JUDGMENT - QAZI M.M., J.:---Since the common question of fact and law is involved in these petitions, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent No. 2 Amravati University, Amravati, in not granting the benefits of incentive marks as provided in Ordinance No. I of 1985 of the Amravati University. In these petitions we are essentially concerned with the interpretation of Ordinance No. I of 1985 and Ordinance No. 7-B issued by the Amravati University. Ordinance No. I of 1985 pertains to incentive marks; the maximum marks being 10. It is provided for participation in N.C.C., N.S.S., Games and Sports and other extra curricular activities. This Ordinance came into force with effect from Summer 1986 examination. Incentive marks have to be added to the examination marks in a subject or subjects in which the students fall short of passing marks, to the extent of 5 percent of total marks, assigned to the subject/paper/practical, whichever is a head of passings. Incentive marks are introduced with a view to encourage the students to participate more vigorously in N.C.C., N.S.S., Games and Sports and other extra curricular activities. Ordinance No. 7-B pertains to condonation of deficiency of marks to be given to the extent of 5 marks. 3. According to Mr. Aney appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of both incentive marks as well as condonation of deficiency marks. He has relied on few decisions of this Court to substantiate his contention that the incentive marks are for extra curricular activities of the student as a matter of right. According to him, the student earns the same on having taken part in N.C.C., N.S.S. and other extra curricular activities and, therefore, it is his right. The decisions relied upon by him are 1985 Mh.L.J. 830, (Fail Poncha v. State)1, 1986(3) Bom.C.R. 734 , (Charudatta Prabhakarrao Pingle v. State of Maharashtra)2, and 1991(1) Bom.C.R. 375 , (Arshdeep Gurudeo Singh Puri v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur)3. 4. The Amravati University has contested the petitions. The sum and substance of its defence has been disclosed in para 5 of the return, which is reproduced below : "5. 4. The Amravati University has contested the petitions. The sum and substance of its defence has been disclosed in para 5 of the return, which is reproduced below : "5. As to para No. 8:---It is not disputed that the incentive marks should be added to the subject or in head of shortfall subject to maximum of 5 percent of total marks to the subject. However, maximum total deficiency can be removed by application of Ordinance No. 1(6) and Ordinance No. 7-B taken together in view of the prescription laid down by Medical Council of India. The said rule is annexed herewith as Annexure No. R-I." From the above defence it is clear that the University is essentially relying on the recommendations of Medical Council of India. The relevant recommendation is IX(9), which is reproduced below : "IX. Appointment of Examiners. X X X X X X (9) Grace marks upto a maximum of 5 may be awarded at the discretion of the University for a student who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all the subjects." Thus, according to the University, the maximum marks to which the petitioners are entitled by way of deficiency of marks or incentive marks is 5. According to it, in no case it can go beyond 5. 5. Mr. Jaiswal appearing on behalf, of the Amravati University has vehemently argued that notwithstanding that the University has framed Ordinance No. I of 1985, it cannot implement it to the extent of 10 marks. Granting 10 marks would be an obvious violation of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. Mr. Aney has submitted that Recommendation No. IX(9) is not applicable to the present case, since it refers to grace marks and not to incentive marks. Another limb of his argument is that the recommendations of the Medical Council of India are not sacrosanct, inasmuch as the respondents are not following most of the recommendations of the Medical Council of India. He has demonstrated this by filing an additional affidavit to this effect. 6. In our view, merely because the University is not following other recommendations of the Medical Council of India, that by itself cannot be a ground to prevent it from following a particular recommendation, if otherwise it is governed by it. He has demonstrated this by filing an additional affidavit to this effect. 6. In our view, merely because the University is not following other recommendations of the Medical Council of India, that by itself cannot be a ground to prevent it from following a particular recommendation, if otherwise it is governed by it. There is no dispute that the recommendations of the Medical Council of India have statutory force and the University is bound to follow them. In view of this admitted legal position, we do not think it is possible to hold that the University can be allowed to flout recommendation No. IX(9). Therefore, the crucial question that falls for our consideration is whether Recommendation No. IX(9) is applicable to the facts of the present case. It appears that Recommendation No. IX(9) is the only recommendation which governs the case of a student who has failed in the examination and to whom marks upto the maximum of 5 may be awarded at the discretion of the University. From this recommendation it is clear that the grace marks are not an absolute right of the student. It is subject to certain conditions. This recommendation is incorporated from the point of view of expediency. The Medical Council of India has wisely left it to the discretion of the University. 7. In our view, whether we call it incentive marks or deficiency marks or grace marks, the object seems to be help the student to enable him to pass in a given situation. One of the meanings of 'incentive' given in the Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. 5) (1933 Edition) is "Incentive to Grace". The meaning of 'grace' has been given as 'favour'. There can hardly be any doubt that by providing additional marks either by way of grace marks or deficiency marks or incentive marks, the object is to do favour to the student who is failing by a short margin. While showing this favour it cannot be lost sight of that the standard of medical education should not be allowed to fall. It is because of this that the Recommendation No. IX(9) lays down the limit in regard to the grace marks. Only 5 marks have been kept as maximum limit. The idea seems to be that in no case the student who has failed should be given more than 5 marks to make up the deficiency. 8. Mr. It is because of this that the Recommendation No. IX(9) lays down the limit in regard to the grace marks. Only 5 marks have been kept as maximum limit. The idea seems to be that in no case the student who has failed should be given more than 5 marks to make up the deficiency. 8. Mr. Aney has vehemently argued that incentive marks are something which one has earned and, therefore, he becomes entitled to it as a matter of right. According to him, Recommendation No. IX(9) will have to be harmoniously construed so that Ordinance No. I of 1985 is not rendered redundant. We have given our anxious considerations to this aspect, but it is difficult to hold that the student who has failed could be given more than 5 marks in all. 9. Mr. Aney has relied on 1986 Mh.L.J. 907 (supra). This case, in our view, is not relevant since it pertains to admission to Medical College. Consideration for admission to Medical College and consideration for passing can never be compared. Student can be declared pass only on the basis of the subject in which he has passed. While admitting a student several factors can be taken into consideration apart from his percentage in the qualifying examination, such as rendering voluntary health service etc. In the above cases (cited supra), the petitioner had rendered voluntary health service and, therefore, he claimed addition of 5 marks on the basis of pre-existing Rules, which he was denied by the College Authorities. It is in that background that this Court ruled that the student who had actually completed the voluntary health service on five occasions, each of 15 days' duration, was entitled to addition of 5 marks in the light of the pre-existing Rules. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. On the same analogy, other decisions i.e. 1985 Mh.L.J. 830 and 1991 Mh.L.J. 304 are also not relevant. 10. Having regard to these facts, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Aney for the addition of incentive marks to the extent of 10. Both the petitions are devoid of substance and hence dismissed. Rules discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. -----