JUDGMENT 1. :- This order will also dispose of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2737/95 "Dr. Vishwa Nath Vs. University of Rajasthan & ors" as the question involved in both the writ petitions is same. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of this case are being mentioned and are as under: The petitioner appeared in his Final MBBS Examination of the University of Rajasthan from Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner (respondent No. 2) and, according to the marksheet dated 23.3.1995 (Annex. 1), he had been shown to have passed the Final Examination securing 833 marks and with grace marks of 17. He, thereafter, joined the hospital affiliated to the Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner as internee. Vide letter/order dated 6.5.1995 (Annex. R.1), the Controller of Examinations wrote to the Principal of respondent No. 2 that due to the computer mistake the petitioner had been declared pass, but, in fact, he had failed in the subjects mentioned therein and asked that the petitioner be directed to return the original mark-sheet and provisional certificate if taken by him immediately to the University and also to ensure that the petitioner would not be allowed to join/continue the internship on the basis of the above said result which has been cancelled by the University. The respondent No. 2 was further asked that the contents of the letter may be got noted to the staff of the college, but the petitioner may be allowed to take the examination in the failing subjects at the next University examination. The petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition along with the stay application. 2. The writ petition came up before M.P. Singh, J. on 19.5.1995 when notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and it was directed that the petitioner be allowed to appear in the M.B.B.S. Examination to be held in May, 1995 but the result of the said examination would not be declared until further orders and it would be subject to the final result of the writ petition and further that the petitioner was to be allowed to continue with the internship training which would also be subject to the decision of the writ petition. On receipt of notice, the writ petition has been contented. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. On receipt of notice, the writ petition has been contented. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. The case set up by the University of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) is that it was by way of computer mistake that grace marks were shown to have been awarded to the petitioner, but, according to the rules, he was not entitled thereto and when this mistake was noticed, the necessary orders (Annex. R.1) had been issued and in compliance therewith order dated 9.5.1995 (Annex. 4) had been issued by the authorities concerned of the respondent No.2. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to Ordinance 169-H (2) it is only the Syndicate of the University which can order necessary correction in the marksheet/result as the correction in the marksheet/result is in the disadvantage of the petitioner. 6. Ordinance 169-H, on which reliance has been placed, reads as under: (1) . (2) If an error is noticed after the declaration of the result/issue of marks-sheet/certificate/degree/diploma, as the case may be, and rectification of the error involve a change in the marks obtained by the candidate or in his result to his disadvantage, the Syndicate shall have the power to order necessary correction in result/marks- sheet/provisional certificate/degree/diploma, as the case may be. In the event of the candidate refusing to submit or not responding to the requirement of submitting the marks-sheet/certificate/degree/diploma, as the case may be, for necessary correction, the Syndicate may cancel his examination and further take such other action as it deems proper." 7. Bare reading of the abovesaid provision shows that if correction in the marks sheet/result has to be made, the matter has to be placed before the Syndicate, who only is empowered to make such correction in case the correction of the result is in disadvantage to a candidate. 8. It is not disputed that if the correction in the marks sheet is made in view of the marks deducted by the respondents, the same would be to the disadvantage to the petitioner and in view of the abovesaid provision, the correction can be ordered only by the Syndicate and by no other authority. It is not disputed that the matter has so far not been placed before the Syndicate. It is not disputed that the matter has so far not been placed before the Syndicate. However, it was submitted that the petitioner is required to submit his marks sheet for being corrected, but he has failed to do so. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, is that he has already submitted the marks sheet along with the application form for examination held in May, 1995. The respondents may check up the position and if the marks sheet has already been submitted along with the form in question the same may be utilised for the purpose for which it is required, but, if it is not found attached with the application form, the respondents may take it as if the original is not availiable and the duplicate/photo state copy available on the record of the respondents may be used for the purpose concerned. The respondents, however, could not have issued letter/order dated 6.5.1995 (Annex. R.1) except under the directions of the Syndicate and, admittedly, no such directions having been given by the Syndicate, the letter (Annex. R.1) is liable to be quashed with the observation that the result of the petitioner in regard to his marks sheet would depend on the decision to be taken by the Syndicate when the matter is placed before it. Although the matter had come up for confirmation of the stay order passed on 19.5.1995, but since the point involved in the writ petition was also same, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, arguments in the main writ petition itself have been heard. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the writ petition, quash the order/letter dated 6.5.1995 (Annex. R.1) and direct the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner on the basis of the abovesaid letter, but further hold that the respondents will be at liberty to place the matter before the Syndicate and to take such action as may be decided by the Syndicate. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.Petition allowed. *******