Judgment :- 1. The point that arises for decision is whether the petitioner passed the Pre-Degree Examination conducted by the University of Calicut before she secured admission for B A. Degree Course in June. 1982. She took the Pre-Degree Examinations in April, 1981 and September, 1981. In April 1981 she appeared for the Examination with Register No. 47408. She secured 85 marks out of 300 in Part-1 English, 60 out of 150 in Part II Second Language Hindi, Subjects taken by her in Part III Optional were World History, Indian History and Economics. She got 60 marks out of 150 for World History, 38 marks out of 150 for Indian History and 53 marks out of 150 for Economics. Since she did not secure 40 per cent of the total marks is Part 1 English, she failed in English. By securing 60 marks out of 150, i. e. 40 per cent, she came out successful in Part-II second language, Hindi. For World History she got 40 per cent, viz. 60 marks out of 150. For Indian History she failed having secured 38 marks only out of 150. For Economics she secured 53 marks out of 150, i. e. in between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. In September, 1981, she took the Pre-Degree Examination with Register No. 62571. In that examination she secured 143 marks in Part I English. For Indian History she secured 76 marks out of 150. She did not take the examination in Economics, even-though she did not secure 40 per cent marks in the Examination held in April, 1981. 2. The total marks secured by the petitioner in the two examinations are the following: Regulation (9) of the Calicut University Regulations for Pre-Degree Course contains the requirements for securing a pass in the Pre-Degree Examination. It reads: "A candidate shall be declared to have passed the Pre-Degree Examination if be obtains not less than (i) 40% of the total marks in Part I English (ii) 40% of the total marks in Part II Additional Language (iii) 30% of the marks in each subject and 40 per cent of the aggregate marks for the three subjects taken together in Part III optional subjects. However, a candidate who secures a minimum of 40% marks for any subject under Part III shall be declared to have passed in that subject. However, a candidate who secures a minimum of 40% marks for any subject under Part III shall be declared to have passed in that subject. A candidate who obtains the minimum marks prescribed for pass in Part I/Part II/ Part III shall be declared to have passed in that part of the Examination." Clauses (i) and (ii) of Regulation-9 are not relevant for the present case. The dispute now before me centres round the interpretation of first part of clause (iii) to Regulation.9. It states that for a pass in Part III a candidate should have secured 30 per cent of marks for each subject and 40 per cent of the aggregate marks for the three subjects taken together in Part III Optional subjects. This means for a pass in Part III, a candidate should have secured at least 30 percent marks in a subject. He should secure a minimum of 40 percent of the aggregate marks for the three subjects taken together. In the instant case the petitioner secured 53 marks out of 150 for economics i. e. above 30 percent. The aggregate marks obtained by her for the three subjects in Part III comes to 189 out of 450. It is more than 40 percent. In this situation, it is contended that the petitioner passed the three subjects in Part III as well. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the University would contend that to pass in the three subjects in Part.III a candidate securing 30 percent only in one subject, must have secured 40 percent of the aggregate marks for all the subjects together in one and the same examination. In other words, if a candidate secures less than 40 percent in one subject, in one examination, and secures marks in the remaining two in the succeeding examinations, to make up a total of 40 percent of the aggregate marks in all the subjects together, the candidate should not be deemed to have passed in Part III subjects. This argument though quite attractive is not supported by the words used in clause (iii) of Regulation-9. As I read clause (iii), it is the aggregate marks secured by a candidate for the three subjects together, irrespective of the number of examinations taken by him for securing those marks is the relevant aspect. This argument though quite attractive is not supported by the words used in clause (iii) of Regulation-9. As I read clause (iii), it is the aggregate marks secured by a candidate for the three subjects together, irrespective of the number of examinations taken by him for securing those marks is the relevant aspect. If the marks obtained in the various examinations amount to 40 per cent of aggregate for the 3 subjects in Part III then the candidate should be deemed to have passed the examination. 4. As stated earlier, in April 1981 the petitioner secured 40 per cent marks in World History. By that she must be deemed to have passed in that subject. She secured 53 marks out of 150 in Economics in the Examination held in April, 1981. It is below 40 per cent. So she did not pass in Economics in the Examination held in April, 1981. In September 1981 she secured 76 marks out of 150 for Indian History. Thus, she has secured more than 30 per cent in each subject and also more than 40 per cent of the aggregate marks for the three subjects taken together by securing 189 marks out of 450. Thus, it is to be held that the petitioner passed the Pre-Degree Examination in September, 1981. That is prior to her joining the B. A. Degree course in June, 1982. 5. By virtue of the interim orders passed by this court, the University has allowed the petitioner to take all the Examination of B. A. Degree course. The results of those examinations have not been released because of the interim order passed by this court. Now since the petitioner has been found to have passed the Pre-Degree Examination in September, 1981, I direct the respondent to release the results of B. A. Degree Examinations taken by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. The Original Petition is allowed in the above terms. Issue photo copy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms. Allowed.