JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ, order or direction for declaring the action of the respondents in decreasing the marks of this IInd paper of mathematics from 16 to 14 as illegal and directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination alongwith the main Examination of the B.Sc. IIIrd year. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was a regular student of Three Years Degree Course, at Agrawal College, Jaipur, which is affiliated to the University of Rajasthan. He appeared in the Second Year(Science) Examination,1990,which was held by the University of Rajasthan. The result of the said examination was declared on 13.3.90.The petitioner was declared to have failed, because, he had failed to secure pass marks in the subjects of Physics and Mathematics. The petitioner applied for revaluation of theory paper of Physics(I) and (III) and also for all the three papers of Mathematics. The result of this revaluation was declared on 11.1.91. As a result of revaluation a fresh mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner,because, the original mark-sheet had been deposited by him with the University of Rajasthan. He has claimed that the respondent University has unlawfully not declared the petitioner to be eligible to appear in the supplementary Examination in the subject of Mathematics. In the First paper of Mathematics he had secured 13 marks in the first instance; and after revaluation, the marks were increased to 23. In the second paper of the same subject he had earlier been awarded 16 marks. However, after revaluation, the marks were decreased to 14. In the Third theory paper of Mathematics he had been earlier awarded 12 marks. After revaluation the marks were increased to 15. In the First theory paper of Physics he had secured three marks originally and, after revaluation,he secured 6 marks. In the Third theory paper of Physics his marks remained unchanged. Thus, if 2 marks in the second paper of Mathematics had not been decreased, he would have been declared as pass in the subject of Mathematics and then he would have been eligible for supplementary examination in theory paper of Physics. He had already cleared the practical examinations of the subjects of Physics. As per Ordinance 193(B), a candidate failing in one optional subject is eligible to appear in the supplementary examination. He had already cleared the practical examinations of the subjects of Physics. As per Ordinance 193(B), a candidate failing in one optional subject is eligible to appear in the supplementary examination. The supplementary examinations had already taken place on 12.12.90, i.e. before the declaration of the result of revaluation. Now, he would have been eligible for . Physics . supplementary examination of theory paper of physic alongwith the main examination of third year of T.D.0 as per Ordinance 156-A(13). 3. The petitioner has further stated that the scheme of 10+1+3 has been completely abolished from 1991 onwards and, if the petitioner is not allowed to sit in the supplementary examination in theory papers of Physics with the main examination of third year he will be compelled to be reverted back to Part-I of 10+2+3 scheme which has commenced from 1991-92.The petitioner personally met the Vice Chancellor, Shri A.S.Kapoor, and explained to him his position,but, the Vice Chancellor expressed his helplessness. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent University has mis-inter-preted the provision contained in clause (6)(ii)(b) of the "Rules for Revaluation of Answer Books" framed by the University of Rajasthan. By misinterpreting the rule the respondent-University has put the petitioner to a serious injury in as much as, he will be now compelled to study for full three years in order to secure the Degree. The petitioner, otherwise, fulfils all the eligibilities for being admitted to B.Sc. Part-Ill,examination of 10+1+3 Scheme. The University has arbitrarily denied him this benefit and, this action of the respondent University deserves to be declared as arbitrary and unconstitutional. 5. Respondent No. 1, has in its reply, asserted that the petitioner was awarded marks as per rules for revaluation of answer-books and there is no infirmity in the award of marks. He has correctly been awarded marks as per clause (6) of those Rules. In paper-II of Mathematics the petitioner was awarded 16 marks by the first examiner and 12 marks have been awarded by the second examiner. The decrease is thus, more than 5% and, therefore, the average of the two awards has been taken to determine the marks as a result of the revaluation and, for this reason, he has been awarded 14 marks. The decrease is thus, more than 5% and, therefore, the average of the two awards has been taken to determine the marks as a result of the revaluation and, for this reason, he has been awarded 14 marks. The case of the Respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to appear in the supplementary examination of theory papers of Physics alongwith the main examination of B.Sc. III Year. 6. By an interim order dated 12.2.91, the court had allowed the petitioner to attend the classes of third year B.Sc. in Agrawal College. Subsequently, by another order dated 27.3.91, the court had allowed the petitioner to provisionally appear in the examination of Third year B.Sc. 1991. He was also allowed to appear in the supplementary examination of Physics paper (second year) alongwith the main examination of 1991. The result of the petitioner's supplementary examination was produced before the Court by the learned counsel for the University in pursuance of the direction given by the Court on 8.1.92. This result shows that the petitioner has passed in the supplementary examination of 1991 of Physics in which he has appeared under the directions of the Court. 7. The question which is to be determined in this writ petition is, whether the respondent University was justified in invoking Rule 6(2)(b) for reducing the petitioner's marks from 16 to 14 in Mathematics Paper (III). 8. Rule 6 is quoted below for the purpose of proper appreciation of the controversy between the parties : "6. (i) If the award of Second examiner (re valuator) is more than the award that of the first examiner subject to a limit of 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the same shall be taken as the marks obtained on revaluation. In case, the award of the second examiner (revaluator) exceeds the above limit of 20% the answer-book shall be referred to a third examiner and the average of the two closest awards shall be taken into account. If the three awards are uniformly spread, then the middle award shall be taken into account. (ii) (a) If the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than that of the first examiner up to the extent of 5% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the award of the first examiner shall stand. If the three awards are uniformly spread, then the middle award shall be taken into account. (ii) (a) If the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than that of the first examiner up to the extent of 5% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the award of the first examiner shall stand. (b) In case the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than of the first examiner and the decrease is more than 5% but not more than 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the average of the two awards shall be taken as the marks of revaluation provided the result of the candidate is not affected adversely, i.e. his division is not changed or he does not get supplementary instead of pass or he does not fail instead of supplementary or he does not fail in an individual paper/ subject instead of pass. In such cases the marks shall be decreased to the extent that his result is not affected adversely. (c) If the award of the second examiner (revaluator) is less than that of the first examiner and the decrease in marks exceeds 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the answer-book shall be referred to a third examiner and the average of the two closest awards(the middle award in case the three awards are uniformly spread) shall be taken as the marks of revaluation subject to the provisions mentioned above in sub-clause (ii) (b).' 9. Shri Mohmmad Rafiq, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the average of the awards, i.e. marks awarded by the first examiner and the second examiner cannot be taken as marks of revaluation in the case of the petitioner, because, by taking into consideration, the average of the two awards, the petitioner fails. That is not permissible under the scheme of Rule 6. Shri S.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent, University, on the other hand, submitted that the language used in Rule 6(ii)(b) is clear and unambiguous and does not admit of two interpretations. The average of the two awards cannot be taken into consideration only when the result of the candidate is adversely affected. Unless the result is adversely affected, there is no reason for not taking into consideration the average of the two awards for the purpose of treating them to be the marks of revaluation. The average of the two awards cannot be taken into consideration only when the result of the candidate is adversely affected. Unless the result is adversely affected, there is no reason for not taking into consideration the average of the two awards for the purpose of treating them to be the marks of revaluation. shri Mathur argued that the petitioner had failed in the main examination of B.Sc. IInd year because he failed to secure the requisite pass marks in the papers of Physics (theory) and Mathematics. He had secure in all 20 marks in the three papers of the subject of Physics. Similarly, he had secured 41 marks in the three papers of Mathematics. The minimum pass marks were 36 out of 100 in the subject of Physics and 54 out of 150 in the subject of Mathematics. As a result of revaluation the petitioner has again failed in Physics and Mathematics, because he has secured 23 marks in the subject of Physics and 52 marks in the subject of Mathematics. Thus, the result of the petitioner has not been adversely affected in any manner as a result of revaluation. 10. A perusal of Rule 6 (ii)(b) shows that if the award of the second examiner is less than that of the first examiner and the decrease is more than 5% but, not more than 20% of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, the average of the two awards is to be taken as marks of revaluation. The proviso contained in this clause lays down that the average of the two awards-shall not be taken as the marks of revaluation if the result of the candidate is adversely affected. The phrase 'adversely affected' has been amplified to mean that the candidate's division is not changed or he does not get supplementary instead of pass or he does not fail in an individual paper/subject instead of pass. If the division is changed or the candidate gets supplementary instead of pass or he fails instead of supplementary or he fails in an individual paper/subject instead of pass the marks cannot be decreased to such an extent which has any of the aforesaid consequences. If the division is changed or the candidate gets supplementary instead of pass or he fails instead of supplementary or he fails in an individual paper/subject instead of pass the marks cannot be decreased to such an extent which has any of the aforesaid consequences. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this court to interpret the aforesaid clause so that the marks of some papers prior to revaluation are taken into consideration and in some other papers the marks awarded after revaluation are taken into consideration. This, in my opinion, is clearly impermissible. The petitioner has not passed in the subject of Mathematics prior to revaluation and also after revaluation. His result in the paper of Mathematics remained unchanged i.e. he continues to be a failure in the papers of Mathematics after revaluation, because, he has failed to secure the pass marks i.e. 54 out of 150. 11. Thus, so far as clause(6) of the instructions or the rules for revaluation of answer-books are concerned, the interpretation taken by the respondent-University is correct. There is no reason for this court to take a different interpretation than the one which has been taken by the University in respect of that clause. In taking this view I am conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Govindarao (AIR 1965 S.C.491) . 12. The writ petition of the petitioner, cannot therefore, be accepted and the decision of the University in decreasing his marks from 16 to 14 cannot be declared as illegal. 13. There is however, another important aspect of the matter ignored by the Court. The petitioner had been allowed to appear in the Supplementary examination under the orders of the Court dated, 27.3.91. He did appear in this examination for second year of T.D.C. The result which has been produced before the court show that he has passed the supplementary examination of Physics. He has also been allowed to appear in the Third year examination though, on provisional basis. Shri Rafiq submits that now, if the petitioner is declared as having failed, he will have to revert back to First Year of Three Year Degree Course and he will be put to serious injury. Shri Mathur has not denied the fact that the petitioner has prosecuted his study in B.Sc. Part-III and has been allowed to appear in the main examination of B. Sc. Shri Mathur has not denied the fact that the petitioner has prosecuted his study in B.Sc. Part-III and has been allowed to appear in the main examination of B. Sc. Part-III and supplementary examination of the paper of Physics for second year T.D.C. That being the fact situation it will be highly inequitable if the petitioner is now deprived of the benefit of third year examination in which he has appeared or the supplementary examination in physics Second Year. That will be to the advantage of none. A similar situation has arisen before the Court in Miss Niharika V. University of Jodhpur, 1983 WLN (UC) 32 . In that case, a Division Bench of the Court after placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 S.C. 487 and Smita John Bai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 S.C. 1633 , held that even though the petitioner might not be eligible for admission, her career should not be put in jeopardy. 14. In my, opinion in the light of the decision in Miss Niharika's case (supra). it will be proper to direct the University to declare the result of the petitioner of B.Sc., Part-III as well as supplementary examination of the papers of Physics in which he has appeared under the orders of the Court. If he is found to have failed in final year of B.Sc., he should again be allowed to appear in that examination. 15. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties are left to beat their own costs.Writ Petition Dismissed Subject to Above Direction. *******