CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was a student of M. E. S. College and joined the degree course leading to a degree in Bachelor of Science during the year 1982-83. He appeared for the examination during April 1986 with Registration No. 8317712 and completed first year in pass class. Thereafter as evidenced by Annexura-A1, he appeared with the same register number for second year B Sc. , degree examination in october 1984 and completed the examination. As evidenced by Annexure A2, with the same register number he appeared for the 3rd year B. Sc. , examination in the optional subjects and passed. His marks were declared : in Chemistry 72, botany 63 and Zoology 79. At the examination held in October 1986, obtaining 62 per cent in Botany he failed therefore he appeared again in April 1986 for the same subject. In that as evidenced by annexure-A3 he was given 70 marks for botany and he was declared to have completed the course, as evidenced by annexure-4 to the petition dated 23-7-1986. Provisional certificate also was issued stating that he had passed in pass class with his optional subjects as Chemistry, botany and Zoology. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, on 2nd September 1986, he was issued with final marks card which showed that he had obtained only 66 marks in Botany and therefore he had failed. Agg ieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that having been declared once to have passed as per the provisional certificate issued it is not open to fie respondent University to issue the impugned marks list at Annexure-C declaring him to have failed in Botany with only 66 marks. ( 3 ) THE Court, to know whether the provisional certificate was correct or the revised marks list was correct, called for the original Marks register and the same was brought on the last date of hearing on 10-3-1988. On a perusal of the marks register maintained by the University it is seen that at the examination held in April 1986, petitioner secured 21 marks in theory and 14 plus 2 in practical in paper iii relating to Botany in paper IV he secured 10 marks in theory and 15 plus 4 in practical that adds up 66 that has been circled and the letter 'f' is written indicating that he has failed. But somebody has added in green ink "plus 4" and then equalled it at 70. There is an endorsement to the effect; "wrong gracing". The original writing "fails in Botany" is also to be found. Then there is the word "completes" in red ink which has later been scored of. Revised marks card sent on 1-9-1986 is also endorsed. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, this Court is satisfied on the material placed before it that the marks list Annexure-C reflects the correct position in regard to the performance of the candidate at the April 1986 examination for Botany papers III and IV. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner however contended that the grace marks were added and therefore he had completed the course by securing 70 marks which is the minimum required for a pass. But no material is placed as to how or by whom the grace marks were added. Under the gracing regulation a committee is constituted to award grace marks> n accordance with the Regulations made in that behalf. No such proceeding appears to have taken place in regard to the Botany paper of that particular examination. Therefore this Court must go by the marks register as reflecting the true state of affairs. ( 6 ) HOWEVER attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of t H. Srinivas v Bangalore University (1985 I. L. R. Karnataka page 2763 ). This court applying doctrine of promissory estoppel held that the petitioner therein had suffered injustice on account of the change of results by the University. But the circumstances there were totally different. Petitioner who had done his b Sc. examination had been declared to have passed and thereafter he had taken b. Ed, examination also. It was only in the year 1984 when he asked for his B. Sc. degree certificate he was informed by the university that he had not passed in english and therefore he was not entitled for a degree certificate. That was nearly 3 or 4 years after the final year B. Sc. , examination had been taken by him. It was in that circumstance he was given relief. degree certificate he was informed by the university that he had not passed in english and therefore he was not entitled for a degree certificate. That was nearly 3 or 4 years after the final year B. Sc. , examination had been taken by him. It was in that circumstance he was given relief. Here, as evidenced by the Exhibits produced by the petitioner himself, he was issued with Annexure A2 in April 1986; Annexure-A4 provisional certificate on 23rd July 1986 and the corrected marks card Annexure-C only on 11-9-1986 all within a span of three months. Therefore, he cannot derive any support from Srinivas's case. ( 7 ) THIS petition is therefore rejected. --- *** --- .