ORDER T.N. Singh, J. 1. As many as thirteen students of Lakshmibai National College of Physical Education (hereinafter, LNCPE), Gwalior, have made a common cause in moving this Court on the writ side to accelerate their prospects in the B.P.E. course of Jiwaji University, Gwalior, for which they are pursuing there the prescribed studies. Of them, pleadings being incomplete in regard to cases of petitioner No. 4, Kumari Rita Ghose Banik and petitioner No. 13, Kumari Japmala Ghosh, consideration of their case is, perforce, eschewed. 2. We have before us in records, statements of marks which eleven petitioners (excepting Nos. 4 and 13) have filed as annexures (P/10A) et. seq. with the common petition. In the return of LNCPE too, particulars, unfortunately, are also not available in regard to the two defaulting petitioners, above-named. Petitioners have complained that they have been arbitrarily failed, by denying them grace marks to which they were entitled under clause 32 of University's Ordinance No. 6. Undisputedly, LNCPE is an "autonomous college", affiliated to the Jiwaji University, but it is also conceded that the autonomy is limited; in case of conflict between the University's Ordinances and any provision made by LNCPE, the former prevail. 3. Obviously, in this matter, there being a contest between two provisions, enacted respectively by the University and LNCPE, both deserve to be extracted in extenso : Clause 32, Ordinance No. 6 of University : "32. Notwithstanding any thing contained in the concerned Ordinance an examinee, who fails by a total of not more than three marks in not more than two subjects in any of the B.A./B.Sc./B.Sc. (Home Science)/B.Com./B.E./B.Ed./ B.P.Ed./LL.B. examinations except where it is held on a semester basis, but secures more than the minimum aggregate marks required shall be given three grace marks to enable him to pass the examination". Para 14, General Rules (Examination Ordinance) of LNCPE: "14 An examinee, who fails by a total of not more than three marks in not more than two subjects in any of the B.P.E. Parts I, II or III examinations but secures more than the minimum aggregate marks required including sessional marks in each paper, shall be given three grace marks to enable him to pass the examination." 4. At para 5 of the Return, is tabulated the disqualifying performance of eleven petitioners. At para 5 of the Return, is tabulated the disqualifying performance of eleven petitioners. From that, relevant particulars are extracted below along with another column which is added by culling out the missing particulars from respective statements of marks : - Roll Name of the Subject Min. mks. Sessional Total Total No. student and paper obtained min. mks. aggregate marks in which in theory out of out of Theory failed paper 25 100 (includ ing) out of in BPEI 75 out of 600 (Min. 198) 306 Ku. Madhu English (22) 10 (32) 253 aswani 302 Ku. Grace English (20) 11 (31) 251 Bchari 313 Ku. Sabi K. General (28) (31) 259 Joseph Science 319 Anil Kumar History (20) 12 (32) 269 Dubcy of Physical Education 247 Sudhir Pachar General (29) 2 (31) 272 Science 327 Kultar General (25) 5 30) 248 Science 333 Naorem B. History (22) 10 (32) 244 Singh of Physical Education 237 P.Krishna General (26) 4 (30) 258 Rua Science 238 Poms Kumar History (22) 9 (31) 254 Bhagwuti of Physical Education 323 B. K. Shyam History (20) 12 (32) 263 Niwas of Physical Education 317 Alok Kumar History (22) 9 (31) 237 Mosan of Physical Education We regret that conveniently care is taken in the return to avoid focus on the controversial last column which, we are compelled, therefore, to interpolate. Admittedly, the short legal controversy is confined to interpretation of the same term "aggregate" which occurs in both, clause 32 and para 14, afore-quoted. That cannot be resolved without reference to the particulars which we have interpolated. 5. Although we would be giving presently our reasons for the view taken, it seems to us that a small slip punctuation is the cause for the rank confusion. We do not know if it is Printer's Devil who is responsible for the missing parenthesis which should have embraced the clause - "including sessional marks in each paper" - which finds place in para 14 which omits the clause "except where it is held on semester basis" of clause 32. We would hearken to Cork burn C. J.'s caution in Stephenson v. Taylor, (1861) 1 B. and S. 101, approved by the Apex Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Base, AIR 1952 SC 369 . We would hearken to Cork burn C. J.'s caution in Stephenson v. Taylor, (1861) 1 B. and S. 101, approved by the Apex Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Base, AIR 1952 SC 369 . He had observed, "On the Parliament Roll there is no punctuation and we therefore are not bound by that in the printed copies". Our Apex Court's view is that although punctuation cannot be regarded as a controlling element, it is not possible to deny positive role to punctuation in some cases. Direct support for that view, we read in Crawford's Statutory Construction, Section 199; "the court may punctuate, or disregard existing punctuation, or repunctuate in order to give the legislative intention effect." (p. 343). Long ago, in Harishankar Bagla's case, AIR 1953 SC 79 , it was held that bye-laws and rules made under a rule-making power do not stand on the same footing as rules, unlike the bye-laws, are part and parcel of the Statute itself. Lord Rissel, C.J.'s dictum in Krush v. Johnson (1898) 2 Q.B. 91, still holds good, according to Maxwell : Bye-laws are to be "benevolently interpreted, and credit ought to be given to those who have to administer them that they will be reasonably administered" (12th Edn., p. 150). Supplying the missing link of the missing parenthesis for benevolent interpretation of para 14 we regard legitimate bearing also in mind the escalted ascendancy of norms of purposive interpretation. Do not read, we are told, with "non-benevolent eyes and minds" to nullify the object of a benevolent provision. (See : Skandia Insurance Co., AIR 1987 SC 1184 . Courts must try to avoid "patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity" so as to "permit and advance the object and purpose of the enactment" (See : Girdharilal, AIR 1986 SC 1499 ) 6. To demonstrate that our conclusion has grammatical support, we break up into convenient sub-paras and sub-clauses the complex sentences comprising para 14 and clause 32, afore-quoted : - Para 14. Clause 32. 1. An examinee, who fails by a 1. Notwithstanding anything contained total of not more than three in the concerned Ordinance. marks in not more than two subjects. 2. In any of the B.P.E. 2. An examinee who fails by a total Parts I, II or III of not more than three marks in examinations. not more than two subjects. 3. (But) secures more than the 3. Notwithstanding anything contained total of not more than three in the concerned Ordinance. marks in not more than two subjects. 2. In any of the B.P.E. 2. An examinee who fails by a total Parts I, II or III of not more than three marks in examinations. not more than two subjects. 3. (But) secures more than the 3. In any of the B.A./B.Sc./B.Sc. minimum aggregate marks (Home Science)/B.Com./B.E./ required. B.Ed./P. B.Ed./L.L.B./examinations. 4. Including sessional marks in 4. Except where it is held on a each paper. semester basis. 5. Shall be given three grace 5. (But) secures more than the marks. minimum aggregate marks required. 6. To enable him to pass the 6. Shall be given three grace examination. marks. 7. To enable him to pass the examination. Evidently, sub-para 3 of para 14, which is same as Sub-clause 5, is a complete sentence in itself. Sub-para 4 of para 14 has no parallel in clause 32 and in itself if an incomplete sentence which can be easily removed from para 14 without affecting the meaning of any other parts of the sentence. If the two parts of the sentence comprising para 14, sub-paras 3 and 4 are read together, the character of sub-para 4 becomes clear that it is a "parenthetical clause" inserted to serve merely the purpose of clarification. Sessional marks secured by a candidate in each of the papers are meant to be simply included in the "minimum aggregate marks required" and it is not meant thereby to control the expression "the minimum aggregate marks." The word "including" has a definite purport and it plays the key role in delineating the character of this clause. 7. It is not possible to accept the argument of Shri Roman that the words " in each paper" qualify the words "minimum aggregate". They obviously qualify the immediately preceding words "Sessional marks". The validity of para 14 can only be upheld by subordinating it to clause 32 which begins with a non-obstante clause. At one place only the expression "minimum aggregate marks required" occur in both provisions and it must carry the same meaning. Additional requirement of "minimum aggregate" in each paper cannot be in the legitimate contemplation of para 14. Principal clauses of each of the sentence in para 14 and clause 32 are common and they fulfil the same object and purpose. Additional requirement of "minimum aggregate" in each paper cannot be in the legitimate contemplation of para 14. Principal clauses of each of the sentence in para 14 and clause 32 are common and they fulfil the same object and purpose. Both provisions are "benevolent" and that is indicated by the commonly worded sub-para/sub-clause- "to enable him to pass the examination". That is subjected only to three conditions-precedent - (1) only three grace marks can be added; (2) when the examinee has failed to pass the examination in not more than two subjects; (3) but he has secured more than the aggregate marks required. We reiterate that requirement of "minimum aggregate" is directly relatable to passing of the examination as a whole and that is single; that obviously relates to the general performance of the candidate in the examination as a whole reflected in the total marks secured by him in all papers in which he had taken the examination. 8. Happily, we find for our construction intrinsic support from two sources, both attributable to the provisions of LNCPE's Examination Ordinance. Provisions of para 4 of its Ordinance, spells out two things. To pass in theory subject, a candidate must secure 33% marks in each theory paper, though "no minimum percentage is prescribed for the sessional groups in theory". That position is also clearly reflected in the entries to be read in the columns of the prescribed Statement of Marks. It speaks of result of examination in respect of part '"A" (Theory) and Part "B" (Practical Skills). In the part of the Statement dealing with the result of theory papers (part "A") two remarkable features deserve special notice. For the written test, (classified as "final examination") maximum as also minimum are fixed - 75 and 25 respectively: for sessional only maximum is fixed, but no minimum. Total marks in col. 3 in respect of each paper are also indicated - maximum 100; minimum 33. Another requirement specified is "Total marks theory (including sessional) in B.P.I, out of 600 (Min. 198)". It appears clear, therefore, care is taken to specify "minimum marks" in three ways - for written test, in respect of total marks of each paper and total marks of all papers. Another requirement specified is "Total marks theory (including sessional) in B.P.I, out of 600 (Min. 198)". It appears clear, therefore, care is taken to specify "minimum marks" in three ways - for written test, in respect of total marks of each paper and total marks of all papers. The very fact that use of parenthesis is considered necessary in the prescribed Statement of Marks and that is in respect of total marks not of each paper but of all papers lends further assurance to the conclusion we have reached in this matter. 9. We have already demonstrated that there is no repugnancy between para 14 and clause 32, but the arguments of Shri Roman will result in rendering otiose the benevolent provision envisaged in clause 32, or. for that matter, para 14. Evidently, the grace marks are to be added to fulfil the requirement of obtaining minimum marks for passing an examination in any particular paper. That purpose cannot be achieved if the grace marks to the extent allowed are not allowed to be added to the marks obtained in written test in any one or two theory papers. For example, a candidate who has secured 24 marks in written test, 8 in sessional and accordingly, total of 32 marks in any particular paper, would be denied the benefit of the provision merely because he has not secured more in the sessional in spite of the fact that there is no requirement of securing any minimum marks in the sessionals. By one grace mark, he crosses the ocean : the minimum in written test is raised to 25 and the total marks in the paper is raised to 33. The provision cannot be reasonably construed to mean that its benefit can be availed only by such examinees who have secured in written test 24 marks, but in the sessional a minimum of 9 marks, making a total of 33 marks secured by them in any particular paper/subject. Grace marks are to be added with the object of helping the examinee to "pass" the examination when he has "failed" in any one or more paper/subject and, therefore, the failure must relate to the only minimum prescribed in regard to the essential performance of the written test. 10. Grace marks are to be added with the object of helping the examinee to "pass" the examination when he has "failed" in any one or more paper/subject and, therefore, the failure must relate to the only minimum prescribed in regard to the essential performance of the written test. 10. It would be a travesty of justice if a candidate who has secured much more than the minimum of 198 marks as total marks in all theory papers is refused the benefit of one grace mark by introducing an artificial,. requirement of obtaining minimum marks in sessional not contemplated in para 14 and clause 32 and not postulated also in the Statement of Marks. We find a positive role for the maxim ut res magis valeat quain pereat and that must be allowed to operate in full measure in this case. When two constructions compete, the court is required to lean towards one that is compatible with the object and purpose of the enactment and interdicts effectively the mischief which it seeks to prevent. (See - C.I.T. v. S. Tage Singh, AIR 1959 SC 352 : State of M. P. v. Chhotabhai Jethabai, AIR 1972 SC 971 and S.T.N. v. K. N. Kandaswami, AIR 1974 SC 209 ). According to us, all those examinees who have secured the minimum prescribed aggregate. namely, the minimum aggregate of marks secured in all papers/subjects in which they have taken examination will be entitled to avail the benefit of para 24/clause 32 when they are in need, in all of three marks, in one of two papers/subjects, to reach the minimum prescribed for passing that paper/subject. There is, however, more to it and that follows hereinafter. 11. Double-track benefit is envisaged under para 14 and a little elaboration may be useful to expound the same. It has to be noted that an examination is held to subject the student to an impromptu test (written/oral) to evaluate his intrinsic merit or inherent talent; compulsory minimum marks in that regard is a reasonable and indispensable requirement. Grace marks added in "total marks"column get transferred, a 'posteriori" to the relevant column to make up the deficiency in that regard. Grace marks added in "total marks"column get transferred, a 'posteriori" to the relevant column to make up the deficiency in that regard. By that if the said requirement cannot be made up, the examinees are not entitled to addition of grace marks in the total marks column though addition is permissible in both columns to fulfil the primal purpose of enabling him to pass in the paper/subject. However, it may also be noted that entitlement of an examinee under Para 14 is not to be subjected to the general requirement of securing 33% total marks in each of the papers/subjects contemplated under Para 4; special provision of para 14 is meant to take care of not all but of one or two papers/subjects to deal with specific cases of an examinee putting up satisfactory overall performance. Evidently, addition of grace marks to sessional is not contemplated and that is to be avoided. Para 14 being benevolent provision, has to be given full effect and, on the other hand, harmony is to be achieved between paras 4 and 14. This is done by providing the double-track benefit. 12. Confusion entering the interpretation of Para 14 is regrettably marked by a sharp irony. It looks at sessional marks as non-beneficent element, curtailing the scope of the entitlement under para 14 by overlooking the real and limited role of sessionals. An examinee can avail the benefit of Para 14 in two types of cases to achieve the minimum required to pass any one or two papers/subjects and thereby pass the examination : grace marks may be added to meet the deficiency in the written test; they may also be added to make up the deficiency in the total minimum marks required to be secured in that particular paper or papers. The benefit will not be available to an examinee whose performance in the written test is so low that addition of grace marks to the total marks secured by him in that paper/subject on being transferred to the marks secured by him in the written test do not raise his performance in the written test to the minimum required. For example, in a case, in which the examinee has secured 21 or less in written test in any particular paper/ subject and has secured 30 or more total marks in that paper. 13. For example, in a case, in which the examinee has secured 21 or less in written test in any particular paper/ subject and has secured 30 or more total marks in that paper. 13. In view of the discussion of law and facts and of interpretation of Para 14, some of the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Para 14. All of them obviously have secured total marks in theory in all papers including sessional in the range of 237 to 271 as against the minimum 198 marks required. However, those petitioners only who are short of three marks- or less are entitled to addition of grace marks to that extent to enable them to pass the examination. Thus, petitioners, Kumari Madhu Jeswani, Naorem B. Singh, Poras Kumar Bhagwati, Alok Kumar Mosan, are entitled to addition of required grace marks to pass the examination. However, we must also hold that arbitrarily some other petitioners have been disqualified and are declared failed in the examination for different reasons. Kumari Sabi K. Joseph has been tailed on the ground that she secured 31 as against 33 total marks in General Science despite the fact that she secured 28 marks in the written test in that paper as against the minimum of 25. Similar is the case of Sudhir Pachar. He secured 29 in written test in General Science, but total marks in that paper 31. Another case of the same type is that of Kultar S. Rana. He secured the required minimum of 25 marks in General Science, but has been failed on the ground that he secured only 30 total marks in that paper as against 33. P. Krishna Rao's case is also of the same type in that he secured 26 marks in written test in General Science, but total marks in that paper 30. 14. In the result, the petition succeeds in part. We direct the Dean, LNCPE, Gwaiior, to declare successful petitioners Kumari Madhu Jeswani, Kumari Sabi K. Joseph, Sudhir Pachar, Kultar S. Rana, Naorem B. Singh, P. Krishna Rao, Poras Kumar Bhagwati and Alok Kumar Mosan. If any of them has, in the meantime, taken supplementary examination in the paper they had been declared unsuccessful, his achievement in that examination shall be ignored and it shall be deemed as if he has not taken the examination. If any of them has, in the meantime, taken supplementary examination in the paper they had been declared unsuccessful, his achievement in that examination shall be ignored and it shall be deemed as if he has not taken the examination. Other petitioners are found not entitled to invoke Para 14 and in their case, we do not find any infirmity in their result, as declared. Petitioner B. K. Shyam Niwas has secured 20 marks in written test in History of Physical Education. As such, three grace marks will not pass him in that paper, the minimum requirement being 25. Petitioner Anil Kumar Dubey has failed in the same paper as he too has secured only 20 marks in written test. The same reason, therefore, applies to hold him disqualified. Kumari Grace Behari has secured 20 marks in written test in English. So, to her also the same reason applies. All the three last-mentioned petitioners are not entitled to any relief. There shall be no order as to costs.