JUDGMENT - N.V. DABHOLKAR, J.:---Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by mutual consent. 3. This is second round of present petitioners to this High Court, feeling agitated by the interpretation of the Ordinance No. 163 of the Pune University and consequent action of withdrawal of grace marks awarded to the petitioner for participation in National Service Scheme activity (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the "NSS" activity) in the past. The present petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 were the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4411 of 1999, whereas, the present petitioners Nos. 7 to 10 had filed Writ Petition No. 4419 of 1999. These two petitions were disposed of by common order delivered by this Court on 25-11-1999 with certain directions to the University of Pune and especially to the Vice Chancellor. Consequent to those directions, the Vice Chancellor by his order dated 9-2-2000 confirmed the earlier decision of withdrawal of benefit of grace marks. 4. The history of the legal conflict can be narrated in brief, as follows:-- The College, of which, the respondent No. 1 is Principal is affiliated to the University of Pune respondent No. 2 and consequently the college is governed by the Statute, Rules and Ordinances framed by the University of Pune and continued by the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the "Act of 1994"). The district of Ahmednagar, within which the college-respondent No. 1 is located, falls within the area of operation of the Pune University and therefore, as per section 115 of the Act of 1994, the Rules framed by the Management Council, Academic Council and other authorities of Pune University are continued and deemed to have been framed under the Act of 1994. This is in view of the fact that, so far, there are no separate Rules, Regulations and Ordinances framed under the Act of 1994. This is in view of the fact that, so far, there are no separate Rules, Regulations and Ordinances framed under the Act of 1994. The petitioners, who were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course in the college-respondent No. 1 are presently studying in the final M.B.B.S. As described in paragraphs No. 2 to 11 of the writ petition, all the petitioners although at different times in each individual case appeared for examinations held in the years 1995 to 1998 for second M.B.B.S. and they were given benefit of grace marks awardable for participating in the N.S.S. activity, as per the requirement of particular subject and were declared passed in that subject. Subsequently, petitioners appeared for third M.B.B.S. although at different times and were given benefit of grace marks for participation in N.S.S. activity, again for a particular subject and were declared passed by the University in the said subject. Thus, all the petitioners have enjoyed benefit of grace marks for participating in N.S.S. activity at their second as well as third M.B.B.S. examinations, by virtue of Ordinance No. 163, interpretation of which is now the reason of controversy. (Emphasis supplied). 5. According to the petitioners, benefit of grace marks for participation in N.S.S. activity for each examination is being given to the students for last several years by the University and accordingly benefit was extended to the petitioners at their second as well as third M.B.B.S. Niraj-petitioner No. 3 had secured 45 marks in Pharmacology in the second M.B.B.S. and was given benefit of grace marks for participation in N.S.S. activity. This was in the examination held in October, 1995. He was given benefit of 4 marks for the subject of E.N.T. in the examination held in April 1997. Niraj-petitioner No. 3 appeared for remaining subjects of third M.B.B.S. in May, 1999 and secured 46 marks in the subject of Gynecology. He claimed benefit of 1 mark out of the maximum awardable 5 marks for participation in N.S.S. activity because he was granted benefit of only 4 marks in the subject of E.N.T. at April 1997 examination. This claim caused eruption of the present controversy. While considering the claim of Niraj petitioner No. 3, the Pune University's Examination Committee vide its Resolution dated 30-7-1999 decided to withdraw the concession already granted to him for the examination held in May, 1997. (Exhibit 'K' to the petition). This claim caused eruption of the present controversy. While considering the claim of Niraj petitioner No. 3, the Pune University's Examination Committee vide its Resolution dated 30-7-1999 decided to withdraw the concession already granted to him for the examination held in May, 1997. (Exhibit 'K' to the petition). The Pune University also resolved that similar benefit given to Shri Kartikey Singh under Ordinance 163 may not be withdrawn in view of curricular interest of the said student and his result of third M.B.B.S. was therefore, to remain unchanged. Simultaneously, it was resolved that a circular should be issued to all the colleges that while forwarding the applications of the students, claiming benefit of Ordinance 163, proper scrutiny of the applications should be carried out, especially for the purpose of ascertaining if said student has enjoyed such a benefit in his earlier examination and by making a specific endorsement to that effect on the said application. It also resolved to seek explanation from the respondent No. 1 college because it did not take proper care while forwarding the applications of two students, namely, Shri Kartikey Singh and Shri Niraj Kumar Singh. By the letter dated 18-8-1999 (Exhibit R/2) addressed to the respondent No. 1, University directed the respondent No. 1 to forward May, 1997 mark sheet of Niraj Kumar Singh-petitioner No. 3 for the purpose of cancellation of benefit of 4 grace marks granted to him in the subject of E.N.T. The University also called for the explanation of the respondent No. 1 for sending the application of Niraj Kumar Singh claiming benefit of Ordinance 163 for the examination of April 1999 also, and for recommending the same. By another letter of even date (Exhibit R/3), the University pointed out to the respondent No. 1 college that 5 grace marks for participation in activities referred in Ordinance 163 are awardable only once during the whole course (M.B.B.S.) and that the applications for claiming benefit of Ordinance 163 are required to be accompanied with the application for examination and that it is the responsibility of the college to carry out the scrutiny of the applications and ascertain if the candidate has/has not enjoyed the benefit of 5 grace marks in the past and to maintain proper record for the said purpose. The letter reprimanded the respondent No. 1 for not taking such care and for forwarding the applications of students for awarding benefit of Ordinance 163, although the applicants/students have already enjoyed such benefits in the past. On 23-8-1999, a circular was issued by the respondent No. 1 indicating that the University respondent No. 2 has intimated that the grace marks under Ordinance 163 can be utilized by the students only once during the total M.B.B.S. course and therefore, the students of third M.B.B.S. who had already enjoyed the benefit of grace marks, either in their first or second M.B.B.S. examinations held in or before May/June, 1999, such marks if allotted in the third M.B.B.S. examination have been withdrawn and the students will have to reappear for the concerned subject. It appears that on 25-8-1999 a notice was published on the notice board of the college of the respondent No. 1 in two parts. First part contained seven names, which included present respondents Nos. 7 to 10 and 3 others (Exhibit M page 63) and another part contained 12 names, including present respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (Exhibit S-page 100). By both these notices the students enlisted therein were directed to see the respondent No. 1 in connection with the University examination forms on/or before 27-8-1999. It is contention of the petitioners that when approached to the respondent No. 1, they were informed that additional marks granted to them at their third M.B.B.S. examination were withdrawn and they were advised to fill up the examination forms and submit the same in the office on/or before 30-8-1999. In simple terms, the subject in which they were declared passed by virtue of Ordinance 163 and 5 additional marks were granted to them in accordance with the said Ordinance, the result stood reverted to "failed" and the petitioners were expected to reappear for the said subject in the ensuing examination to be held in December, 1999. In simple terms, the subject in which they were declared passed by virtue of Ordinance 163 and 5 additional marks were granted to them in accordance with the said Ordinance, the result stood reverted to "failed" and the petitioners were expected to reappear for the said subject in the ensuing examination to be held in December, 1999. Relying upon the letter dated 16-9-1991 addressed to the respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Registrar of the University respondent No. 2 in response to an enquiry, regarding interpretation of Ordinance 163, it is the claim of the petitioners that the Deputy Registrar of the University had informed the respondent No. 1 that the students would be eligible to get such 5 additional marks for the examinations during the medical course at every stage i.e. first, second and third M.B.B.S., provided the student has participated in any of the activities mentioned in Ordinance 163 during that academic year. (In fact, ordinarily educational courses are divided into academic year spanning from June of a calendar year to May of succeeding calendar year. However, as far as course of M.B.B.S. is concerned, it is informed by the learned Advocates for the University; that the same is divided into three parts, each being of the duration of one and half calender years). Thus, according to the petitioners Ordinance 163 enables the students to take advantage of Ordinance 163, three times during the total course of M.B.B.S. and not only once as contended by the University. All the petitioners have participated in NSS activity during the two spans of educational career i.e. second MBBS as well as third MBBS and on each occasion, they have done effective working of 120 hours and also attended the camp as required by the said Ordinance. It is at this stage, the petitioners approached this Court with Writ Petitions Nos. 4411 and 4419 of 1999, challenging the Resolution dated 30-7-1999. In those writ petitions, wherein apart from interpretation of Ordinance 163, the petitioners had also relied upon Ordinances 146 and 147 which empower the Executive Council of the University to amend the result subject to certain conditions viz. Ordinance 146 empowers the amendment of the result, if the same is affected by improper conduct or other course of whatever nature. However, this can be done only within the period of six months from the date of publication of the said result. Ordinance 146 empowers the amendment of the result, if the same is affected by improper conduct or other course of whatever nature. However, this can be done only within the period of six months from the date of publication of the said result. Ordinance 147 further relaxes time limit but only if, the examinee candidate who is benefited by such affected result is a part or privy to or has connived at in such a mal-practice, fraud etc. On going through Clause 6 of Ordinance 163, we were not inclined to entertain the dispute at that stage, because the Vice Chancellor, in consultation with the Dean of the faculty concerned, is empowered to decide regarding any difficulty arising in giving effect to Ordinance 163, and therefore, while disposing of those writ petitions, by common order dated 25-11-1999, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the controversy in the light of our observations in the said order, especially about giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, who were adversely affected by the controverted interpretation of Ordinance 163. 5-A. Exhibit R-pages 92 to 98, is the decision of Vice Chancellor-respondent No. 2 dated 9-2-2000. After hearing Advocate Shri Nishant Katneshwarkar, on behalf of the petitioners and also considering the written representation submitted on behalf of the petitioners, the learned Vice Chancellor confirmed the decision of withdrawing the benefit of grace marks given to the candidates, more than once. Para No. 1 of the said order is the relevant para, in which the learned Vice Chancellor has interpreted Ordinance 163. The Vice Chancellor has dealt with the case of the petitioner No. 3 Niraj Kumar Singh in second para of his order, as also attempted to explain the letter dated 16-9-1991 issued by the Deputy Registrar (examinations) of the respondent No. 2, upon which the petitioners heavily rely, and in para No. 7 has also tried to meet the allegation of discrimination, amongst two groups of medical students. While concluding this order, the learned Vice Chancellor also extended the date for acceptance of examination forms for the final M.B.B.S. examination upto 1-3-2000 instead of 11-1-2000. 6. While concluding this order, the learned Vice Chancellor also extended the date for acceptance of examination forms for the final M.B.B.S. examination upto 1-3-2000 instead of 11-1-2000. 6. The petitioners have challenged the Resolution dated 30-7-1999 as also the decision of the Vice Chancellor dated 9-2-2000, both in effect, interpreting Ordinance 163, as conferring benefit of five additional grace marks upon the students of M.B.B.S. only once during the total number of four and half years and examinations at three different stages of first, second and/or third M.B.B.S., on following grounds: The practice of conferring benefit at each examination of M.B.B.S. i.e. first, second and third is being followed since years. Students of other faculties are also getting such benefit, at each examination and not only once during the total educational course. Such a practice is prevalent for many years as is also evident from the letter dated 16-9-1991 by the Deputy Registrar (examinations). The petitioners again rely upon Ordinances 146 and 147 and according to them, since more than 6 months have expired, the result cannot be amended much less in the absence of anything to indicate the petitioners to a party or proxy to any mal practice or fraud for erroneous result. According to the petitioners, this withdrawal of benefit is discriminatory, because only the petitioners and 3 more students, namely, Atul Khomane, Vikram Grover and Miss Jenifar, are suffering from such adverse decision. Even remaining 6 students out of total 19, included in the notice dated 25-8-1999 are cleared without withdrawing the benefit of Ordinance 163 conferred upon them on second occasion. Also those, who have sailed through their third M.B.B.S. by taking benefit of Ordinance 163 second time, their cases are also not reopened. According to the petitioners, such a decision of withdrawal cannot be permitted and the University is estopped by its conduct from giving effect to such a decision in view of the letter dated 16-9-1991 and in view of the fact that the University had conferred this benefit on the petitioners as also on the others in the past. If at all the new interpretation of Ordinance 163 can be made applicable, it can only be in a prospective manner. 7. If at all the new interpretation of Ordinance 163 can be made applicable, it can only be in a prospective manner. 7. Although the respondent No. 1 Principal of the College has filed an affidavit in reply, the same is mainly utilized to repel the allegations of the University that the college authorities, were negligent in not maintaining the proper record of the benefits conferred upon the students under Ordinance 163 and recommending the applications for the same benefit on second occasion, although the ordinance does not permit it twice during the total M.B.B.S. course. The Principal has also referred the letter dated 16-9-1991 written by the Deputy Registrar (Examinations) relying upon which, he had acted and recommended the applications of the students of the benefit of Ordinance 163, although such students had enjoyed that benefit at the earlier stage of M.B.B.S. course, pointing out that for the first time in the reply affidavit, the University has clarified that there is some ambiguity in the letter dated 16-9-1991 and thereafter, the college has acted promptly by giving detailed explanation and it had brought to the notice of the respondent University the cases, wherein benefit of Ordinance 163 was conferred on more than one occasions. Even the Principal has supported the claim of the students to some extent by saying that since the earlier clarification as communicated by the University, vide its letter dated 16-9-1991 is admitted to be ambiguous by the University in its affidavit, new interpretation may by given effect, if at all, only in a prospective manner. 8. The respondent No. 2 has filed an affidavit in reply at page 115 and another additional affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at page 142. It can be said that the second affidavit is prominently in the form of arguments regarding the interpretation of Ordinance 163 and the affidavit at page 115 is the one, which replies to all the contentions raised by the petitioners. It is not disputed by the University that the statutes and ordinances under the Act of 1974 have continued to be in force even after the Act of 1994, of course, to the extent those are not inconsistent with the Act of 1994. The University also does not dispute the factual averments in para Nos. It is not disputed by the University that the statutes and ordinances under the Act of 1974 have continued to be in force even after the Act of 1994, of course, to the extent those are not inconsistent with the Act of 1994. The University also does not dispute the factual averments in para Nos. 2 to 11 regarding the manner in which the petitioners appeared for second and third M.B.B.S. examinations and conferment of benefit of Ordinance 163 upon them at both the examinations. According to the University, benefit of Ordinance 163 can be only once during the total M.B.B.S. professional course and therefore, benefit of additional marks conferred more than once because of proposal of the respondent No. 1 college is impermissible. It has also claimed that such benefit is enjoyed only by the students of respondent No. 1 college and not other colleges affiliated to the University. After giving details, as to how the cases of Niraj Kumar Singh and Kartikey Singh were considered by the Board of Examinations, the University has also elaborated about the follow up action taken by letter dated 18-8-1999 addressed to the respondent No. 1. In para No. 7 of the affidavit, the University has pointed out that by letter dated 23-8-1999 (Exhibit R/4) the respondent No. 1 reported six cases of candidates having enjoyed the benefit of Ordinance 163 more than once and therefore, the University acted upon that information and withdrew the benefit of these candidates. On referring to para Nos. 7(c) to 7(g), one cannot avoid feeling that those contents are misleading to some extent and at least to the extent of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7. The chronology of events in these paragraphs has been put in such a manner and giving an impression as if the decision to withdraw the benefit of Ordinance 163 conferred upon to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 except the petitioner No. 3, was withdrawn for the first time after the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor dated 9-2-2000. In fact, it must be pointed out here itself that names of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 along with six others were on the notice board of 25-8-1999 vide Exhibit "S", so also the names of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 vide notice Exhibit "M" along with three others. In fact, it must be pointed out here itself that names of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 along with six others were on the notice board of 25-8-1999 vide Exhibit "S", so also the names of respondent Nos. 7 to 10 vide notice Exhibit "M" along with three others. The tenor of this para No. 7 has come in such a manner as if the benefit of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 except No. 3 was withdrawn for the first time after the decision dated 9-2-2000. There is no reference to any letter from the respondent No. 1 by which the respondent No. 1 informed the names of the respondents except No. 3 to the University as the students having enjoyed the benefit of Ordinance 163 more than once as is done in case of the respondent Nos. 7 to 10 by letter dated 23-8-1999. In paras Nos. 8 and 9 the University has again tried to explain the letter dated 16-9-1991 by relying upon its interpretation that Ordinance 163 gives benefit to a student only once during total M.B.B.S. course. According to the University Ordinances 146 and 147 have no relevance for the purpose of present petition. The details as to why the Misc. Application praying for extension of time was required to be filed and pro Vice Chancellor, who was in-charge Vice Chancellor was required to take a decision which is under challenge, as provided in the affidavit, are not of much assistance for the purpose of determination of controversy. Suffice it to point out that the pro Vice Chancellor while passing the order dated 9-2-2000 was in charge Vice Chancellor and from Exhibit R/5-page 141, it is evident that he had sought opinion of the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, before taking such a decision. The respondent No. 2 University has, therefore, substantially complied with the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 25-11-1999, so far as those relate to technical aspects. 9. While replying the allegation of discrimination the University has pointed out that it has acted upon the information furnished by the college respondent No. 1 and has withdrawn the benefit conferred upon second occasion on those students, whose names were disclosed by the college. It has blamed the college for not keeping proper record of the students, upon whom the benefit of Ordinance 163 was conferred in the past. It has blamed the college for not keeping proper record of the students, upon whom the benefit of Ordinance 163 was conferred in the past. It has, therefore, recommended the names for benefit of Ordinance 163 on second occasion, although impermissible. Even here also, the University has not explained how the petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 (Except No. 3) appeared in the notice dated 25-8-1999. The allegation of discrimination is also tried to be replied by second argument that even after giving benefit of additional marks for second time, the petitioners do not pass the examination and therefore, there is no change in their result, even if such benefit is withdrawn. As against this, the students who have passed the examination in totality, the University has resolved not to withdraw the benefit although conferred upon them for the second time. Thus, according to the University, the students, whose benefit is withdrawn and the students whose benefit is not withdrawn, stand on different footing and therefore, there is no discrimination in spite of different treatment to the two classes of the students. According to the University, letter dated 16-9-1991 by the Deputy Registrar (Examinations) cannot be equated as a declaration of the policy of the University. Relying upon section 31(2) of the Act of 1994, it is claimed that Board of Examinations is the final authority and therefore, decision dated 30-7-1999 is the decision taken by competent authority. Because the Board of Examinations is the final authority, now Ordinances 146 and 147 are not applicable, being inconsistent with the Act of 1994. 9(a). Taking into consideration the submissions by the petitioners and the reply by the University, it can be seen that the whole controversy resolves around interpretation of Ordinance 163 and especially Clause 3 of the said Ordinance and the question is whether the student can enjoy the benefit of five additional marks, only once during the total professional course or he can enjoy it for each examination at three stages of the total course. It is necessary to reproduce Ordinance 163 to the extent of first three Clauses as also note and illustration below Clause 3. "Ordinance 163. It is necessary to reproduce Ordinance 163 to the extent of first three Clauses as also note and illustration below Clause 3. "Ordinance 163. Grant of additional marks for extra-curricular activities.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other ordinance, five additional marks may be granted to candidates appearing for University examination of any degree, diploma or certificate, as an incentive, for his participation in any one or more of the following activities: (a) National Cadet Corps: (b) National Service Scheme: (c) Inter-University, National/International Sports tournaments/debating/elocution/dramatics/moot Court and such other competitions as approved by the Executive Council from time to time: (d) National Physical efficiency drive: (e) Adult Education Programme of Poona University. (2) The additional marks shall be added (a) to any heads of passing or any subject/s, as case may be, in the examination if the student has failed in such head/s of passing/subjects and if such additional marks enable the student to get necessary passing marks or; (b) to any subject if such additional marks enable the student to get benefits of exemption. Such additional marks only as are required for examination, shall be given. If after the grant of additional marks under Clauses (a) and (b) above, if there is any balance of marks, it shall be added to the total number of marks of the examination. OR (c) to the total number of marks, secured by the candidate in the examination. Provided that the additional marks shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of Award of any prize, scholarship, merit list or for such other similar purpose. (3) The additional marks shall be granted to the candidate only for that examination during the course of which the candidate has participated in the activities mentioned in Clause No. 1. Note: The candidate shall be eligible to get maximum five additional marks only once, for any of the activities mentioned above, if performed by him in any year, and only for an examination of one course. Illustration.---Candidate has taken admission for L.L.B. and Diploma in Taxation Law Courses, simultaneously in the year 1987. He has participated in the Inter-University elocution competition in the year 1987. Illustration.---Candidate has taken admission for L.L.B. and Diploma in Taxation Law Courses, simultaneously in the year 1987. He has participated in the Inter-University elocution competition in the year 1987. Such a candidate shall be eligible to get benefits of the five marks on the basis of said elocution competition either for the examination of L.L.B. course or for Diploma in Taxation Law for which he has taken admission in 1987." 9(b). Clause 4 of the Ordinance prescribes the standard to be achieved or number of hours to be spent in each of the five activities, by the students, for claiming grace marks, awardable by this ordinance and being entitled to the same. Clause 5 requires the students to submit an application before commencement of the examination, along with fee of Rs. 10/- claiming the benefit of these grace marks. Clause 6 empowers the Vice Chancellor to decide the difficulty that may arise in giving effect to the provision of this ordinance. It is this 6th Clause that persuaded us to refer the matter to the Vice Chancellor, when the parties were before us during the earlier round of litigation. After Clause 6 there is proforma which is to be filled in and sent with the examination forms by the students for the purpose of claiming benefit of Ordinance 163. For the sake of convenience, some words or Clauses from the reproduced Ordinance 163 Clauses (1) to (3) are underlined by us. These are clauses upon which either of the party has laid emphasis. 9(c). Even before entering into the process of interpretation, it may be stated that under none of the Clauses (1) to (3), there is express provision clarifying that five marks will be available only at one examination out of three examinations i.e. first, second and third M.B.B.S. which a candidate is ordinarily required to appear for. The spirit behind the grant of additional or grace marks can be gathered from the phrase "as an incentive" underlined in Clause (1). The dictionary meaning of word incentive is "motive or incitement to action, a payment or concession to stimulate greater output by workers, serving to motivate or incite." It will be thus seen that these are not the sort of crutches to a lame man. This is more evident when we refer to Clause 4 of the said Ordinance. The dictionary meaning of word incentive is "motive or incitement to action, a payment or concession to stimulate greater output by workers, serving to motivate or incite." It will be thus seen that these are not the sort of crutches to a lame man. This is more evident when we refer to Clause 4 of the said Ordinance. In order to be entitled to claim the benefit a student has to participate in N.S.S. activities for 120 hours or in an Adult Education Programme for 200 clock hours. For N.C.C., he has to attend 75% parades during the year and also one camp prescribed for the same. It is evident that there is some time consumption, and quite a considerable time consumption, likely to affect adversely, the studies of the students. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the University has provided a publication by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of Youth Affairs and Sports of the Government of India on the subject of National Service Scheme. On reference to the philosophy of N.S.S., it can be seen that the idea behind the introduction of scheme was to involve the students in the task of national service as desired by the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi. This was aimed at making students aware of their social responsibility. On reference to Chapter 2-Part I and especially objectives, as rightly said by Advocate Shri Joshi, it can be seen to be aimed at personality development of the students. On reference to Chapter 3-Part VI regarding N.S.S. volunteers, it can be seen that the volunteers are required to establish rapport with the people in the project area, identify needs, problems and resources of the community, plan the programmes and carry out those. Thus, it is not a case that only student is benefiting from it and therefore, he is allowing his studies to affect adversely and yet the University is gifting him 5 grace marks. Along with his personality development, there is also sense of social service and social responsibility, in which the student is tried to be engaged, while he is in the age group of a shaping citizen and that is why, Clause (1) uses the phrase "as an incentive", for five additional marks that can be granted to a candidate appearing for the University examination. Without referring to many more details, it can be said that similar description can be attributed to other activities, for example, the N.C.C. although aimed at personality development of the student as a disciplined citizen is also aimed at encouraging young people to join armed forces. There cannot be any debate that participation for 200 clock hours in the Adult Education Programme is more beneficial to the State than the personality development of the student at the cost of 200 clock hours of the student. The excellence in sports also brings glory to the University and State or Country and therefore, the participation is to be rewarded by 5 marks, which is also the compensation for the time lost of the said hours of the student. 9(d). On reference to Clause 2(a), it can be seen that the additional marks can be awarded to any head or more than one heads, to any subject or more than one subjects, if such additional marks enable the student to get necessary passing marks, of course in that/those heads/or subject/s. It can safely be inferred that Clause 2(a) enables the student to add 3 marks to one subject and 2 marks to another subject, if that is necessary and if by that his total reaches necessary passing marks for that/those head/s or subject/s. This interpretation of sub-clause (a) should stand confirmed when we refer to sub-clause (b) and especially the portion underlined for the purpose of emphasis. One more inference can be drawn on reading Clause 2(a) and (b) together. It is evident that passing the total exemption i.e. getting necessary passing marks in all the subjects by virtue of help of five additional marks under Ordinance 163 is not sine qua non for claiming special benefit. In other words, a student, who has failed in more than one subjects and if he can get necessary passing marks by addition of these 5 grace marks, he is entitled to those, even though he may reach the category of "A.T.K.T." or even remain in the category "failed" provided he gets benefit of examination in that subject. The requirement to appear for one subject, second time, can stand reduced, irrespective of the fact whether the student passes that examination in totality or not. The requirement to appear for one subject, second time, can stand reduced, irrespective of the fact whether the student passes that examination in totality or not. By virtue of second part below sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 if the student requires less than 5 marks for passing/exemption in a particular subject, the remainder of 5 does not remain available for any other subject or future examination. This is because, the additional part of sub-clause (b) makes it clear that the balance marks are to be added to the total number of marks of the examination. 9(e). Coming to crucial Clause (3) Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the University has laid emphasis on the Clause "only once" incorporated in the foot note below Clause (3). We have opened our discussion regarding interpretation of Ordinance 163 by expressing that no where in Clauses (1) to (3) of Ordinance 163, there is express provision indicating the prohibition of claiming or awarding 5 grace marks at each of the three stages i.e. first, second and/or third M.B.B.S., at the end of which academic period the examination is held. Reading Clause (3) without reference to the note and illustration below the same, makes it clear that if a student is to claim benefit of 5 additional marks for participation in any of the activities, such participation must be during the same academic period, in which he appears for that particular examination. The word "course" that has appeared in Clause (3) has not appeared in an isolated manner, but it is part and parcel of the phrase "during the course of which". The dictionary meaning of the word "course" is "continuous onward movement or progression". By incorporating Clause "only for that examination" immediately preceding the clause "...............during the course of which the candidate has participated in activities...............", the onward progression at achieving the professional degree in Medical Science is cut by a stage called examination, either first or second M.B.B.S. That is why the word examination is pre-fixed by "that", which will be equally applicable to first, second or third M.B.B.S. Clause 3 taken in its totality restricts the enjoyment of benefit of Ordinance 163 by unit of examinations and not by treating the total period of Medical graduation as one unit. Clause (3) read without note or illustration, thus indicates that for participation in N.S.S. by a student, while he was doing his first M.B.B.S., he may not be able to claim benefit of 5 grace marks at his second M.B.B.S. or third M.B.B.S. examination, if he has not participated in the N.S.S. during the curricular/academic span for second M.B.B.S. and/or third M.B.B.S., merely because the 5 grace marks were not required and not utilized for passing his first M.B.B.S. examination. It is imperative for the student, in order to claim benefit at particular examination, to participate in the N.S.S. or other prescribed activity during the same curricular/academic-span at the end of which he appears for the said examination. This, once again confirms the spirit behind the scheme as discussed earlier. Apart from an incentive, encouraging the students to involve themselves in the N.S.S. activity and for that purpose, even to reduce their study hours, the rule is aimed at compensating loss of those study hours. In case, we accept the interpretation of the University that the student is entitled to benefit of five grace marks only once during the total span of education for Medical graduation, in spite of their having three examinations before a student acquires Medical graduation, in that case, the student may remain without incentive/compensation, even if he participates in the activity, for more than one curricular/academic spans. In a given case, the student may participate in either of the five activities during all three spans of Medical graduation. He may need assistance of these 5 additional marks at first M.B.B.S., he may pass I M.B.B.S. by taking benefit of grace marks. Thereafter, if he is debarred from being entitled to such a benefit at second and/or third M.B.B.S. examination, by denial of benefit on second occasion by interpretation as done on behalf of the University, the candidate shall remain without incentive/compensation in spite of having participated in the activity of N.S.S. and having spent 120 clock hours every year for the same and/or having participated in an adult education activity and having spent 200 clock hours every year. Such an interpretation would be against the spirit "as an incentive" with which Ordinance 163 is enacted. Such an interpretation would be against the spirit "as an incentive" with which Ordinance 163 is enacted. If we look to the spirit of the Central Government in introducing the Scheme of N.S.S., the same is aimed at personality development of the students, as rightly argued by Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent University. At the same time the student is made aware of his social responsibility and not only that, but he is required to undertake some social work and spend quite a considerable period of hours for the same. It is ultimately aimed at having a better citizen rather than a student enjoying an opportunity of indulgence in intellectual luxury. 9(f). Shri Joshi, on behalf of the University, has emphasised on the use of words "only once" in the note below sub-clause (3). First of all, notes below a section or a statute can only be explanatory and cannot control the basic provisions. This clause "only once" in the note should be read together with remaining clauses underlined by us for the purpose of emphasis, i.e. (1) "only once", (2) "performed by him in any year" (3) "only for an examination" and (4) "of one course". Purport of the Clause "only once" together with subsequent clause "performed by him in any year" can be explained by illustration as follows:--- A student participates in the activity of N.S.S. in a particular academic year. He appears for the examination concluding that academic year. He will be entitled to benefit of additional marks to a maximum of five, at that examination. For illustration, let us consider the case, where passing/exemption level is 50 marks out of 100 in a subject. Suppose there are 6 subjects at the examination. Student secures more than 50 marks in 4 subjects and 48 and 46 marks respectively in the remaining 2 subjects. Thus, he totally needs 6 marks, if he is to sail through that examination. In order that in remaining 2 subjects also he should touch 50 marks, only 5 additional marks being available, the student will be in a position to elect to have 2 marks in a subject, where he has acquired 48 marks and he will be obliged to appear for the subject in which he has secured 46 marks at the examination to be held after 6 months. If at that time, he again secures 47 or 48 or 49 marks then the required 3, 2 or 1 mark cannot be drawn merely because on the earlier occasion he had not utilised 3 marks. This is the purport of the clause "only once" when read together with succeeding clause "performed by him in any year" and even adding the later clause "only for a examination" the remainder subjects becomes part of next examination, either together with the subjects of succeeding academic year or without being so. (Whether he will be entitled to 5 grace marks in this remainder subject, in case he participates in N.S.S. activity in the academic year at the end of which he appears for this remainder subject of previous academic year, need not be a subject of debate, because the remainder subject becomes part of that subsequent examination and if he has participated in N.S.S. activity, during that span of academic period he may be entitled to benefit of additional 5 marks for any of the subjects for second academic year, along with the remainder subject of previous academic year and even by splitting 5 marks for 2 subjects if those suffice purpose of reaching passing/exemption level in the subjects, by virtue of Clause 2(a) and (b). But these will be the marks for having participated in N.S.S. activity during the second academic span and not because of his participation in N.S.S. activity during first academic span, much less, because there is unused remainder of additional marks, at the previous examination). We may lay emphasis on the fact that although the word "course" used at the end of the note as part of the clause "of one course" is used in sense of total academic period of a particular graduation or diploma yet, the words "of one course" together do not read to the effect that the benefit of Ordinance 163 is available only for one examination of the total course, although there may be more than one examinations for that course. Had the word "course" been prefixed by article "the" instead of word "one", the interpretation as tried to be adopted by the University was possible. Such a substitution would read the concluding part of the note as follows :- "............... Had the word "course" been prefixed by article "the" instead of word "one", the interpretation as tried to be adopted by the University was possible. Such a substitution would read the concluding part of the note as follows :- "............... and only for an examination of the course." Although the word "course" used in the note contemplates total span of medical graduation or rather total span of any graduation or diploma, the concluding part "one course" of this note is further clarified by the illustration and illustration makes it abundantly clear that if a student is undertaking two graduations or two diplomas or a graduation and a diploma, simultaneously in the same academic year, during which he participates in the N.S.S. activity, he will have to elect, while filling in his examination form, the degree or diploma for which he would like to claim the benefit of 5 additional marks. It will not be open for him to split the 5 additional marks and making part available to both the degrees or both the diplomas or a degree and diploma, which are simultaneously being undertaken by him. If while drafting Ordinance 163 it was desired that the benefit should be available at only one examination out of three examinations, for total medical graduation, the concluding of the note would have read "only for an examination of the/that course" and the illustration below the note explaining the phrase "of one course" could have been dispensed with. A faint argument was tried to be advanced by Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the University that no student can undertake courses in two faculties simultaneously. No specific rule was relied upon for the purpose by him. However, such an argument is not open to Shri Joshi, in view of the illustration below said note to Clause 3. 9(g). The clause "only once" has one more purport. In a given case a student may undertake more than one activities out of 5 prescribed in Clause 1. He may represent the University in any of the competitions enlisted in sub-clause (c) of Clause 1 and simultaneously may comply the requirements of sub-clause (a) of N.C.C. The clause "only once" denies him the benefit of 5+5 i.e. 10 marks for two activities. Even if a student undertakes more than one activities out of the five prescribed, he will not be entitled to more than 5 additional marks. Even if a student undertakes more than one activities out of the five prescribed, he will not be entitled to more than 5 additional marks. Thus, although we agree with Shri Joshi, learned Counsel that the word "course" used in the note is used for total academic period of graduation or diploma, in the light of illustration below the note, it is not open for the University to say that the benefit of 5 additional marks is available only for a (one) examination of the (that) course. The note and illustration together only clarify that the benefit of 5 additional marks is available for "an examination" for one out of the many curricular activities undertaken during the same academic year by the student. We do not agree with Shri Joshi that the word "course" that occurs in Clause 3 is used in sense of total span required for obtaining academic qualification. Here the word course is used as a part of the phrase" during the course" and is in the sense of time slot ending with one examination out of total number of examinations required to be passed for achieving particular graduation or diploma. The word "course" used in Clause 3 as part of the total clause "during the course of which" is used for a shorter period of instructions in the series of instruction periods for total graduation or diploma. 9(h). In this context, it is necessary to refer to the letter dated 16-9-1991 (Exhibit N page 64). This is letter addressed by the Deputy Registrar of the respondent No. 2 to the college of respondent No. 1 Subject of the letter is captioned as "Clarification regarding marks under Ordinance 163". It is obvious that the college of respondent No. 1 had requested for interpretation of Ordinance 163 from the respondent No. 2 University. From the contents of this letter it appears that a letter dated 30-7-1991 by the college was addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University. Further part of para No. 1 indicates that it was placed before the Vice Chancellor for his decision. We quote, "................The matter was referred to the authority for clarification and the clarification is as follows:-" (emphasis supplied). The words "the authority" indicates that the letter was placed before the Vice Chancellor. Further part of para No. 1 indicates that it was placed before the Vice Chancellor for his decision. We quote, "................The matter was referred to the authority for clarification and the clarification is as follows:-" (emphasis supplied). The words "the authority" indicates that the letter was placed before the Vice Chancellor. In view of the opening part of the letter, it was not open for the University to reply by saying that the letter dated 16-9-1991 issued by the Deputy Registrar of the University regarding Ordinance 163 cannot be said to be a declaration of policy of the University. First of all, the letter sent by the College and the reply by the Deputy Registrar is not a matter of policy decision. Interpretation of Ordinance 163 was sought and given. The letter although was sent by the Deputy Registrar, it can be seen that the enquiry by the college was referred to the authority, which we feel must be the Vice Chancellor, since the colleges letter was addressed to the Vice Chancellor and the reply says that it was placed before the "the authority". In case it is the say of the University that the Vice Chancellor was not "the authority" before whom the letter from the college was placed, as referred in the letter dated 16-9-1991, it is for the university to explain the authority from whom this interpretation was obtained and then communicated to the College. Suffice it to say that we are convinced from the opening part of the text of this letter that, this is not the interpretation at the level of Deputy Registrar, communicated to the college of respondent No. 1. The letter from the college seeking interpretation has gone before the authority, held to be competent by the University to deal with it and the interpretation as given by the authority was communicated to the College. In fact, referring to Clause 6 of Ordinance 163 it can be seen that the Vice Chancellor is the competent authority to deal with the difficulties arising in giving the effect to the provisions of this Ordinance and, therefore, the interpretation as given in this letter must be accepted to be interpretation given by the competent authority. In fact, referring to Clause 6 of Ordinance 163 it can be seen that the Vice Chancellor is the competent authority to deal with the difficulties arising in giving the effect to the provisions of this Ordinance and, therefore, the interpretation as given in this letter must be accepted to be interpretation given by the competent authority. In para No. 5 of the affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 4419 of 1999 so also in para No. 4 of the impugned order and in Para No. 8 of present reply affidavit dated 3-3-2000, the respondent No. 2 University has tried to come out with some explanation regarding this letter dated 16-9-1991, while admitting that there is some ambiguity in the wording of the said letter. The University claims that the letter still clearly mentioned that a student who fulfils all the requisite conditions shall be held eligible to get 5 additional marks on the basis of participation in such activities as per the provisions of Ordinance 163. In simple words, say of the respondent University seems to be that although the letter dated 16-9-1991 informed the college-respondent No. 1 that benefit of 5 additional marks under Ordinance 163 shall be available at each of the three examinations i.e. first, second and third M.B.B.S., yet because the letter said that benefit as prescribed by Ordinance will be available provided the requisite conditions are fulfilled. College ought to have acted on interpretation of Ordinance 163 as is tried to be offered now by the University by ignoring the clarification/interpretation as given in the said letter. We feel this to be absurd and un-tenable explanation. 9(i). Shri Joshi, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Haldar)1, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 148, in order to enlighten us about the interpretation of Ordinance 163. The two notes, relied upon by Shri Joshi, propound the following principles:- (1) The marginal note cannot control the meaning of the body of the section, if the language employed there is clear and unambiguous, and (2) It is not competent to any Court to proceeded upon the assumption that the legislature has made a mistake. The Court must proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said. The Court must proceed on the footing that the legislature intended what it has said. Needless to say that in our attempt to interpret the Ordinance 163, we have proceeded on the basis that the note below Clause 3 is note explaining Clause 3 and not the note controlling Clause 3. We have not proceeded on assumption of any ambiguity in Clause 3 nor tried to sort it out with the help of note below the same. So far as second principle is concerned, even if there is any defect in the phraseology used by the legislature, the Court cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act and add and amend or, by construction make up deficiencies which are left in the Act. In making an honest attempt to interpret Ordinance 163 we believe to have adopted the interpretation of all the words and phrases used in the Ordinance and we have not arrived at any not conclusion much less presumed that a particular word is wrong. We, do not claim that the interpretation should be as arrived at by us, because of any defective phrasing. 9(j). Reliance on note "B" of the judgment reported at (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth)2, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1543, by Shri Joshi, learned Counsel, according to us, is not relevant, because, we are not concerned with the merits and demerits of the policy in enacting Ordinance 163. We were not required to examine whether the University was right in implementing the policy of granting 5 additional marks as an incentive to a student, who participated in any of the prescribed activities. We are only concerned with the interpretation of Ordinance 163, especially its Clause 3 to a limited extent, whether such a benefit of additional 5 marks is available only once through out the academic period for a particular graduation or it is available at every examination, in case there be more than one academic spans of instructions during the total graduation, subject of course, to participation in the prescribed activity during the particular span. We were not at all invited to consider the merits and demerits of the policy, but we are required to interfere because the policy adopted is being implemented in an incorrect manner. We were not at all invited to consider the merits and demerits of the policy, but we are required to interfere because the policy adopted is being implemented in an incorrect manner. We are aware that normally Court should not pass orders in its jurisdiction regarding the matters falling with the jurisdiction of the educational authorities and such authorities should normally be left to their own decision and the courts should interfere only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. However, in view of the fact that the University has been interpreting its own Ordinance 163 against the letter and spirit of ordinance itself, we deemed it a case fit to interfere. 10. Having arrived at interpretation of Ordinance 163 favourable to the petitioners, couple of challenges posed to Resolution dated 30-7-1999 and the decision dated 9-2-2000, remain of academic interest only and are not required to be dealt with at length. We may only cursorily refer to those. It was the contention of the petitioners that in view of Ordinances 146 and 147, the decision of withdrawing the benefit of additional marks was time barred. Although there need not be any controversy that Executive Council (now Management Council) has powers to amend the declared result under Ordinances 146 and 147, whether it could have done so within six months of the declaration of the result, as required by Ordinance 146 or it could have utilised the powers under Ordinance 147, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions as incorporated in the said ordinance, and reopened the results even after expiry of six months, could have been the issue, if we were to interpret Ordinance 163 as giving benefit of 5 additional marks only once during the total academic period for Medical Graduation, irrespective of the fact that there are more than one examinations at three different stages. We do not intend to elaborate on this aspect and the same can be left to be dealt with at appropriate occasion, if one arises, for consideration of this Court. Therefore, the contention of the University in its reply affidavit that the Ordinances 146 and 147 are inconsistent with the scheme of the provisions of the Act of 1994 and, therefore, cannot be resorted to by the petitioners, need not be examined. The petitioners have claimed discriminatory treatment by the University. Therefore, the contention of the University in its reply affidavit that the Ordinances 146 and 147 are inconsistent with the scheme of the provisions of the Act of 1994 and, therefore, cannot be resorted to by the petitioners, need not be examined. The petitioners have claimed discriminatory treatment by the University. According to them, only students who approached the Court of law are singled out for withdrawing the benefit. According to them, there is discrimination because the students who could pass the second M.B.B.S. examination in its totality are also not subjected to such withdrawal of benefits. The petitioners also referred to the position admitted by the University that the cases of the students who have passed third M.B.B.S. examination and are doing internship are not reopened. The explanation of the University on the third count was that, such students have already undertaken their internship and are practically declared to have completed their medical graduation and therefore, in their curricular interest, their cases are not reopened, is to some extent, reasonable and acceptable, may be in view of Ordinances 146 and 147. However, about the explanation offered against the allegations of discrimination, which finds place in para No. 7 of the impugned order dated 9-2-2000 (page 97) as also para No. 14(ii) (page 128) of reply affidavit dated 3-3-2000, that the petitioners could not have passed the total second M.B.B.S. examination, even after grant of benefit of 5 additional marks, whereas the students whose benefit was not withdrawn have passed their second M.B.B.S. examination in its totality, we have our own reservations. Ordinance 163(2)(a) and (b), which clearly indicates that the additional marks can be granted to enable the students to get benefits of exemption. He can get the additional marks for passing in a particular head/s or subject/s. Therefore, passing a particular examination in its totality by virtue of enjoying the benefit of 5 additional marks in Ordinance 163 is not a sine qua non for enjoying such a benefit and, therefore, explanation of withdrawal of benefit for the students, who are not sailing through and non withdrawal for the students, who were sailing through, we are afraid, might not have withstood its ground. We cannot forget that the grant of benefit may enable a student to seek exemption in that subject, thereby reducing his burden to appear for the examination in the subject on the second occasion. We cannot forget that the grant of benefit may enable a student to seek exemption in that subject, thereby reducing his burden to appear for the examination in the subject on the second occasion. Lastly, we may point out that either on reference to affidavit in reply as filed in the earlier writ petition or the impugned order or the affidavit now filed on 3-3-2000, the University has not been able to point out as to how the cases of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 except, the petitioner No. 3 (para 7(g) of the present affidavit) came to be reopened and appeared on the notice board dated 25-8-1999 (Exhibit S-page 100) amongst the 12 students. It can be seen from para 7(c) that the University has offered explanation that by communication dated 23-8-1999, the college of the respondent No. 1 had informed six names as the students who were enjoying the benefit of Ordinance 163 on second occasion. These names had also appeared on the notice board on 25-8-1999 but by a separate notice, (Exhibit M-Page 63). Thus, the University has not been able to indicate satisfactory reason for reopening of the cases of the petitioners 1 to 6 (except petitioner No. 3). On the contrary as stated earlier, the tenor of the affidavit dated 3-3-2000 and especially para No. 7 is such, as if to indicate reopening of these five cases only after the impugned decision dated 9-2-2000. 11. Before parting with the matter, we may state that in view of the letter dated 16-9-1991 and in view of the fact that no letter/circular of caution was issued to the respondent No. 1, as contemplated by Clause 3 of Resolution dated 30-7-1999 in the past, it was not proper on the part of the University to blame the college for not ascertaining whether the students had enjoyed the benefit of Ordinance 163 on earlier occasion, before recommending their cases for such a benefit at the next examination. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the cases of all the petitioners in the light of interpretation of Ordinance 163 as discussed in this judgment and correct their respective results on/or before 24-4-2000. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the cases of all the petitioners in the light of interpretation of Ordinance 163 as discussed in this judgment and correct their respective results on/or before 24-4-2000. After the exercise as directed above, if the petitioners are required to appear for ensuing examinations and/or in any subjects, their examination forms shall be filled in upto 4th May, 2000 and arrangements for their examinations shall be made by the University. It is also open for the University respondent No. 2 to rectify the results of similarly placed students, if such students approach the University for the said purpose. However, we may hasten to add that if any student, who was denied the benefit of Ordinance 163 or such benefit was subsequently withdrawn, in case has subsequently appeared for the examination in the said subject and passed with better percentage, such cases need not be reopened, atleast to the disadvantage of the students. In the result, Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Certified copy, out of turn, is expedited. Order accordingly. -----