JUDGMENT 1. What is required to be interpreted in this writ petition is a condition enumerated at page 26 of the Brochure. For facility of reference, this is being re-produced below: "Having participated and performed as member of the contingent of an affiliated college/ university department in any sole/group item in a competition namely "Display Your Talent" organised by concerned wing of the University, securing - First Position 8.0 Second Position 7.0 Third Position 6.0 Certificate of merit 4.0 2. It is a fact that the petitioner participated in an event namely "Display Your Talent". The team of which he was a member, was awarded first place. The petitioner was also awarded the first place. The petitioner submits that as a team was awarded first place, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of eight marks on that count. He also submits that he is also entitled to further benefit of eight marks on the grounds that he was individually also able to get the first position. 3. This plea of the petitioner is being contested by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to only one benefit and the total marks which can be given to him are those which are indicated in the above condition i.e. eight. 4. I am of the opinion, that the interpretation placed by the University cannot be faulted. 5. The petitioners position has to be adjudicated on the basis of group performance. He has been allowed eight marks. The method which the petitioner wants to be adopted in this case is that he should be recognized for his individual talent as also for the team event. This is plainly not the implication for the clause reproduced herein above. The benefit has to be given only for group item. The petitioner has been given benefit for the group event and not for his individual effort. In the group no doubt the petitioner was given first position, but this position he got on account of his having participated in a team. Independently of the team he has no existence. Thus what is required to be seen is the merit obtained in the group event and if incidentally in that group, somebody happens to get higher position, then he is not to get double benefit. This is the only manner in which this regulation has to be interpreted. Independently of the team he has no existence. Thus what is required to be seen is the merit obtained in the group event and if incidentally in that group, somebody happens to get higher position, then he is not to get double benefit. This is the only manner in which this regulation has to be interpreted. If this be the position, then no ground is made out for interference. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this court given in OWP No. 877/98 decided on 1.1.1999. In that decision all that has been observed is that some benefit is required to be given for one sports event. The aforementioned judgment would not apply to the facts of this case. The interpretation which has been placed by the respondent University is the correct view of looking into the matter. 7. This petition as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed.