A perusal of the petition and the annexures appended thereto bring out the following facts: (i) that the petitioner got 101 marks in Preventive and Social Medicine. She, however, got less than 50% marks so far as theory is concerned. She was declared failed in this subject. (ii) petitioner got 40 marks in PSM-Optho ENT. The total marks were 100. It is also not disputed that the University granted 10 grace marks for theory paper. The total marks which thus came to be secured by the petitioner were 50. On this basis she was declared passed. 2. The above factors are not being disputed. What has led the petitioner to approach this court is that lateron the petitioner was declared `failed even in the PSM-Optho ENT paper also. This was on the ground that even by giving 10 grace marks, the petitioner got less than 50% marks so far as the theory paper is concerned. The petitioner submits that the petitioner having been declared successful this benefit cannot be taken away subsequently. 3. The case of the respondent/University is that the petitioner was wrongly declared pass in PSM-Optho ENT paper and as such the result given a fresh look. For this reliance is being placed on University Regulations. The relevant Regulation reads as under : " The minimum number of marks required to pass the examination shall be 50% in theory and oral (including internal assessment) taken together and 50% in practical and/or clinical (including internal assessment where provided) separately in each subject. Provided that a candidate who has appeared in an examination in full and fails in one subject only or part thereof by nor more than one percent of the maximum marks in the subject in which he/she has failed shall be deemed to have passed the examination by adding the required number of marks in the subject or sits parts as the case may be." It is thus submitted that a candidate has to obtain 50% marks in theory as also in the practical examination and if a candidate does not get this percentage of marks then he/she cannot be declared to have passed in the exemination. 4. The basic argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was declared `passed this benefit could not be taken away. 4. The basic argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was declared `passed this benefit could not be taken away. It is submitted that the records were available with the respondents and even if the petitioner was declared `passed wrongly and in contravention of the Statutes, even then the benefit could not be withdrawn subsequently. The fact that the period of six months has elapsed between the declaration of earlier result that the later cancellation has also been projected. 5. I am of the opinion that this may be a hard case but a hard case cannot be made a ground to ignore the statutory provisions. If under a statutory provisions a particular candidate has failed then notwithstanding the fact that at some stage the petitioner was declared `passed would not confer any benefit on her. The fact that the examination in question pertain to the Medical Speciality cannot be ignored. A candidate taking part in such a Discipline must pass the Examination. Shelter cannot be taken behind technicality and acts of ommission and commissions. The regulations have to be read strictly and meticulously. On a plain reading of the Statute it is clear that petitioner did not qualify the examination. As such it is not possible to grant any benefit to her. This petition as such is found to be without merit and is dismissed. The petitioner may if so advised prefer an application before the respondents seeking re-evaluation of her answer papers. In case such a prayer is made that may be considered in accordance with the Rules. The fact that at one stage, the petitioner was declared `passed and the fact that there was no cause for filing such an application for re-evaluation by the petitioner at an earlier stage would be taken note of. Disposed of accordingly.