Rajorshi De v. University of Calcutta — 1999 DIGILAW 354 (CAL)

JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J.: The appellant is a student of 4½ years MBBS Course at R.G. Kar Medical College, Calcutta. He passed the Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination conducted by Delhi Board from a South Calcutta School of Calcutta. Thereafter, he passed the Indian School Certificate Examination conducted by the Delhi Board. 2. It may be recorded that he was not admitted in the Medical College after qualifying in the Joint Entrance Examination but on a reserved quota of donors. He was admitted to the R. G. Kar Medical College on 3.1.1996. He sat for the 1st MBBS Supplementary Examinations held on 15.7.1997 and was declared successful in Physiology but unsuccessful in Anatomy and Biochemistry. According to him although he secured higher marks in external assessment his marks obtained in the internal assessment remained static and unchanged as per the regulations of the University. The writ petitioner has alleged that he was not allowed by the three departments of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry to sit at the 1st MBBS Examination which commenced on and from 19.3.1997. At that stage a writ application was moved before a learned Judge of this Court on 21.2.1997 who disposed of the writ application by referring the matter to the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University. Against that order an appeal was filed before a Division Bench of this Court and by a judgment dated 17.6.1997, the Division Bench disposed of the said appeal by the following directions:- "Accordingly, we are of the view that we are not dealing with an ordinary case of a student, but a student who is suffering from mental depression and that we are afraid that if we take a very strict and legalistic view, a student may turn into a mental patient. Of course rules and regulations are there and that the Court should not ordinarily interfere with such a matter and will not allow a student who is disqualified but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when it appears that even the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University was sought to be misled and an impression was sought to be created by the college authorities, the student is guilty of fraud and when we have found that when the unfair play was played by college authorities and not the student concerned we do not think that the student will bear the stigma and accordingly without creating a precedent and as special case as hereinbefore stated, we are of the view that the result should be declared. When the student was allowed by this Court to sit in the Examination, he may fail or pass. If he fails, he has to appear in the next supplementary examination in the usual course and on the contrary the student was brilliant enough to make a good result in spite of these difficulties and if it is found that he has passed, then it must be held that the student was a brilliant student. With such deficiency in the attendance and with such mental state of affairs, being a patient under the treatment of a Pshychiatrist if he could pass, that would be a very creditable performance. Accordingly, we do not want and it would not be fair or proper on our part to rob off the fruits of labour of the student for the purpose of preparing for the examination and accordingly we allow the appeal and direct the Calcutta University Authorities to publish the result of the appellant/writ petitioner forthwith as a special case and without creating any precedent." 3. Be it mentioned herein that from the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench it appears that after taking into consideration the mental agony of the writ petitioner/appellant the Division Bench directed the University Authorities to declare his result as a special case without creating any precedent. It is, therefore, needless to say that the writ petitioner/appellant was allowed to sit in the examination on the basis of a direction passed by this Court. 4. It is, therefore, needless to say that the writ petitioner/appellant was allowed to sit in the examination on the basis of a direction passed by this Court. 4. From the writ petition it also appears that a case was made out by him that he had faced constraints while trying to appear for the 1st MBBS Examination and therefore had to move Court. His case was that others having similar percentage of attendance as him were allowed to appear for the Examination while he was not. In the writ petition the writ petitioner/appellant also made caustic remarks against his College authorities including the Principal of the College. According to him, during the Practical Examination and Orals he was subjected to sarcastic comments reflecting the fact that the relevant examiners knew about the subject of the previous litigation (shortage of percentage). According to the University regulations as alleged in the writ application, a student of 1st MBBS is allowed four consecutive chances for passing the examination. According to him, if a chance is missed, it is regarded as lost. Thus, after exhaustion of four chances, the student has to leave the course. 5. It may be stated here that in the internal examination there are three parts namely, Theory, Practical and Oral. According to the writ petitioner/appellant, in his Oral and Practical examinations, due to his being allowed to sit for examination under the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, it is not disputed by the writ petitioner in his writ petition that for the 1st MBBS Examination he was mandatorily required to submit six Practical note books, of the three subjects. The sitting of three semisters for each subject is mandatory aspect in order to appear for the 1st MBBS Examination as per the Calcutta University regulations. According to the writ petitioner, he appeared for all the three examinations for all the three subjects. The results of the 1st MBBS Examination of the writ petitioner/appellant were published on 9.6.1997. However, he had obtained low marks and in fact he suffered failure in academics. According to him, the internal assessment marks that were awarded were beyond his own calculations and logic. He has secured five marks out of 30 in Anatomy, 9 marks out of 30 in Physiology and 2 marks out of 15 in Biochemistry. However, he had obtained low marks and in fact he suffered failure in academics. According to him, the internal assessment marks that were awarded were beyond his own calculations and logic. He has secured five marks out of 30 in Anatomy, 9 marks out of 30 in Physiology and 2 marks out of 15 in Biochemistry. The internal assessment marks were not at all correlated and/or commensurate with his external assessment as explained in paragraph 26 of the writ petition. Therefore, he was unsuccessful in all the three Practicals and Orals. The regulations of Calcutta University in the second paragraph points out how the internal assessment is to be calculated. The said calculation is a very detailed process in which three subjects of 100 marks are allocated for each of the semistars for the three different subjects. These 100 marks are then divided as to Theory, Oral, Practical and marks for the note-book. According to the writ petitioner, the total 6 is divided by 10 in Physiology and Anatomy and by 20 in Biochemistry. Therefore, the writ petitioner has alleged that it was impossible for him that he would secure such impoverished marks. In spite of allegations made against the College Authorities as well as against the University Authorities, the writ petitioner accepted the results of the 1st professional MBBS Examination, 1996 declared on 9.7.1997. From the chart annxed as annexure H to the writ petition it appears that if the internal assessment marks are low, it restraints the possibilities of the student passing. The writ petitioner/appellant in the application had given certificates showing marks obtained by other students and on the basis of the comparison of the marks allotted to him and the other students, he has alleged that there are discrimination on the part of the authorities so far as award of marks in the internal assessment with respect to the subject Anatomy. On 28.9.1997, the results of the supplementary 1st MBBS Examination held in 1997 was published. The mark-sheet awarded to the writ petitioner/appellant is annexed and marked as annexure 'J'. According to the writ petitioner it would be evident that from the analysis of the supplementary mark-sheet it would show that the writ petitioner/appellant had not only passed any of the three Practicals but secured nearly 60% in Physiology, 56% in Biochemistry and 52% in Anatomy. The mark-sheet awarded to the writ petitioner/appellant is annexed and marked as annexure 'J'. According to the writ petitioner it would be evident that from the analysis of the supplementary mark-sheet it would show that the writ petitioner/appellant had not only passed any of the three Practicals but secured nearly 60% in Physiology, 56% in Biochemistry and 52% in Anatomy. He has also alleged in the writ application that the center for the supplementary examination in Biochemistry was NRS Medical College. After the examination, according to him, as per convention, the medical students get to know their results and the writ petitioner/appellant had alleged that he had come to know that he succeeded in all the subjects of the said examination at the centre but he was shocked to see when his mark-sheet was obtained by him so far as the examinations in Theory were concerned. From the statements made as noted hereinabove having become dissatisfied with the results of the aforesaid examinations, this writ petition has been moved by the writ petitioner ensuring the 1st supplementary examination and also for a declration that the regulation with regard to the certain rule and using some internal assessment marks twice are ultra uires to the Constitution of India. A prayer for an interim order was made by the writ petitioner/appellant to attend 5th semistar but he was not allowed to sit as no interim order was granted to him. Since no interim order was granted, the writ petitioner/appellant moved before the Division Bench of this Court (sitting in the vacation) after due service to all the parties concerned. After hearing the writ petitioner/appellant only, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order directing the respondent to allow the writ petitioner/appellant to attend 5th semis tar without prejudice to the right and contentions of the parties in the appeal. Thereafter on the basis of the interim order, the writ petitioner/appellant started attending classes of 5th semistar (Theory and Practical) but according to him, his attendance was not recorded. Subsequently another Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha (now the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) vacated the earlier direction permitting the writ petitioner/appellant to attend the 5th semistar (Theory and Practical) as desired by the earlier Division Bench sitting in the vacation. Subsequently another Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha (now the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) vacated the earlier direction permitting the writ petitioner/appellant to attend the 5th semistar (Theory and Practical) as desired by the earlier Division Bench sitting in the vacation. As the writ petitioner/appellant was not allowed to attend classes, the writ petitioner/appellant resolved to exhaust the other 3rd and 4th consecutive chances of the 1st MBBS Examination. As, according to the writ petitioner, these are statutory rights, N.K. Mitra, J (as His Lordship then was) by an order directed the college authorities to coordinate the reassessment in the internal assessment in Anatomy and Biochemistry as extended by the respondent No.4 for the forthcoming MBBS Examination which was to be held from 25th of March onwards. The writ petitioner, therefore, was to appear for the Anatomy and Biochemistry assessment for the third chance. The writ petitioner appeared for the Biochemistry examination for the first MBBS Examination (third chance). He could not however appear as the Anatomy Examination as, according to him, he was ill. The result of internal assessment which was retaken was disclossed before this Court and as a result thereof, the result of the Biochemistry and Anatomy Examination was brought to notice of the writ petitioner/appellant in March, 1998. On his third chance, the writ petitioner had obtained in internal assessment in the following marks:- (i) Anatomy 18 out of 30 = 60%, (ii) Biochemistry 8 out of 15 = 53.3%. In second Supplementary 1st MBBS Examination third chance (i) Biochemistry 116 out of 200 = 58% (ii) Anatomy - absent due to illness. 6. On 3.7.1998, the writ petitioner/appellant sat for the 4th chance for the 1st MBBS Examination. Subsequently by a final order dated 24.9.1998 after hearing the writ petitioner/appellant and the University Authorities a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ application by passing an order referring the matter to the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University and directing him to grant a sympathetic hearing after applying discretion according to the rules and thereafter to pass a reasoned order. By an order dated 25.9.1998 the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University after giving a hearing passed an order on 3.10.1998 holding that he was not empowered under the Calcutta University regulations to carry out the direction of the Trial Court to declare the writ petitioner as having passed the 1st MBBS Examination held in July, 1997. An application was made before the learned Judge on 7.10.1998 praying for cancellation of the order of the Vice-Chancellor and also praying for an order to sit in the internal assessment of the second MBBS Examination which commenced on and from 7.10.1998. In the meantime, that is on 8.10.1998, results of the 4th chance in the 1st MBBS Examination of the year 1997 were declared and in Anatomy he again became unsuccessful. He scored 53 out of 100 in Practical and 61 out of 170 in Theory and 43 out of 100 in Oral. 7. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances as narrated hereinabove, it is clearly evident that although the writ petitioner took advantage of all the examinations for passing the 1st MBBS Examination he had failed and therefore he was not allowed to attend the classes of the 2nd MBBS course and this is now the position at this stage. 8. We have heard Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant and Mr. Biswas along with Mr. Dipankar Dutta appearing for the Calcutta University authorities. Both the learned counsel for the parties have argued this case in detail and however, we must restrict our judgment in this appeal as to the question how far the writ court can travel regarding allotment of marks on examination held by the University authorities. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the subsequent event that had occurred, we are unable to grant any relief to the writ petitioner/appellant. In the case of Arun Desai vs. High Court of Bombay, 1984 (Suppl.) SCC 372, the Apex Court of our country has observed as follows:- "Students who fail in their examinations are generally prone to make such allegations to explain their failure and to console themselves with the thought that, not they but the examiners are to blame. We understand the anguish of the petitioner at his failure but we have no power to pass him. We understand the anguish of the petitioner at his failure but we have no power to pass him. This is apart from the fact that the writ petition has become infructuous by reason of the declaration of the result during its pendency. The relief claimed by the petitioner is that the result should be declared." 9. In the present case, we do not find that the writ petitioner/appellant was able to satisfy us how the assessment was defective, arbitrary and partial although Mr. Roy on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant also made some submissions on this issue. So far as the present writ application is concerned, we find from the records that all chances were taken by the writ petitioner but unfortunately the writ petitioner/appellant had either failed in one examination in one or two subjects or had failed in the other examination in: respect of the other subjects. It is true that some allegations of mala fide have been attributed by the writ petitioner/appellant in this writ application. But from the materials on record, it is difficult for us to hold how the examiners of the Calcutta University and the college authorities had acted mala fide against the writ petitioner/appellant. Therefore, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy in the facts and circumstances of this case that there was any arbitrary or mala fide motive on the part of the examiners of the Calcutta University and college authorities in respect of the examinations of the writ petitioner/appellant. In view of the aforesaid observations made by us, the case cited by the appellant reported in AIR 1993 Cal 1 (Gopa Chakraborty vs. University or Calcutta) need not be applied. 10. In this case, it is an admitted position that the Trial Court directed the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University to decide the case of the writ petitioner and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Therefore, let us consider whether by appearing before the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University, the writ petitioner/appellant had accepted the order of the Trial Court and is not now entitled to raise the question as argued before us. Therefore, let us consider whether by appearing before the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University, the writ petitioner/appellant had accepted the order of the Trial Court and is not now entitled to raise the question as argued before us. In our view, this question has some substance although we are still of the view that even assuming that the writ petitioner/appellant was precluded from filing an appeal against the order of the learned Trial Judge after approaching the Vice-Chancellor in whom a direction was made by the learned Judge to consider the prayer of the writ petitioner in accordance with law, then on merits we are of the view that the writ petitioner/appellant was entitled to any relief in the facts and circumstances of this case and also in view of the conduct of the writ petitioner/appellant that having taken advantage of all the four chances, he has now come forward to agitate that the Trial Court was not justified in directing the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University to go into the grievance of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. From a reading of the order of the learned Trial Judge as well as of the Vice-Chancellor of the university, we think that when the writ petitioner took advantage of the order of the Trial Court which directed the writ petitioner/appellant to approach before the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University and the writ petitioner/appellant having done so, it is not open to him later to file an appeal against the order by which he was directed to appear before the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University who subsequently dismissed the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant on the ground that the schemes formulated by the writ petitioner/appellant by which the writ petitioner ought to have been declared as passed would only amount to subverting the regulations framed by appropriate body of the University following Medical Council of India Guidelines regarding MBBS Course of Study but also would lead to reframing of the said regulations at his instance to declare an unsuccessful student as passed. When this position came into picture only then the appeal was proceeded with by the writ petitioner/appellant. In our view, this action on the part of the writ petitioner/appellant cannot at all be supported. When this position came into picture only then the appeal was proceeded with by the writ petitioner/appellant. In our view, this action on the part of the writ petitioner/appellant cannot at all be supported. Once the writ petitioner/appellant had taken advantage and benefit of the order of the Trial Court by placing his grievance before the Vice-Chancellor of the University and only when the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor of the Calcutta University, the writ petitioner/appellant must be said to have been estopped from challenging the order of the Trial Judge in appeal. In the case of Bhauram vs. Baijnath, AIR 1961 S.C. 1327 , the Apex Court of our country has clearly laid down the principle that a person who takes benefit under an order de hors the claim on merit cannot repudiate that part of the order which is detrimental to him because the order is to take effect in its entirety. In the case of Banku Bose vs. Mariam Begam & Ors., 21 CWN 232, it was also held that where a suit which was dismissed for non-prosecution was restored on an application on behalf of the plaintiffs and the Court made certain orders in respect of the payment of the defendant's cost incidental to the application and the defendants got their costs taxed and obtained an order, they having taken advantage under the order were precluded from appealing against it. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that since the writ petitioner/appellant had already approached the Vice-Chancellor for redressal of his grievance by accepting the benefit of the order of the Trial Court, it was not open to him to file this appeal. However, for sake of dissolving the problem we are still of the view that the challenge of the writ petitioner/appellant in this appeal may be considered and the appeal may also be decided on merits in spite of the above conclusion made by us. Before we proceed further, it may be kept on record that the writ petitioner/appellant has not moved any writ application challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor before any learned trial Judge excepting that an application has been filed in the appeal itself asking for setting aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Before we proceed further, it may be kept on record that the writ petitioner/appellant has not moved any writ application challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor before any learned trial Judge excepting that an application has been filed in the appeal itself asking for setting aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Since no approach has yet been made by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Trial Judge, we are unable to entertain the prayer of the writ petitioner challenging the order of the Vice-Chancellor in appeal. If under the law he is entitled even after the disposal of the appeal, to challenge the said order, we cannot restrict the writ petitioner/appellant from doing so. Let us now consider the question posed before us on the merits of the appeal. The learned counsel for the parties did not dispute that the writ court can set aside the regulations of the University only for want of jurisdiction. 11. The writ court can only interfere with the validity of regulations only for want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 27 , has categorically said that the validity of a regulation can only be challenged if there was want of jurisdiction. In the present case, the writ petitioner/appellant had failed to satisfy this Bench that the validity of regulations was really in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It has been found that the writ petitioner/appellant had taken all the chances that were offered to him, but became unsuccessful in passing the first-year MBBS Examination, 1997. Under the regulation, the writ petitioner/ appellant was entitled to get four chances for passing the 1st MBBS examination. If the regulation was ultra vires to the Constitution, possibly he could not have availed of the aforesaid four chances. Therefore, it must be said that the writ petitioner/appellant having taken advantage of the regulation cannot now say that the said regulations are ultra vires to the Constitution of India. Therefore, question of striking down the regulation of the Calcutta University Authorities cannot arise in the facts and circumstances of this case at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant. Mr. Therefore, it must be said that the writ petitioner/appellant having taken advantage of the regulation cannot now say that the said regulations are ultra vires to the Constitution of India. Therefore, question of striking down the regulation of the Calcutta University Authorities cannot arise in the facts and circumstances of this case at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant. Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant sought to argue that the writ petitioner/appellant must be declared to have passed the first professional MBBS examination of the University by applying any of the two schemes regarding "recalculation of internal assessments." We have perused the relevant papers and documents and also the statements made on behalf of the writ petitioner in this case. After applying our mind to the facts and circumstances of this case and after considering the fact that the writ petitioner was given all possible chances in terms of the regulation to get through the first professional examination of the Calcutta University, we are unable to hold that any injustice has been meted out to the appellant. From a perusal of the schemes as submitted by Mr. Roy, we are of the firm view that application of either of the two schemes as formulated by Mr. Roy to declare the student as passed would only amount to subvert the regulations framed by the Body of University following Medical Council of India Guidelines regarding MBBS course of study but that would also lead to reframing of the said regulation at the instance of the Court to declare an unsuccessful candidate as pass. In this connection, Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, however, relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Shyam Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1610 , and contended that in the said decision, the applicant before sitting in a service examination, did not protest and later came to Court with the plea that the rules were arbitrary and thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the regulations not having been challenged at the appropriate stage by the writ petitioner/appellant and since the writ petitioner/appellant has already taken advantage of the regulations after having availed of all four chances in the first MBBS examination, we are of the view that the decision of Radhe Shyam Singh, vs. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1610 , cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. On behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant, it was submitted before us that the University Authorities had acted mala fide and had given the fictitious internal marking without marking enough components in the three semis tars oral, theory, practical and note-book and the same would be evidenced from the primary original documents. Mr. Roy contended that in view of the admitted fact that by an order dated 25.2.1998 direction was made on the authorities to disclose and produce the primary original documents but the said order was not complied with and, therefore, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the University Authorities and if that was permitted, the writ petitioner/appellant ought to have been declared a pass student. In our view, this submission of Mr. Roy cannot be accepted on the facts and materials already on record. It is not disputed before us that some of the documents were produced which included the attendance sheets. We have ourselves carefully perused the said documents and we are of the view that there was no reason to draw an adverse inference against the University Authorities nor it can be said that the Court should have presumed that the total marking in internal assessment was fabricated. In view of the aforesaid finding, we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ADM Jabalpur vs. Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207 , is clearly distinguishable on facts. Next question that was raised by Mr. Roy on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant is whether the writ petitioner would be said to have passed the external examination because the University Authorities were contending that as per results he had failed for 2 marks in Biochemistry. According to the writ petitioner this exercise on the part of the College Authorities as well as on the University Authorities was carried out maliciously with a purpose to victimise the writ petitioner/appellant. According to the writ petitioner this exercise on the part of the College Authorities as well as on the University Authorities was carried out maliciously with a purpose to victimise the writ petitioner/appellant. For this reason we have carefully considered the materials already placed before us by the writ petitioner/appellant as well as the University Authorities and the College Authorities and also the averments in respect of this question made in the writ application. After carefully going through the same, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy that the writ petitioner/appellant had been able to prima facie satisfy us that there is any malicious intention of the College Authorities or University Authorities to victimise the writ petitioner/appellant. From the materials on record, it appears that there was any deletion. It also appears from the mark-sheet that the same did not show any deletion. Even assuming that such a deletion was made, it was open to the Head Examiner within the regulations to delete any number if that was without bias. For this reason, we cannot be in agreement that the allegations of malicious intention can be attributed against the University or College Authorities and we are of the view that no case has been made out by the writ petitioner/appellant that there was any bias on the part of the Head Examiner, therefore, he maliciously deleted 2 marks of the writ petitioner/appellant. In any view of the matter, the Head Examiner not having been made a party to the writ application and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the Head Examiner or the Calcutta University before the Head Examiner is given any opportunity of hearing. 13. Mr. Roy, appearing on behalf of the appellant however, contended that even assuming documents were shown to the learned Trial Judge, and as such documents were not shown to the appellant, the entire process on the part of the University Authorities regarding the Biochemistry script was illegal and without jurisdiction and no reliance can be placed in the marks awarded in the Biochemistry examination of the appellant ought to have been taken as 67 instead of 65. Mr. Roy thereafter contended that in view of the MCI Rules, the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case, was entitled to grace marks for the purpose of going through the said examination and according to Mr. Mr. Roy thereafter contended that in view of the MCI Rules, the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case, was entitled to grace marks for the purpose of going through the said examination and according to Mr. Roy discretion of the University Authorities ought to have been used in favour of the appellant and thereby ought to have awarded 2 marks by way of grace in favour of the appellant. This question of awarding grace marks in the facts and circumstances of this case does not arise at all. Award of marks as grace marks is a discretion of the Head Examiner and other examiners as well. Since the Head Examiner has not been made a party in the writ application nor it has been alleged in the writ application that the Head Examiner was biased against the appellant for not awarding 2 grace marks, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy that the University Authorities had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in not awarding 2 grace marks to the appellant when it is found from admitted materials on record that the appellant had availed of all the four chances to get through the first MBBS examination but either in one subject or other he was not successful. 14. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Roy contended that in the facts and circumstacnes of this case and on the basis that the regulations of the Calcutta University Authorities, it must be held that the appellant had cleared the second chance. In our view, this contention has no legs to stand upon. It is very difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Roy because admittedly in this case the writ petitioner/appellant had appeared in the examinations for the third and fourth chance to get through the First-year MBBS Examination. The appellant having accepted the result and having appeared on third chance and fourth chance consequently, he cannot be allowed to say that he had cleared the second chance. Therefore, we need not go into details of this argument of Mr. Roy on this question. 15. It was next contended by the appellant that the chances Nos. 3 and 4 could be tagged and according to Calcutta University Authorities, this could not be done in view of the regulations prevailing regarding holding of MBBS examination. We are unable to find any substance in this argument of Mr. Roy. Roy on this question. 15. It was next contended by the appellant that the chances Nos. 3 and 4 could be tagged and according to Calcutta University Authorities, this could not be done in view of the regulations prevailing regarding holding of MBBS examination. We are unable to find any substance in this argument of Mr. Roy. It is not for the writ court to consider whether the result of the appellant could be tagged from 3 and 4 or from 2 and 3. It would depend on the regulations. From the regulations of the Calcutta University Authorities, it is evident that it has not empowered any medical student to tag the examination Nos. 3 and 4 with the examination Nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Roy on this question. 16. Mr. Roy further contended that assuming that no tagging was permitted as per regulations, but since this rule provide mere technical procedure and rules of procedure are mere hand Maids of Justice and it cannot be in a narrow legalistic interpretation of regulations leading deprivation of legal rights was never approved by the Supreme Court. In this connection, a decision of the Supreme Court in he case of Antullay vs. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 , was relied on. In view of the fact that the regulations did not permit any tagging. We do not think that the decision of the Supreme Court as cited by Mr. Roy would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 17. It was next contended by Mr. Roy that when the University Authorities had acted arbitrary and maliciously, it was open to the writ court to entertain a writ application and quash such malicious and arbitrary action of the University Authorities, even in a case relating to examinations. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we do not think that any such malicious or arbitrariness could be shown to the Court by the appellant and, therefore, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant was faced with malicious and arbitrariness from the part of the College and University Authorities. Mr. Roy also contended that the entire action on the part of the College and University Authorities was mala fide. Roy that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant was faced with malicious and arbitrariness from the part of the College and University Authorities. Mr. Roy also contended that the entire action on the part of the College and University Authorities was mala fide. For this propose, the allegations made in the writ application regarding this question were taken into consideration by us carefully. We do not find that the appellant could satisfy the Court that in awarding marks or in holding examinations, the respondent had differentiated the appellant from the other students of the College or of the University Authorities. Therefore, there is no merit in this argument of Mr. Roy and accordingly, it is overruled. In any view of the matter, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy that there was any arbitrariness or mala fide action on the part of the University Authorities in not allowing the writ petitioner/appellant to have been declared as successful candidate in the first MBBS examination held in the year 1997. 18. We shall be failing in our duties if another aspect of the matter is not kept in mind. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Calcutta University that internal assessment can only be done in regular chances and not in supplementary chances. If we read clauses 4 and 5 of the regulation, a distinction can very easily be made between regular and supplementary chances. That apart, it is also to be kept in mind that there may be inconvenience if in every chance internal has to be held. This inconvenience in our view, is because of constraint in time. Therefore, in view of the regulation, it must be held that in any event, inconvenience is a legal barrier for the writ petitioner appellant. The next question is to be decided is whether the Court should grant relief to the writ petitioner/appellant on humantirian ground. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and in view of the conduct of the writ petitioner/appellant in this case, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy that relief could be granted to the writ petitioner/appellant also on humantirian ground. 19. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and in view of the conduct of the writ petitioner/appellant in this case, we are unable to agree with Mr. Roy that relief could be granted to the writ petitioner/appellant also on humantirian ground. 19. From the overall discussions made herein above and in view of the admitted fact that the writ petitioner/appellant had availed of four chances which were available to him on the basis of the regulations of the Calcutta University Authorities and in each of the examinations, the appellant had failed to secure pass marks either in one subject or the other, it is too late for the appellant to go to Court and ask for redressal of his grievances. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, we need not go into the other question whether the writ petitioner/appellant was entitled to challenge the order of the Vice-Chancellor in this appeal as we have already decided this appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal filed against the order of the Vice-Chancellor is not maintainable at this stage. It would be open to the writ petitioner/appellant to challenge the said order in accordance with law if occasion arises. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the disputes raised by the writ petitioner/appellant against the order of the Vice-Chancellor. All questions relating to the order of the Vice-Chancellor are kept open to be decided in an appropriate forum. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in these two appeals and they are accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of the judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for certified copy of the judgment. S. K. Tiwari, J.: I agree. Appeals dismissed.