Judgment S. B. Sanyal, J. 1. These two writ petitions relate to the interpretation of regulation no.16 of Bachelor in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B. A. M. S. for short) Examination framed by the Syndicate of the University of Bihar under section 34 (2) (i) of the Bihar State University Act. The petitioners are students of Dhanwantari Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Ahirauli, Buxar, who have moved this court for issuance of a direction that they have passed the B. A. M. S. Pre-Ayurvedic examination held in the month of April 1983 and 1984 as per regulation No.16 aforesaid. 2. Facts. IN C. WJ. C. No.3733 of 1985 the petitioner after being admitted in the session 1981-82 appeared in the month of April 1984 in Pre-Ayurvedic examination at the State Ayurvedic College Centre, Patna. The result of the said examination was published in January 1985. The petitioner is shown to have failed in one subject, namely, Physics (Prarambhik Padarth Vigyan as he obtained 87 marks in theory out of a total of 200 marks in theory of that subject, the pass marks being 100. He however, obtained 29 marks out of 50 in practical in that subject whereas the pass mark was 25. The total marks in Physics was 250 and his total mark was 116. In brief, he failed in theory paper of Physics by 13 marks. In C. . W. J. C. No.3041 of 1986 the three petitioners were admitted in Pre-Ayurvedic course of the session 1980-81 and after completion of their course appeared at the Pre-Ayurvedic examination held in the month of April 1983, the result of which was published in September 1983 but their names were not in the list of successful candidates. They, were not forwarded the marksheets. The petitioners were, however, allowed to take their admission in B. A. M. S. Part I course and they completed their B. A. M. S. Part I course, which is of two years duration. They were permitted to appear at the B. A. M. S. Part I examination and were promoted to B. A. M. S. Part 11. They were, however, shown to have failed in B. A. M. S. Part I because they had not cleared Pre-Ayurvedic examination. In that view of the matter, they were not allowed to participate in B. A. M. S. Part II University examination. They were, however, shown to have failed in B. A. M. S. Part I because they had not cleared Pre-Ayurvedic examination. In that view of the matter, they were not allowed to participate in B. A. M. S. Part II University examination. On having obtained the marksheets of B. A. M. S. Pre-Ayurvedic examination it was found that all the three petitioners failed in the theory paper of Physics but have all passed in the practical paper in that subject. Petitioner no. I was short by 9 marks, petitioner no.2 by 10 marks and petitioner no.3 by 13 marks. 3. All the petitioners in both the cases, thus, have failed only in the theory paper of Physics and have passed in the practical paper of the said subject but the marks obtained by them in Physics paper are not short by more than 6% of the total marks (250) in that subject According to the petitioners, in that view of the matter, having failed by not more than 6% of the total marks in a single subject, they should be deemed to have passed in view of Reegulation No.16 of the Regulations, but the contention on behalf of the University is, petitioners are not entitled to the said benefit as they have not admittedly got 60% marks in the practical paper in Physics. Thus, the moot question in these cases is what is the correct meaning of Regulation No.16 of the Regulations. 4. B. A. M. S. course extends over a period of 6 years. It is divided in four parts. The first part deals with Pre-Ayurvedic course of one years duration at the end of which there shall be a University examination. The first B. A. M. S. course is of two years duration at the end of which there shall be a University examination. The second B. A. M. S. course is of one years duration at the end of which there shall be a University examination. The final B. A. M. S. course is of two years duration at the end of which there shall be a University examination. Thereafter internship is for a period of six months. In B. A. M. S. Pre-Ayurvedic examination there are five papers with different total marks in each subject. Each subject has two parts, constituting theory and practical. The final B. A. M. S. course is of two years duration at the end of which there shall be a University examination. Thereafter internship is for a period of six months. In B. A. M. S. Pre-Ayurvedic examination there are five papers with different total marks in each subject. Each subject has two parts, constituting theory and practical. Under Regulation No.15 one is required to obtain 50% each part of the subject, written, oral and practical, separately to pass. Candidates securing 75% marks or more marks in any subject including theory, practical, oral, as the case may be, will be declared to have passed with distinction in that subject in the final examination provided they pass in every other subject without the help of Regulation. Regulation No.16 reads as hereunder : "a candidate who has failed in a single subject by not more than 6% of the total marks in that subject and has failed written cum oral portion of that subject by not more than 12% of the total marks in that portion but has secured at least 60% in the practical portion, then the shortage from pass marks in the subject in which he has failed shall be condoned and he will be deemed to have passed the examination under regulation. " According to learned counsel for the petitioners, as they have all failed in the theory paper of Physics by not more than 6% of the total 250 marks in that subject, the shortage should have been condoned in view of Regulation No.16 extracted aforesaid whereas according to the contention of learned counsel of the university they were rightly failed since none of the petitioners acquired 60% marks in the practical portion of the said subject, namely, Physics. In short, the stand of the University is that if a candidate fails in a single subject by not more than 6% of the total marks in that subject and has failed in written cum oral portion of that subject by not more than 12% of the total marks in that portion but has acquired 60% in the practical portion, he will be deemed to have passed the examination under Regulation No.16. As admittedly the petitioners did not obtain 60% in the practical portion of Physics, the University was justified in not extending the benefit of Regulation No.16. 5. As admittedly the petitioners did not obtain 60% in the practical portion of Physics, the University was justified in not extending the benefit of Regulation No.16. 5. Admittedly, since the coming into force of the Regulations the university was treating the candidates, who have failed in a single subject by not more than 6% of the total marks, as having passed the examination and those who used to fail in the theory paper by not more than 12% of the total marks in the theory paper but had secured 60% in the practical portion of that subject were made to pass under Regulation No.16. This is how it was so interpreted and boys were made to pass the examination. The Universitys stand now is that an error should not be allowed to continue merely because it was committed in the past. In order to remove the hardship, Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the university, submitted that the University is proposing to frame a transitory regulation permitting the petitioners and similar other students to appear in the subject of physics once more and in the meantime they will be allowed to pursue their studies in the higher class. It was also said that some students came to this Court earlier by filing writ petitions which were dismissed summarily. 6. A similar matter came to this Court in C. W. J. C. No.4663 of 1986 and l. M. Sharma, J. by his judgment dated 12th February 1986 Prasidh Narain singh V/s. State of Bihar, allowed the writ petition not on the basis of the interpretation of Regulation No.16 but on the ground of estoppel because the petitioners in that case were passed but subsequently their results were cancelled after a long delay as also on the ground of discrimination but my Lord observed : ". . . . . . the University authorities would have been well advised to follow the old interpretation as was actually done initially in the present case and to have reframed the Regulation in unambiguous terms. " I am, however, called upon in these cases to interpret Regulation No.16 as the case of Prasidh Narain Singh (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. " I am, however, called upon in these cases to interpret Regulation No.16 as the case of Prasidh Narain Singh (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 7 The total marks in Physics paper are 250 out of which 200 marks are allotted to theory paper and 50 marks to practical and one is supposed to obtain 100 marks in theory and 25 marks in practical in order to pass in that subject. Learned counsel of the petitioners submits that Regulation No.16 contemplates two situations to obtain benefit of Regulation No.16 i. e. (a) those who have failed in a single subject by not more than 6% of the total marks in that subject and (b) those who have failed in theory paper by not more than 12% in that portion but has secured 60% in the practical portion. Mr. Ojha wants me to interpret Regulation No.16 in the following manner, to obtain the benefit of regulation No.16, two conditions are required to be fulfilled, namely, a candidate has not failed in the subject by more than 6% of the total marks in that subject, that is, the shortage of marks in that subject must not be more than 15; further, if he has failed in written cum oral portion of that subject by not more than 12% in that portion, namely, theory paper, in either case in order to obtain the benefit of regulation No.16, he must obtain 60% in the practical portion and then only he will be deemed to have passed the examination. In my opinion, the interpretation sought to be put by the University makes it insensible. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. The word "and", even though conjunctive, has to be read as "or" since the literal reading of the word "and" produces an unintelligible and absured result. If a person, in either event, has to obtain 60% in the practical portion of the subject then shortage of 6% of the total marks in the subject has to be necessarily in theory paper for which in the second part there is a specific provision of 12%. According to me the Court while selecting different interpretations will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than which is none of those things. 8. According to me the Court while selecting different interpretations will adopt that which is just, reasonable and sensible rather than which is none of those things. 8. The framers of the Regulations cannot be deemed to be considering one and the same situation while referring to 6% of the total marks and 12% in theory part. In my opinion, Regulation No.16 deals with two classes of candidates meeting two different situations, namely (a) those candidates who have failed in one sub ject by not more than 6% of the total marks in that subject, they shall be deemed to have passed the examination under Regulation No.1c or (b) those who have failed in the theory paper by not more than 12% of the total marks in the theory paper but has secured 60% in the practical portion, they will also be deemed to have passed under Regulation No.16. Therefore Regulation No.16, in effect, will mean that a candidate who has failed in a single subject by not more than 6% of the total marks in that subject. . . . . . . . . then the shortage from pass marks in the subject in which he has failed shall be condoned and he will be deemed to have passed the examination under Regulation No.16 or a candidate who has failed in written cum oral portion of that subject by not more than 12% of the total marks in that portion but has secured at least 60% in the practical portion then the shortage from pass marks in the subject in which he has failed shall be condoned and he will be deemed to have passed the examination under regulation No.16. I must confess that Regulation No.16 is not happily worded and is capable of more than one meaning but the Court will interpret a statute, as far as possible, agreeable to justice and reason and the one which is more reasonable and just will be adopted as Mr. Justice Shah has observed "for there is always a presumption against the law maker intending injustice and unreason" in Madhav Rao Jivajirao V/s. Union of India, reported in AIR 1971 Supreme court 530 at page 576. The construction sought to be put by learned counsel for the University appears to me to be irrational and leads to manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment. The construction sought to be put by learned counsel for the University appears to me to be irrational and leads to manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment. The University in the past has followed for years the view taken by me and I think rightly so. All the petitioners having failed in Physics only by not more than 6% of the total marks, they are directed to be deemed to have passed the examination under Regulation No.16 of the Regulations. The respondents, therefore, should proceed accordingly treating them to have passed the Pre-Ayurvedic examination of B. A. M. S. 9. In the result, both the writ petitions, are thus allowed with costs. Hearing fee Rs.500/- on each case. Petition allowed.