour with the University. The petitioner has. therefore, approached this Court by filing this writ petition wherein he has prayed that the result pertaining to the long case (one) Clinical test in the final M.B.B.S. examination, held in year 1985 whereby the petitioner has been awarded zero mark out of 60 marks be quashed and that writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the University to award at-least 5 marks to the petitioner in long case (one) Clinical test or average of the marks obtained by him in other subjects or in the alternative a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the University to examine the petitioner in the paper of long case (one) Clinical test. 3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that consistently he has had a brilliant educational record and in this connection he has stated that he passed the Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan in 1977 in first division with 61% marks, the Higher Secondary examination in the year 1978 in the first division with 69.5% marks. The First year Science examination of the Three years Degree Course of the University held in 1979 with 69.8% marks and that in the Pre-Medical Test conducted in 1979 by the University for admission to the medical college in Rajasthan, the petitioner had secured 64% marks, petitioner has also stated that in the First M.B B.S. examination held in 1981 he secured 68.1% marks and in the second M.B.B.S. examination held in August, 1982 he secured 59% marks and that in the Final M.B.B.S examination also, the petitioner secured 802 marks in aggregate out of total 1400 marks which works out to 57.3%. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also stated that in Clinical examination in long case, a patient is allotted to the student and the student is required to give a detailed history of the patient and also to make a general examination as well as special examination of the patient and to arrive at a provisional diagnosis and thereafter the examiner puts questions to him pertaining to possible investigations with their interpretation for arriving at a final diagnosis and method of treatment of the case. The petitioner has submitted that the candidate has to perform a lot of written work requiring skill and interrogation of the patient in detail and that by interrogation of the patient most important facts are ascertained which go a long way in helping to arrive at a correct diagnosis of the disease or the ailment with which the patient has been suffering and the candidate is required to conduct general examination of the patient and special examination of the affected systems and that all this written material prepared by the candidate during the course of clinical examination forms a vital part of the candidate's performance in the clinical examination. The case of the petitioner is that he had dyne the written work in an excellent manner and that he had given out the necessary particulars accurately and precisely with necessary details arriving at his own diagnosis, and that in view of the said material, the petitioner could not. have been awarded zero mark in the clinical test. The petitioner has submitted that no other candidate out of more than 150 candidates who appeared at the Final M.B.B S Examination from the S.M.S. Medical College was awarded zero mark in this clinical test. In this connection, the petitioner has also submitted that he has secured more than 60% marks in the Theory papers in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics, and that the Theory part of this subject consists of two written papers each having two sections as well as the periodical assessment, oral examination and day-to-day work which shows that the petitioner posessed merit in this subject. The petitioner has also submitted that grace mark upto 21 marks can be awarded to a student who has failed in one subject against the excess marks obtained in other subjects and that the petitioner would have been entitled to pass the M B.B.S. Final examination if he had been awarded just five marks in the long case because rest of the 21 marks would have been allotted to him by way of grace. According to the petitioner the fact that the examiner had awarded zero mark to the petitioner shows that the examiner was suffering from bias against the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petition has impleaded Prof. K. C. Dadoo, one of the Examiners, as respondent No. 3. 4. The writ petition has been contested by the University and a reply has been filed on behalf of the University and Prof. K. C Dadoo, respondent No. 3. In the said reply the averments with regard to the past academic record of the petitioners have not been disputed. It has, however, been denied that the candidate appearing at the Clinical test for long case is required to give a detailed history of the patient and that neither the petitioner nor any other candidate was asked to furnish a detailed history of the patient in the form alleged by the petitioner. It is also stated in the said reply that no answer-books as such are provided by the University for Clinical test, but it is open to the candidate to make his own notes in regard to the patient allotted to him and for this purpose a candidate is permitted to use his own sheets and no answer-books or sheets are provided by the University. It has also been denied that a candidate has to perform a lot of written work requiring skill and to interrogate the patient in detail and it is stated that any such interrogation or alleged written work is undertaken by a candidate for his own facility and benefit so that he can face the clinical test in respect of the patient allocated to him. It is also denied that the written notes prepared by the candidate are vital parts of the candidates performance. It is also denied that the written notes prepared by the candidate are vital parts of the candidates performance. In the reply it has also been stated that the clinical examination in long case was conducted by four examiners; two internal and two external, and that all these four examiners had awarded zero mark to the petitioner in the long case. It has been admitted in the said reply that the petitioner would have been entitled to grace marks in case he had obtained 5 marks in the long case in the clinical test. It has also been admitted that the representation of the petitioner was referred to Dr. Gopichand Patni Advisor to the Vice Chancellor in matter pertaining to examinations and on his advice the written long case history record of all candidates was sent for from the principal S.M S. Medical College, Jaipur, on 7th June, 1985 and the Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, in turn sought the requisite material information from Dr. P.K. Wanchoo, Professor of Surgery, who was one of the internal examiners at the clinical examination. By his reply dated 12th June, 1985, addressed to the Principal,S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, Dr. P K.Wanchoo had stated that all rough papers are immediately and completely destroyed after the result is entered in the official University marks-sheet and counter foil, and that no records are preserved to protect the sanctity and secrecy of the examinations. In the said reply it is also stated that the representation of the petitioner was examined at various levels, but no final decision was taken thereon. The said reply is supported by the affidavit of Shri P. L. Sharma, Officer-in-charge appointed by the University who has verified the correctness of the averments contained in the said reply on the basis of official record. No affidavit has, however been filed by any of the examiners who had conducted the clinical test. 5. After the said reply was filed, the petitioner filed his his own affidavit as well as the affidavits of three other students, namely, Shri Sudhir Kumar Joshi, Ram Babu Sharma and Bhupesh Bhatt who have all stated that only one of the four examiners had examined the students in the long case, and two of the other examiners had conducted examination in short cases. In the said affidavits it is also stated that according to the syllabus for Faculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutics the text book prescribed for this subject is 'Clinical Methods in Surgery' by K. Das and that according to the aforesaid text book in order to arrive at a proper diagnosis, the person examining the patient is required to give details about the patient, complaints in order of duration, history of present illness, history of past illness, family history, personal history, general examination, special examination of the system concerned with the diseased relevant examination of other systems, and provisional diagnosis. In the said affidavits it is also stated that in the clinical examination all the students were provided answer-books by the authorities and the examiners looked into written material in connection with clinical examination and written answer-books were collected at the end of the examination. 6. It may also be mentioned that during the pendency of this writ petition, examination for remanded students was held in August, 1985 and the petitioner along with 12 other students who had also failed in the paper of Surgery including orthopaedics, appeared at the said examination. In the said examination the petitioner was declared successful and he secured 258 marks out of 400 mark out of which 162 marks out of 250 marks were secured in Theory and 96 out of 150 were secured in Clinical. In the long case the petitioner secured 40 marks out of 60 marks and in short cases he securred 56 marks out of 90 marks and the petitioner has been declared as passed. 7. Shri C. K. Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in the long case in Clinical Examinations, the examiners have acted arbitrarily. In support of his aforesaid submission, Shri Garg has placed strong reliance on the fact that the petitioner has had a brilliant academic career in the past and that even in the Final M.B B.S Examination, he had performed quite well in the other papers as well as in the Theory papers of the subject of Surgery including orthopaedics. Shri Garg has submitted that the arbitrariness of the examiners in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in long case in Clinical Examination for Surgery including orthopaedics is also established from the fact that in the examination that was held in August, 1985. Shri Garg has submitted that the arbitrariness of the examiners in awarding zero mark to the petitioner in long case in Clinical Examination for Surgery including orthopaedics is also established from the fact that in the examination that was held in August, 1985. the petitioner secured 40 marks in the long case in the Clinical test for the same subject. The submission of Shri Garg was further that in note 5 appended to the marks-sheet (Annexure-7) for the Final M.B.B S. Examination, 1985, a mention is made about an application for scrutiny of marks and/or revaluation of answer-books, and in the said note it has been further stated that no revaluation is allowed in respect of the practical examination/dissertion/thesis/field work etc The submission of Shri Garg was that clinical examination has not been included in the said exceptions to revaluation which implies that scrutiny of marks and/or revaluation is permissible in respect of clinical examination. The submission of Shri Garg was that in the present case, the objective evaluation of the marks awarded to the petitioner in Clinical examination, has been rendered impossible by the act of the examiners in destroying the written record relating to the said examination and that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of this act of the examination. The submission of Shri Garg in this regard was that the written record prepared by the petitioner and other students at the time of the Clinical examination was of vital importance far the purpose of assessing the performance of the students in the clinical examination and in the absence of such written record, the University could be directed to hold a special examination for the petitioner in the said subject as was directed by this Court in (1) Heera Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others, S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 2174 of 1984 decided at Jodhpur on 27th August, 1985. Shri Garg submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has appeared in the examination in the subject of Surgery including Orthopaedics held in August, 1985 and the marks obtained by the petitioner in the said examination may be treated as the marks obtained by him in the M.B.B.S. Final Examination held in February, 1985 and the result of the petitioner may be prepared on that basis. 8. 8. Shri A K Sharma, the learned counsel for the university, has on the other hand, submitted that since no answer-books were provided by the University for Clinical examination and no written notes were required to be made by the students at the time of clinical examination, the petitioner cannot ask for revaluation of the answer-books. The submission of Shri Sharma was further that in the present case four examiners had conducted the Clinical examination and all the four examiners had awarded zero mark to the petitioner in the long case in the Clinical examination and that there was no allegation of mala fides against any of the examiners and in these circumstances no ground is made out for interference by this Court. 9. A perusal of the Syllabus prescribed by the University for the M.B.B.S. Degree, show that one of the books recommended for the subject of Surgery including Orthopaedics is "Clinical Methods in Surgery by K. Das". The aforesaid book appears to be a standard text book on the subject of Clinical examination in Surgery. In Chapter I of the book, the author has dealt with general scheme of case taking and has observed that "there is no part of a medical student's training more important than the duty of systematically recording the history, physical findings, treatment and progress of the patient" and that "in the method of recording cases, a definite order must be followed to that no important point escapes his attention". The author has thereafter described the general scheme of case- taking to include, (1) History or interrogation of the patient, (2) Physical examination, (3) Provisional diagnosis, (4) Special investigations, (5) Clinical diagnosis, (6) Treatment, (7) Progress, and (8) Termination. The author has thereafter pointed out the importance of recording the particulars of the patient, the complaints and their duration, history of present illness, past history, personal history and family history. Thereafter he has dealt with physical examination of the patient which includes, general survey, local examination and general examination and this is to be followed by provisional diagnosis. After provisional diagnosis, special investigations have to be conducted and clinical diagnosis is made and the treatment is prescribed. Thereafter he has dealt with physical examination of the patient which includes, general survey, local examination and general examination and this is to be followed by provisional diagnosis. After provisional diagnosis, special investigations have to be conducted and clinical diagnosis is made and the treatment is prescribed. A student during the course of clinical examination in a long case has to arrive at the provisional diagnosis on the basis of the clinical examination of the patient and since the special investigation of the patient are likely to take time and it may be not possible to have special investigation conducted during the period of the clinical test, the student may not be required to arrive at the clinical diagnosis. In the Clinical he is examined by the examinees on the basis of the provisional diagnosis. In view of the scheme for Clinical examination suggested in the aforesaid text-book, the student appearing in the examination in long case, is expected to note down the history of the patient including the particulars about hit age, sex, occupation as well as complaints and their duration, history of present illness, past history, personal history and family history and thereafter to conduct a physical examination of the patient and arrive at a provisional diagnosis. While conducting the physical examination the candidate may also make notes to explain why he has arrived at a particular provisional diagnosis. It can, therefore, be said that the way in which the student, while examining the patient, proceeds to arrive at the provisional diagnosis, is relevant for the purpose of assessing the merit of the student and the notes that are prepared by him while conducting such examination and arriving at the provisional diagnosis, are therefore of importance and cannot be said that the said notes are of no importance at all. In the present case I do not propose to go into the question as to whether answer-books were supplied to the students by the college authorities at the time of clinical examination as claimed by the petitioner and other students or they were permitted to carry their own paper for the purpose of making notes as claimed by the University. It can however, be said that for the purpose of clinical examination in the test the student is expected to make notes for the purpose of arriving at the provisional diagnisos. It can however, be said that for the purpose of clinical examination in the test the student is expected to make notes for the purpose of arriving at the provisional diagnisos. The said notes thus form the objective material on the basis of which the performance of the student at the clinical examination can be judged. 10. In cases where the decision of the examiner regarding awarding of marks in the Clinical examination is assailed by a student on the ground of arbitrariness, the only objective material which can render any assistance while considering as to whether the said complaint of the student is justified or not, is the notes which were prepared by the student at the time of clinical examination. If the said notes are not retained and are destroyed, there would be no objective material what-so-ever on the basis of which the complaint of the student that he has been dealt with arbitrarily by the examiners can be examined and the matter will be left purely to the subjective discretion of the examiners In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in (2) Ajai Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi : AIR 1981 SC 487 . In that case the Supreme Court was examining the legality of admissions to the Bechelor of Engineering course, and the said admissions were made on the basis of marks obtained at an entrance examination in which 100 marks were allotted for written test and 50 marks were allotted for interview. It was contended before the Supreme Court that viva voce examination does not afford a proper criterion for assessment of the suitability of the candidates for admission and it is a highly subjective and impressionistic test where the result is likely to be influenced by many uncertain and imponderable factors such as predelictions and prejudices of the interviewer, his attitudes and approaches, his preconceived notions and idiosyncrasies and it is also capable of abuse because it leaves scope for discrimination, manipulation and nepotism which can remain undetected under the cover of an interview. The Supreme Court while observing that the said criticism could not be said to be wholly unfounded and it reflects a point of view, which has certainly some validity, he held that : "The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates, but in the absence of any better test for measuring personal characteristics and traits, the oral interview test must, at the present stage, be regarded as not irrational or irrelevant though it is subjective and based on first impression, its result is influeneed by many uncertain factors and it is capable of abuse. At the same time the Supreme Court has observed that the oral interview test, as presently held, should not be relied upon as an exclusive test, but it may be resorted to only as an additional or supplementary test and, moreover, great care must be taken to see that persons who are appointed to conduct the oral interview test re men of high integrity, calibre and qualification. The Supreme Court has also expressed the view that, "We think that it would also be desirable if the interview of the candidates is tape recorded. for in that event there will be contemporaneous evidence to show what were the questions asked to the candidates by the interviewing committee and what were the answers given and that will eliminate a lot of unnecessary controversy besides acting as a check on the possible arbitrariness of the interviewing committee." In the present case it is undoubtedly true that the four examiners who had conducted the Clinical examination were men of high integrity, calibre and qualification , but at the same time it cannot be ignored that apart from the marks-sheet sent by four examiners, there is no material to show the basis on which the marks were awarded by the examiners. Notes prepared by the candidates at the time of clinical examination which could throw some light on their performance at the examination, have been destroyed by the examiners and we are left only with the subjective assessment of the performance of the candidates by the examiner. 11. Notes prepared by the candidates at the time of clinical examination which could throw some light on their performance at the examination, have been destroyed by the examiners and we are left only with the subjective assessment of the performance of the candidates by the examiner. 11. Taking note of the past acadamic record of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner had secured First division in the Secondary School examination, the Higher Secondary School examination and 1st year Science examination of the Three Year Degree Course of the University and had secured 64% marks in the Pre- Medical Test and 68.1% marks in the First M. B. B. S. examination, it can be said that the petitioner is an above average student. In the Final M. B. B. S. Examination also the petitioner performed well in other papers. In Medicine including Paediatrics he secured 245 marks out of 400 marks out of which he secured 153 marks out of 250 marks in Theory and 92 marks out of 150 marks in Clinical and Practical. In Obstratics and Gynaecology, he secured 111 marks out of 200 marks out of which 83 marks out of 150 marks were secured in Theory and 28 marks out of 50 marks were secured in Clinical. In Ophthalmology. Ear. Nose & Throat the secured 117 marks out of 200 marks out of which 72 marks were secured in Theory and 45 marks out of 80 marks in Clinical. In Community Medicine, he secured 129 marks out of 200 marks out of which 96 marks were secured out of 150 marks in Theory and 33 marks out of 50 marks in Clinical. In the paper of surgery including Orthopaedics also he secured 154 marks out of 250 marks in Theory and oral examination and in the Clinical examination he secured 46 marks out of 90 marks in three short cases. This would show that except securing zero mark in the long case in Clinical, the petitioner has performed fairly well in other papers in Clinical also it appears that 10 marks were allotted for day to day Clinical assessment and he secured 7 marks out of" 10 marks. In periodical assessment he secured 25 marks out of 40 in Irks. This would show that except securing zero mark in the long case in Clinical, the petitioner has performed fairly well in other papers in Clinical also it appears that 10 marks were allotted for day to day Clinical assessment and he secured 7 marks out of" 10 marks. In periodical assessment he secured 25 marks out of 40 in Irks. It may also b. stated that in examination held in Aug 1st, 1985, in which the petitioner appeared, he secured 258 marks out of 400 marks in the paper of Surgery including Orthopaedics out of which 162 marks out of 250 marks were secured in Theory and 96 marks out of 150 marks were secured in Clinical. Out of the aforesaid 96 marks, he secured 40 marks out of 60 marks in the long case (one) and 56 marks out of 90 marks in short case (three). In these circumstances it was expected that the University would throw some light on the question as to why the petitioner was awarded zero mark at the Clinical examination in the long case in M. B B. S. Final examination held in February, 1985. The reply filed on behalf of the University is silent on this subject. Awarding of a zero mark is rather unusual. It means that the student has no knowledge whatsoever of the subject or has committed such a serious blunder that he does not deserve to qualify for the M. B. B. S. Degree. In the pasent case out of the 150 students, the petitioner was the only student who was awarded zero mark. The examiners could have explained why they felt it necessary to award zero mark to the petitioner. One of the examiners Professor K. C. Dadoo is a party (Respondent No. 3) to the writ petition but he has not filed any affidavit. The other examiners have also not filed any affidavit indicating the reason why the petitioner was awarded zero mark. The reply is supported by the affidavit of Shri P. L. Sharma Officer-in-charge who has no personal knowledge as to what happened at the examination and has verified the contents of the reply on the basis of the record. The record only contains the marks sheet signed by all the four examiners. 12. The notes which were prepared by the petitioner at the time of the Clinical examination, have also been destroyed. The record only contains the marks sheet signed by all the four examiners. 12. The notes which were prepared by the petitioner at the time of the Clinical examination, have also been destroyed. In these circumstances the Court is left to grope in the dark as to what were the circumstances which justified awarding of zero mark to the petitioner in the long case in clinical examination. 13. In Heeralal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) this Court was dealing with a similar situation where a student had earlier been declared passed in Clinical examination but subsequently he was declared failed and he challenged the assessment of his performance by the examiners in the Clinical Examination before the Court. It was stated before the Court that the original mark sheet relating to the said examination had been destroyed. In these circumstances the Court directed the University to hold a special examination in the subject in which the said petitioner was declared to have failed and to declare the result of the petitioner on the basis of the marks obtained in the special examination. 14. The present case is not very different from the above mentioned case. Here the petitioner has been awarded zero mark in the long case and record relating to the said examination is not available and, it is cot possible to make an objective assessment of the performance of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner could have legitimately asked for a direction by this Court for holding of a special examination in the paper in which the petitioner had failed and for declaration of his result on the basis of the marks obtained in the said special examination. The giving of such a direction for holding a special examination for the petitioner is not necessary in the present case because during the pendency of this writ petition, an examination was held in August. 1985 and the petitioner appeared in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics in the said examination and in that examination he has passed in that subject. 1985 and the petitioner appeared in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics in the said examination and in that examination he has passed in that subject. In the circumstances the marks obtained by the petitioner in the clinical examination for long case in the said examination can be taken into account for the purpose of directing the University to declare the result of the petitioner in the M. B. B. S. Final examination after taking into account the marks obtained by him in the long case in the Clinical examination in the examination held in August, 1985. 15. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the University is directed that the result of the petitioner in the M. B. B. S. Final examination held in February, 1985 be revised and in the place of the marks awarded by him in the said examination in the long case in the clinical examination in the subject of Surgery including Orthopaedics the marks obtained by him in the long case in the clinical examination in the subject of Surgery and Orthopaedics held in August, 1985 may be substituted and the result of the petitioner be declared on that basis. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this writ petition.Petition Allowed. *******