JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. 1 This case presents an unusual feature. Normally students who appear, at various examinations come before Courts seeking declaration that they should be declared to have come out successful in the examination concerned. The case at hand is one where the petitioner seeks declaration that he had failed in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1996 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') 2. The factual position is almost undisputed Petitioner appeared at the examination which was conducted in the month of April, 1996. He appeared in Social Science Paper I in the second sitting held on 15-4-1996, and remained absent in; Mathematics Paper I held on 16-4-1996, Science Paper II held on 17-4-1996 and Social Science Paper II held on 18-4-1996. Priorto that he had appeared in Science Paper I and Mathematics Paper II. His case is that while appearing in the examination in the second sitting of Social Science Paper I on 15-4 -1996, he became seriously ill and had to leave the examination hall. He could not appear in the examinations held from 16th April, 1996 to 18th April, 1996, as indicated above. But taking into account the marks secured by him in the connected papers, the Hard Case Rule was applied to him by the Board, and he was declared to have come out successful in Second Division, by awarding grace marks. It is to be noted that the petitioner has secured 59 marks in Mathematics Paper II, 45 marks in Science Paper I. In respect of Social Science Paper I, he was awarded 45 marks including grace marks. Mathematics, Science and Social Science are treated as group-subjects and therefore, having secured more than 336 of total marks in each group subjects, the grace marks were awarded. 3. Petitioner's stand is that Section I Chapter X, Regulation 15 of the Board provides that a candidate can be declared to have passed in a subject or group of subjects by securing at least 30 % of marks. By appplication of the Hard Case Rule, grace marks are to be awarded with a view to confer benefit to a candidate. Petitioner's stand is that Section I Chapter X, Regulation 15 of the Board provides that a candidate can be declared to have passed in a subject or group of subjects by securing at least 30 % of marks. By appplication of the Hard Case Rule, grace marks are to be awarded with a view to confer benefit to a candidate. In the case at hand, the award of grace marks by application of Hard Case Rule does not confer any benefit on the petitioner, because by granting him permission to appear again he can secure better marks on the basis of his performance. Stigma of Second Division is likely to stare at his face throughout his career, though he is an extremely brilliant student as would be evident from the fact that he has been declared to have passed examination in Second Division notwithstanding his absence in good number of subjects. 4. Mr. S.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the prayer for permitting the petitioner to appear again in the whole examination is not authorised under any Statute. According to him, the petitioner did not remain absent in group subjects, but in part of the group subjects and therefore, by applying the Hard Case Rule which was universally applied to a large number of students who are entitled to it, the benefit was given to him, and grace marks were given. The said principle was applied to the cases of nearly three lakh students who had appeared in the examination, and the petitioner cannot make a grievance. There are several others, who were similarly situated, and there cannot be any reasonable basis for making a departure in the case of petitioner. Placing reliance on Regulation 15, Chapter X and Rule 8 (a) and (c) of the Scheme of Studies, it is submitted that the result was processed and was declared by the Examination Committee as per Regulation 14 of Chapter X. The Examination Committee in exercise of power conferred on it as per Regulation 17 of Chapter X has framed the Hard Case Rule, and that has been rightly applied. According to the Schema, there are six subjects in the H. S. C. Examination which are externally assessable, i.e.. First Language, Second Language, Third Language, Mathematics (two papers). Science (two papers) and Social Science (two papers) 5. Certainly the case has some peculiar feature. According to the Schema, there are six subjects in the H. S. C. Examination which are externally assessable, i.e.. First Language, Second Language, Third Language, Mathematics (two papers). Science (two papers) and Social Science (two papers) 5. Certainly the case has some peculiar feature. But the application of Hard Case Rule by the Board cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the powers under the Regulation. An innovative plea was raised by Mr. Mohapatra learned counsel for petitioner that the total marks secured by a candidate in two papers can be adopted for application of the Hard Case Rule. The petitioner has not secured any marks in the papers he did not appear and mark-sheet issued showed that there was absence. Absence cannot be equated with zero mark. The plea though innovative has no substance. A candidate who does not appear in an examination does not secure any mark. It is figuratively the same as no mark. Therefore, the working out of the averages of marks as done by the Board cannot be faulted. 6. The residual plea of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has not bean benefited by. application of the Hard Case Rule. It is a question of extending the benefit by the Board. A student cannot say that he will not accept it. He has no choice in the matter. Otherwise, there will be two standards prevailing-one in case of candidates who are willing to accept the grace marks, and the others relatable to those who say that they will not accept it. That is not the object for which the benefit is intended to be extended. Inconvenience, or hardship or difficulty in an individual case does not affect validity of a prescription. Rules do not permit re-appearance by a candidate who has been declared successful. Though the case at hand has certainly some unusual features as indicated above, yet that cannot be ground for departure from the provisions holding the field. Inconvenience, or hardship or difficulty in an individual case does not affect validity of a prescription. Rules do not permit re-appearance by a candidate who has been declared successful. Though the case at hand has certainly some unusual features as indicated above, yet that cannot be ground for departure from the provisions holding the field. The learned counsel for petitioner finally urged that the case may be treated with sympathy and mercy and it need not be held to be a precedent for other cases.This prayer is made keeping in view the undisputed position that the Chairman of the Board in telecasted interview held in the first week of October, 1995 held out that the petitioner's case deserves sympathy and the Board will consider his case sympathetically. If the petitioner is advised, he may move the Board for consideration of his case and if it is so done the Board authorities shall consider the motion in its proper perspective. We express no opinion in that regard. The writ application is disposed of with aforesaid observation No cost. S.N. Phukan, C.J. 7. I agree.