ORDER Virendra Kumar, J. - Petitioner is seeking mandamus to direct the opposite parties to allow her to continue her studies and take her III term examination of the first year of the Post-graduate Programme (hereinafter referred to as the Programme) of Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow (for short the Institute') and a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 31-1-1990 issued by opposite party No. 3 and contained in Annexure 1 for discontinuance of the studies of the petitioner and her withdrawal from the Programme after the II term of the first year course. 2. The petitioner was admitted to first year of the Post Graduate Programme in Management for 1989-91 and has completed first two terms. It was a two year course and each year had three terms. The average of 3.0 is needed as cumulative grade point to qualify for promotion in the second year and till his expulsion the petitioner's cumulative grade point average has been 2.77 in two terms, i.e., I and II, and the third term is left to show her performance. The examinees were graded from the grades 'A' to 'F' according to grade points "F' and "D" mean grade points 0 and 1 respectively. In I term the petitioner got one 'D' grade in one course and 'B' grades or C' grades in other courses. In the II term she got `F' grade which means "fail" in one course, two 'D' grades in two courses and C' grades in remaining courses. Immediately on getting 'D' grade in I term she was served with a notice by the Institute dated 16-10-1989 contained in Annexure Al filed with the counter-affidavit informing her that she would be asked to discontinue from two year Post Graduate course unless her 'performance improves'. This letter was issued on the basis of her grade sheet for I term. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued by the Institute the letter dated 31-1-1990 contained in Annexure 1 to this effect that her cumulative performance upto II term did not qualify the minimum academic requirement standard laid down for continuance of the Programme, hence she was to withdraw from III term. She was not allowed to continue in the Programme any further and her registration to III term was not confirmed. She was not allowed to continue in the Programme any further and her registration to III term was not confirmed. The petitioner filed this writ petition soon after and was allowed to continue her III term course under the temporary order dated 19-2-1990 passed by this Court. Further, under the Court's order dated 22-3-1990 she was allowed to appear in the III term examination of first year course with the direction that her result was not to be declared till further orders of this Court. Admittedly, the system of academic performance evaluation prescribed for the students of the programme is contained in Annexure 5 which is issued to the students admitted to the Indian Institute Management. Lucknow. According to the Opposite Parties, the petitioner's withdrawal from III term as informed to her through the impugned letter dated 31-1-1990 was in accordance with the academic performance evaluation system (Annexure 5). Its relevant paragraphs referred to from either side are numbered as 1.4 to 1.8 They are reproduced below : "1.4 To qualify for promotion to the second year, the student's Cumulative Grade point Average at the end of first year must not be less than 3.0, and he/she should fulfil the following conditions : (a) Should not obtain and grade in more than one course. (b) should not obtain 'D' grade in more than four courses, provided he/she does not obtain an 'F' grade in any course. (c) should not obtain 'D' grade in more than two courses if he/she obtains an 'F' grade in one course. One course implies a full credit course, two half credit course, or three one-third credit courses. Above conditions shall be applicable only after term I of first year. A student securing F' grade in two courses in term I shall be given an opportunity to improve his grades as per clause 1.5. However. if a student secures 'F' grade in more than two courses, or 'F' grade in one course and 'D' grade in three choruses, the student will be required to withdraw from the programme. To qualify for the Diploma/Degree, the students Cumulative Grade Point Average at the end of the second year must be at least 3.50 and the second year he/she should satisfy the following conditions : (a) should not obtain an 'F' grade in more than one course. To qualify for the Diploma/Degree, the students Cumulative Grade Point Average at the end of the second year must be at least 3.50 and the second year he/she should satisfy the following conditions : (a) should not obtain an 'F' grade in more than one course. (b) should not obtain 'D' grade in more than three courses, provided he/she does not obtain an 'F' grade in any course. (c) should not obtain 'D' grade in more than two courses if he/she obtains an 'F' grade in any course." 1.5 A student getting an 'F grade in one subject in first year or second year must undertake additional assignment work as specified by the course instructor and satisfy the instructor that he/she has attained minimum acceptable level of learning in the subject in which case 'F grade in the course will be upgraded to D' grade. This exercise must be completed-within the month of the start of the next term. If the instructor still finds the performance unsatisfactory, the case will be referred to a faculty committee from the subject area constituted by the Director for the final. assessment within two weeks. If the recommendation of the committee is unfavourable, the student will be required to withdraw from the programme." "1.6 For implementation of the criteria set out in pars 1.4 above, grade 'F' shall be treated as F' even when up gradation to 'D' is granted excepting in term 1 of first year. For term I of first year, up gradation opportunities if and when permitted, and if 'D' grade is subsequently awarded, the grade will be counted as 'D'." "1.7 A student securing a 'F grade in any course shall not be eligible for award of merit scholarships." 1.8 Failure to maintain minimum academic performance as specified above will result in student being required to discontinue and withdraw from the programme." 3. According to the opposite parties, the petitioner was required to discontinue her studies in III term and withdraw from the programme for the reason that her academic performance on completion of II term of the first year contained in 'F' grade in one course and three 'D' grades in three courses (inclusive of one 'D' grade in the course in the first term examination). Therefore, her case was covered (i) by clause (c) of Paragraph 1.4 and also (ii) in the third category of the students specified in the sub-paragraph following the underlined sentence in paragraph 1.4 (above). The former provides that a student of first year getting more than two 'D' grades and one 'F' grade will not be eligible for promotion to second year provided that this condition is to be applicable after I term and the latter provides that if he gets one 'F grade and three 'D' grades he may be asked to withdraw from further studies. Hence, according to the opposite parties she was rightly asked through the impugned letter dated 31-1-1989 to withdraw from III term. Petitioner challenges that her case falls under these provisions. 4. In the first place it is obvious that the opposite parties have erred in having ignored the requirement of provisions of paragraph 1.5 (reproduced above) and having not complied with them before debarring her from continuance of her studies in III term. 5. Paragraph 1.5 lays down an obligation on the opposite parties to give an opportunity to a student who gets 'F' grade in one subject in the first year for making improvement in her grade and it is only on her failure to get her 'F' grade upgraded to 'D' grade that she could be required to discontinue her studies. What is the nature of the opportunity, how it is to be afforded by the opposite parties and is to be availed of by the students, is contained in paragraph 1.5 itself. There is absolutely no doubt that the requisite opportunity was not at all afforded to the petitioner and without resorting to it the impugned letter asking the petitioner to withdraw from the programme was issued. Hence, the impugned action of the opposite parties being violative of the provisions of paragraph 1.5 cannot be sustained. 6. The petitioner got 'F grade in only one subject in her first year course, that grade she got in her II term examination. Paragraph 1.5. Hence, the impugned action of the opposite parties being violative of the provisions of paragraph 1.5 cannot be sustained. 6. The petitioner got 'F grade in only one subject in her first year course, that grade she got in her II term examination. Paragraph 1.5. required that a student who gets 'F' grade in one subject in first year (i) must undertake additional assignment work, (ii) as specified by the course instructor, (iii) and satisfy the instructor that he/she has attained a minimum acceptable level of learning in the subject concerned in which case 'F' grade would be upgraded to 'D' grade, and (iv) this exercise was to be completed within one month of the start of the next term. At the end of this entire exercise if it is found that the student has failed to get her 'F grade upgraded to 'D' grade, it is then that the action for withdrawal of the student from further studies could be taken by the Faculty Committee. On the petitioner's getting 'F grade in one subject which happened only in the II term examination, this exercise was not resorted to and none of the aforesaid four measures were adopted to enable the petitioner to improve her 'F grade to 'D' grade and save her expulsion. On her getting 'F' grade in the II term, it was not at all specified/communicated by the course instructor to the petitioner whether any additional assignment work is to be undertaken by her in-the concerned subject and if so, what is that additional work to improve her grade. In the absence of the specification/assignment of additional work (in the subject in which she got 'F' grade') by L the instructor it was obviously not possible for her to undergo any "additional work" for improving her grade and satisfy the instructor with her improvement. The course instructor on whom a legal obligation had been placed under paragraph 1.5 has failed to discharge that obligation. Opposite parties have no doubt taken up the case, which is quite vague and general, by saying that the petitioner was given every opportunity by the Professors of the Institution without mentioning that opportunity in accordance with paragraph 1.5 was afforded. It is nowhere stated that the petitioner was assigned "additional work" by the course instructor as was required. Opposite parties have no doubt taken up the case, which is quite vague and general, by saying that the petitioner was given every opportunity by the Professors of the Institution without mentioning that opportunity in accordance with paragraph 1.5 was afforded. It is nowhere stated that the petitioner was assigned "additional work" by the course instructor as was required. The petitioner has specifically taken up the case in a pressing manner that she was not afforded opportunity according to para 1.5. The petitioner was, thus denied the requisite opportunity of improving her grade from 'F' to 'D' under paragraph 1.5 before action for her withdrawal from III term was taken. 7. The only communication in connection with improving her performance which was issued by the concerned authorities is dated October 16, 1989 contained in Annexure Al filed with the counter affidavit. This letter was issued on the basis of her academic performance in I term-. It seems that the II term was not completed when that letter was issued, so the petitioner's performance of the II term examination was not known by then. She had not received any 'F' grade in any course by the time the letter dated October, 16, 1989 was issued. Hence, issue of that letter was not at all towards compliance of the requirements of paragraph 1.5. In fact, the opportunity required under paragraph 1.5 to improve her grade was to be made available to the petitioner on her getting 'F grade and that grade she got much after October l6, 1989 on which date the letter Annexure Al was issued. Further, this letter does not specify any 'additional work' which was to be taken by the petitioner at the instructions of the course instructor. For this reason also the letter dated 16-10-1989 (Annexure Al) cannot be said to be in the least a step taken in compliance of paragraph 1.5. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the requirements of paragraph 1.5. were fulfilled from the side of the course instructor or the Institute by issuing the letter dated 16-10-1989 (Annexure Al) is totally devoid of force and substance. Further, it is not correct for the counsel for opposite parties to say that paragraph 1.5 will apply to only those students who get 'F' grade in one course and no 'D' grade at all. Further, it is not correct for the counsel for opposite parties to say that paragraph 1.5 will apply to only those students who get 'F' grade in one course and no 'D' grade at all. Such inference is not warranted from the relevant provisions. In fact, there has been no compliance of the requirement of paragraph 1.5. Hence, on this ground alone the impugned order for withdrawal of the petitioner from III term or in other words her explusion order contained in the letter dated 31-1-1990 is invafid and illegal. 8. Further, on careful examination it is obvious that there is no force in the stand of the opposite parties that the case of the petitioner (i) is covered by clause (c) of paragraph 1.4, applicable to the students of I year and also (ii) falls in the third category of the students specified in the sub-paragraph following the underlined sentence in paragraph 1.4 (above). Petitioner's case is not covered underany of the two provisions. 9. Clause (c) of Paragraph 1.4 relating to first year students lays down that in-order to qualify for promotion to the second year, the student should not have obtained 'D' grade in more than two courses if he/she has obtained 'F' grade in one course but this condition is "applicable only after term-I of first year.It obviously means that a student getting 'F grade in one course and more than two grades in first terms does not stand dis entitled to promotion to the second year on the ground of securing these grades. In other words these disqualifying grades obtained in I term are accordingly ignored and these grades if obtained after I term. will weigh towards student's promotion. In the first place it may be mentioned that the petitioner has got only one 'D' grade without-getting any 'F' garde in first term. In the II term also/she did not get more than two 'D' grades. So, her case is not covered under the said clause (c). According to the opposite parties, one 'D' grade obtained by the petitioner in I term is to be counted with and added to the two 'D' grades and one 'F' grade which was received by her in the second term and in this way her case will be covered under clause (c) of paragraph 1.4. According to the opposite parties, one 'D' grade obtained by the petitioner in I term is to be counted with and added to the two 'D' grades and one 'F' grade which was received by her in the second term and in this way her case will be covered under clause (c) of paragraph 1.4. This assessment is wrong and does not seem to be warranted by the provisions of paragraph 1.4. If the poor grades of 'D' and 'F' obtained by a student in I term are to be ignored for his/her assessment for promotion to the second year as expressly laid down it cannot be accepted that the same poor grade or grades, i.e. 'D' and 'F' are to be considered, weighed and counted in the second term for passing the order of his/her expulsion under clause (c) of Paragraph 1.4. Hence, one 'D' grade obtained by the petitioner in I term is not to be added to the two 'D' grades which had been obtained by her in the II term for bringing the petitioner's case under Clause (c) of paragraph 1.4. 10. Another reason why the impugned order of expulsion of the petitioner from the third term is not warranted under Clause (c) of, paragraph 1.4 is that the said provision prescribes the qualification or condition for promotion from the first year to second year for which the stage comes on completion of III term. It certainly not provides nor permits to bar a student from continuing her studies in III term. In this view of the matter also, the impugned order of expulsion cannot be upheld under Clause (c) of Paragraph 1.4 relating to first years student. 11. Further, according to the opposite parties, the petitioner's score consisted of 3 D' grades and one 'F' grade on completion of II term and therefore, she could be required to withdraw from the programme under third category of the provisions contained in sub-paragraph just below the underlined sentence of paragraph 1.4 above which lays down that the students getting 'F grade in one course and 'D' grade in three courses will be required to withdraw from the programme. The petitioner's case, in fact, does not fall under this category and the opposite parties have wrongly applied it to the petitioner. The petitioner's case, in fact, does not fall under this category and the opposite parties have wrongly applied it to the petitioner. As already mentioned, the petitioner got one 'F grade and two 'D' grades in the II term examination. She had, no doubt, obtained one 'D' grade in the I term but that cannot be added to nor counted with the 'D' grades obtained in the II term. This position is easily understandable. Under Clause (c) of paragraph 1.4 getting more than 2 D' grades and one 'F' grade in the I term is not to constitute a disqualification for a student. This concession which has been very expressly given to the students for his or her poor performance of getting more than two 'D' and 'F grades in I term cannot be negatived by the opposite parties by a construing subsequent paragraphs. In other words the contention of the opposite parties if. accepted would go to deny the said concession hence cannot be accepted. Therefore, one 'D' grade obtained by the petitioner in I term cannot be counted with the petitioner's result of the II term to bring her case under III category of students of the aforementioned sub-paragraph. The impugned order of expulsion, therefore, stands vitiated on this score also 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the impugned order of expulsion of the petitioner on the basis of her poor grades is based on the interpretation of paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 given by distinguished educational authorities associated with the opposite party No. 1 and it should be accepted by this Court as correct. In this connection he referred to Bindra's treatise on Interpretation of Statutes and the Supreme Court cases of (1) Sirajul Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. 1959 SCR 1287 : AIR 1959 SC 198 (2) Principal, Patna College, Patna v. Kalyan Srinivas Raman, AIR 1966 SC 707 (3) Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Smt. Hashmatunnisa Begum, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 43 : AIR 1989 SC 1024 and (4) Hindi Hitrakashak Samiti v. Union of India, 1990 (2) SCC 352 . The principles of interpretation of statutes are invoked when the meaning of the provisions of law. are not plain and clear and are on,the other hand, ambiguous or open to different in interpretations. (2) SCC 43 : AIR 1989 SC 1024 and (4) Hindi Hitrakashak Samiti v. Union of India, 1990 (2) SCC 352 . The principles of interpretation of statutes are invoked when the meaning of the provisions of law. are not plain and clear and are on,the other hand, ambiguous or open to different in interpretations. The rules of interpretation may also be invoked where literal construction defeats the object of the provisions of the law which is going to be construed. Such is not the case here as will be apparent from the above discussion. It cannot be said in the instant case that the two interpretations are reasonably possible and so the interpretation of the educational authorities of the Institute even if less reasonable should be accepted. In the present case, the provisions of law contained in paragraph 1.5 were not applied to the petitioner and further, the provisions of paragraphs 1.4 & 1.5 were violated. The impugned order passed cannot be held to be warranted by the prescribed provisions by which, admittedly, the parties are to abide by. 13. Despite the fact that the petitioner was allowed by this court under its interim order dated 19-2-1990 to continue her III term course she was not allowed by the opposite parties to appear in the mid term test and the entire programme of Quiz held by the opposite party No. 1 for the students pursuing III term course. These were held during the span of III term and prior to end examination of III term in which the petitioner was allowed to appear. The opposite parties have wrongly deprived the petitioner from appearing in the aforementioned test/quiz programme due to which the petitioner, in regard to them could not get any credit of marks or grades which on being obtained could have gone to add the aggregate cumulative performance of the petitioner needed for promotion to second year. Hence the submission of the petitioner's counsel that in these circumstances, for the petitioner there should now be held mid term test & Quiz in which she was wrongly deprived to participate, is not devoid of force & substance. It is not re-examination. The petitioner is not to suffer for the action & omission of the opposite parties committed in defiance of the Court's interim order dated 19-2-90. 14. The writ petition is allowed with costs. It is not re-examination. The petitioner is not to suffer for the action & omission of the opposite parties committed in defiance of the Court's interim order dated 19-2-90. 14. The writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order for discontinuance of the petitioner from her studies in the III terms and for her withdrawal from the programme after completion of the II terms contained in the letter dated 31-1-90 issued by opposite party No. 3, is quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be on the roll of the Institute and is to be afforded the opportunity in accordance with prescribed system to improve her 'F' grade to 'D' grade in the subject in which she had got `F' grade.,In case the requisite improvement is made by the petitioner, there should be held for her midterm test and Quiz, as was held for other students of III term course of first year students but in which she had not appeared. Thereafter, in case the cumulative performance of the petitioner in all the three terms entitles petitioner to promotion to the second year. she is to be promoted to.the second year. The result of the petitioner for III term examination which was ordered to be withheld under the Court's order dated 22-3-90 be also declared. For all this a period of six weeks from today is fixed. 15. Grant of leave to file appeal is sought by learned counsel for Opposite Parties verbally. This case does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance. Hence the leave applied for is rejected. 16. Let copy of the judgment on being applied be supplied as far as possible before Dussehra Holidays on payment of charges.