V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) INTERMEDIATE course or 10+2 course is andhra Pradesh is regulated by the Board of intermediate Education (for short the board ) which is a statutory body constituted under the A. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 ( the Act ). It has been empowered to make regulations inter alia to regulated the grant of permission for establishment of colleges of Intermediate Education popularly known as Junior Colleges, prescribe course of study for Intermediate, standards of education, qualifications for the teaching staff, modalities to be adopted for appointment of such staff and conduct of I year as well as II year Intermediate examinations. The Board the first respondent in exercise of its power conferred under the Act formulated detailed rules and regulations for the conduct of intermediate Examinations. The Board has also made validation rules or eligibility rules for I year Intermediate Public Examination (IPC) as well as II year IPE. In this case, an important question is raised as to the interpretation of relevant rule/regulation regarding declaration of result of a candidate in the examination conducted by the Board. The background facts in the context of which the question is raised are as follows. BACKGROUND FACTS: ( 2 ) THE petitioner studied two-year intermediate course during the academic year 2001-2003 in the third respondent college. According to him he passed I year intermediate examination securing 35% in all the papers. He appeared for II year IPE in march 2003 with Hall Ticket No. 6555609. As per the results, the secured 58 marks in english-ll, 52 marks in Sanskrit-ll, 16 marks in Mathematics II-A, 11 marks in mathematics II-B, 21 marks in physics and 32 marks in Chemistry. The first respondent issued memorandum of marks indicating that the petitioner passed in all other subjects except in Mathematics-ll A and B. The petitioner applied for revaluation of the answer scripts in Mathematics-!i A and B. A revised memorandum of marks dated 14-6-2003 was issued, after revaluation, showing that the petitioner secured 23 marks in Mathematics-l! A and 11 marks in mathematics II-B. It was also shown that in mathematics-ll A, he passed the examination and in Mathematics-ll he failed. Even before the issue of revised marks memorandum dated 14-6-2003, the petitioner had applied for advance supplementary examination in those two papers. A and 11 marks in mathematics II-B. It was also shown that in mathematics-ll A, he passed the examination and in Mathematics-ll he failed. Even before the issue of revised marks memorandum dated 14-6-2003, the petitioner had applied for advance supplementary examination in those two papers. However, after receiving the revised marks memorandum, under the impression that he was declared passed in mathematics-ll A obtaining 23 marks out of 75, the petitioner appeared only for mathematics-ll B paper in which he secured 11 marks out of 75 even after revaluation. ( 3 ) WHILE the petitioner was waiting for the results, the Board issued yet another revised memorandum of marks on 3-7-2003 in which it was indicated that he failed in mathematics-ll A though it was shown that he secured 23 marks. By reason of this, the petitioner is required to appear for mathematir II A examination again. The petitioner placed reliance on the eligibility rules for pass printed on the reverse side of the memorandum of marks and contends that as he obtained minimum marks of 30% in Mathematics-ll A, he should have been declared passed in that paper though he failed to secure 35% in aggregate as per the validation rules. Therefore, he filed the writ petition. ( 4 ) JOINT Secretary (Exams-ll) of the Board filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. While opposing the grant of mandamus as prayed, it is stated that after passing all the subjects in I year ipe in March 2002, the petitioner appeared for II year IPE in March 2003. He failed in mathematics II A and mathematics II B as he secured 16 and 11 marks respectively. Even after revaluation, he failed. While informing the petitioner by issuing a revised memorandum of marks, clerical mistake occurred whereby though he secured 23 marks in Mathematics II A, he was shown to have passed in the said paper. On verification of the records, a revised marks memorandum dated 3-7-2003 was issued to the petitioner through the Principal of the college showing him as failed in mathematics II A paper as well. On verification of the records, a revised marks memorandum dated 3-7-2003 was issued to the petitioner through the Principal of the college showing him as failed in mathematics II A paper as well. ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit, it is further stated that as per the eligibility rules which are printed on the backside of the memorandum of marks, a candidate is declared as passed in l/ll year examination if he gets a minimum of 30% marks in each paper and 35% aggregate in one attempt. This was informed to all the Principals by letter dated 9-1-2003 requesting to give wide publicity among the teachers and students. The petitioner also applied for advance supplementary examination but did not appear in Mathematics II A though he failed. The third respondent is aware of the validation rules, and therefore, he should not have issued marks memorandum to the petitioner without proper verification. When there are any mistakes in marks memorandum, the third respondent should have sent back the same to the first respondent for clarification. The petitioner is aware of the clerical mistake. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to pray this Court to declare the result in Mathematics II A as passed. The eligibility rules are very clear and as per these the petitioner has failed in mathematics II A. CONTENTIONS ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, sri V. Venkataramana, submits that as per the eligibility rules, a candidate is declared as passed in II year IPE if he gets a minimum of 30% in each paper and 35% aggregate in all the subjects. As the petitioner obtained more than 30% in mathematics II A, he should be declared as passed. He would submit that even the first respondent was aware of the validation rules and, therefore, while issuing revised memorandum of marks after revaluation, the petitioner was shown to have passed in mathematics II A though he got 23 marks out of 75. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is unfair on the part of the first respondent to take a different stand and issue yet another revised memorandum of marks dated 3-7-2003. ( 7 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the board, Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, has placed before me the Manual of IPE. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it is unfair on the part of the first respondent to take a different stand and issue yet another revised memorandum of marks dated 3-7-2003. ( 7 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel for the board, Sri S. Satyanarayana Prasad, has placed before me the Manual of IPE. He also relied on the eligibility rules printed on the reverse side of the marks memorandum and submits that of a candidate for II year IPE gets 35% aggregate in all the subjects with minimum 30% marks in each paper, he should be declared as passed. A situation where a candidate should be declared as passed even if he obtained 30% marks would arise only when a candidate gets aggregate of 35%. In case a candidate fails to get 35% aggregate and even if he gets 30% minimum in each paper he cannot be declared to have passed in either of the papers of the same subject. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner who obtained 23 marks out of 75 in mathematics II A and 11 marks in mathematics II B is not entitled to rely on rule 1 of the eligibility rules printed on the reverse of the marks memorandum. INTERPRETATION OF VALIDATION/ eligibility RULES ( 8 ) THE facts leading to filing of writ petition are admitted. In view of this, the only question that requires adjudication is interpretation of the eligibility rules or validation rules. Before doing so, it would be necessary to briefly indicate the extent and scope of judicial review in matters of education and public examinations. The principles in this regard are well settled. ( 9 ) THE court of judicial review ought not, ordinarily, tread into academic matters. It is presumed that educational authorities are experts in the field. An expert opinion is always respected by reviewing court. Unless the decision or opinion by an expert body is grossly arbitrary, capricious and irrational, the reviewing court would not interfere. It is better to leave the decision to the expert body notwithstanding the fact that such decision of the expert body would cause hardship to some persons. The reason de taire universally accepted is that decisions in academic field are not justiciable. The question raised before the court qua such academic decision lacks adjudicative disposition because of which disputes in the educational field are rendered non-justiciable. The reason de taire universally accepted is that decisions in academic field are not justiciable. The question raised before the court qua such academic decision lacks adjudicative disposition because of which disputes in the educational field are rendered non-justiciable. Having regard to the very nature of the dispute, the courts should discourage at the threshold adjudication of such dispute. The decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court supporting this view are galore. A reference to a few precedents would suffice in the context. ( 10 ) IN University of Mysore v. Govinda rao , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme court considered by question whether masters Degree of a foreign university is equivalent to Masters Degree of Indian university. It was laid down as under:"boards of appointments are nominated by the Universities and when recommendation made by them and the appointments following on them are challenged before Courts, normally the courts should be slow tc interfere with the opinion of experts there is no allegation about mala fides against the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we think, it would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 11 ) IN J. P. Kulshreshta v. Allahabad university2, the Supreme Court reiterated that when the dispute relates to educational affairs, justice requires that the Courts should not ordinarily substitute their views for that of academicians. ( 12 ) IN Maharashtra S. B. O. S. and H. S. Education v. Paritosh, the Supreme Court considered the question whether regulations of Maharasthra State Board of Secondary education which did not provide for revaluation of answer scripts are arbitrary and irrational. A question was also raised that if the decision is arbitrary, whether the court should strike down such decision and take a different view substituting the view taken by the experts. It was laid down as under:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A question was also raised that if the decision is arbitrary, whether the court should strike down such decision and take a different view substituting the view taken by the experts. It was laid down as under:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AS has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to a academic matter is preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of education institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequence which would emanate if a purely idealistic view is opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. . . . . . . . . " (emphasis supplied) ( 13 ) IN State of Uttar Pradsh v. D. K. Singh, the view taken in University of mysore v. Govinda Rao (1 supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court. In Thapar institute of Engineering and Technology v. Gagandeep Sharma5, the Supreme Court again considered the scope of judicial review in academic matters. In the said case, the facts are that academic regulation during 1997-98 provided that a student of I year should repeat the examination and if he fails to secure specified credits or specified grade after repeating, to leave the institution. Clause 17 or the regulations requires a student to earn 40% of the credits of offered in the approved scheme of courses for the I year and if he secures a cumulative grade point average of less than 4. 00 at the end of first year, he is required to repeat the I year. While repeating the first year, in case, he fails to get required credits, he will be exempted from repeating the courses in which the grade earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt. 00 at the end of first year, he is required to repeat the I year. While repeating the first year, in case, he fails to get required credits, he will be exempted from repeating the courses in which the grade earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt. The respondent-students were informed that they are required to repeat First year during 1998-99 as they failed to secure minimum credits and they were also informed to put in maximum efforts and make up the deficiency in the grades so as to continue on the rolls of the institute. The respondent-students repeated first year and appeared for first semester in the course in which they secured either D or e grade. But they failed to get the grade of 4. 5 cumulative grade point average. Therefore, their names were struck off from the rolls of the appellant institute and they were asked to leave the institute. A few students of four-year B. E. course filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and haryana seeking a declaration that they should be deemed to have passed First year. The High Court issued a direction to declare them as passed. While issuing direction, a Division Bench of Punjab and haryana High Court came to a conclusion that Clause 17 applies with immediate effect to all the students. It may also be noticed that when the respondents were repeating the course, by an amendment to regulation, the minimum percentage was reduced. Hence, the Division Bench came to a conclusion that amended Clause 17 applies with immediate effect to all the students; therefore they can take advantage of seeking a declaration that they have passed the examination. The High Court noticed that the amended regulation came into effect on 10-5-1999 and that a student who failed to secure required minimum percentage is required to withdraw from the course and leave the institute and it does not confer any right to the students to repeat the papers. Therefore, having availed an importunity under the amended regulation and repeated the course, the students cannot turn around and seek shelter under the amended regulation with took away the right of the students to repeat the examinations in which a candidate failed. Therefore, having availed an importunity under the amended regulation and repeated the course, the students cannot turn around and seek shelter under the amended regulation with took away the right of the students to repeat the examinations in which a candidate failed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant- institute and observed that the courts should not ordinarily interfere with such prescribed standards and especially when they are intended to improve the academic standards, the scope of judicial review in such matters in very limited. ( 14 ) AS seen from the narration of the facts, the petitioner and his father were well aware of the eligibility rules. The petitioner therefore applied to appear for advance supplementary examination in both mathematics II A and II B papers and he cannot be allowed to contend to declare to have passed in Mathematics II A though the obtained 23 marks out of 75. VALIDATION RULES ( 15 ) CHAPTER XI of the Manual on intermediate Public Examination in paragraphs 11 to 11. 14 contain validation rules of I year and li year IPE. It is appropriate to extract Rules 11 to 11. 6 as under. 11. Validation Rules of I year I. P. E. 11. 1. Candidates appearing for all papers in one sitting and securing a minimum of 30% marks in each paper and can aggregate of 35% marks shall be declared pass. Complaints and discrepancies about the Memorandum of Marks shall be made one month from the date of issue printed to the Memo. of Marks. Thereafter, no representation shall be entertained. The same shall be displayed on Notice Boards of colleges, prominently. 11. 2. Validation Rules of year I. P. E. 11. 2. 1. A Candidate shall be declared to have passed the Exam. If he/she appears for all papers of I or II year intermediate Public Examination in one sitting, securing 35% of aggregate marks and minimum of 30% in each paper of I or II year examination. 11. 2. 2. If a candidate does not pass all papers of I or II paper in one sitting, but secures 35% of marks in each by reappearing in failed subjects, he/she shall be declared to have passed exams. and such candidates shall be issued a Compartmental Pass certificate. 11. 3. Eligibility Rules for Award of division: 11. 3. 1. 11. 2. 2. If a candidate does not pass all papers of I or II paper in one sitting, but secures 35% of marks in each by reappearing in failed subjects, he/she shall be declared to have passed exams. and such candidates shall be issued a Compartmental Pass certificate. 11. 3. Eligibility Rules for Award of division: 11. 3. 1. A candidate who passes all papers of II year I. P. E. in first attempt after having passed in all papers of I year IPE of who passes I year papers along with all papers (Theory and practical) of II year IPE is eligible for award of division. 11. 3. 2. A candidate who has passed ipe earlier and who opts to improve his performance and appears either for all papers of II year IPE or for all papers of i year along with all papers of II year ipe (Theory and Practice) is also eligible for award of Division. 11. 3. 3. A candidate who has passed in all I year papers but failed in one or more II year papers and who appears for all II year papers (Theory and practicals) only and passes in all II year papers is also eligible for award of division. 11. 3. 4. A candidate who fails in one or more papers of I year or II year IPE and who appears for all paper of I and II year (including practicals) and passes in all in one sitting is also eligible for award of division. 11. 4. Award of Division: i Division 60% and above marks on the aggregate of I and II year IPE. II Division Below 60% and 50% and above marks on aggregate of I and II year ipe. III Division Below 50% and 35% and above marks on aggregate of I and II year ipe. 11. 5. Compartmental Pass: a failed candidate who passes/clears the failed papers in more than one sitting is awarded a Compartmental pass Certificate. 11. 6. Verification of Validation: before issuing the certificates to the candidates, the Principal shall verify the results in accordance with validation rules (Annexure k , l , M and n ). If any error is detected in validation, such defective certificate or Memo shall be returned to BIE. Care shall be taken to see that defective certificate or Memo is not issued to the candidate. If any error is detected in validation, such defective certificate or Memo shall be returned to BIE. Care shall be taken to see that defective certificate or Memo is not issued to the candidate. ( 16 ) IT is not denied before this Court that the Board made regulations and these govern declaration of results of IPE candidates. Regulation 11. 1 lays down that candidates appearing for all papers in one sitting and securing an aggregate of 35% marks can be declared passed. This is subject to candidates securing minimum of 30% marks in each paper. Regulation 11. 2. 1. deals with II year IPE. It is to the effect that a candidate shall be declared to have passed the examination if he appears for all papers of I or II year IPE in one sitting and secures 35% of aggregate marks and minimum of 30% marks in each paper of I year or II year examination. Regulation 11. 2. 2. deals with a candidate who does not pass all papers of I or II year in one sitting as per Regulation 11. 2. 1. In such a case, it is stipulated that a candidate who fails to get pass marks in all the papers, but secures 35% marks in each paper by re-appearing in the failed subject can only be declared to have passed in the examination compartmentally. A candidate who appears in all the papers of II year in first attempt after passing all papers of I year IPE or a candidate who passes I year and II year is only entitled for award of division as stipulated in regulation 11. 4. ( 17 ) IT is necessary to notice that a candidate for II year IPE should appear in two papers of Mathematics at a time and not for each paper separately. That is the reason why the validation rules specifically referred to all papers and not subjects. Regulation 11. 1 as well as regulation 11. 2. 1 specifically refers to a candidate who appears for all papers in one siting. A candidate can be declared to have passed even if he gets 30% marks in one paper provided he gets aggregate of 35% marks in both the papers put together. Regulation 11. 1 as well as regulation 11. 2. 1 specifically refers to a candidate who appears for all papers in one siting. A candidate can be declared to have passed even if he gets 30% marks in one paper provided he gets aggregate of 35% marks in both the papers put together. In case a candidate fails to get 35% marks in both papers, but gets only 30% each in both the papers, he cannot fall under regulation 11. 1 or 11. 2. 1 and he should be declared to have failed. ( 18 ) THE eligibility rules for award of division as contained in regulations 11. 3. 1. to 11. 3. 4 read with regulations 11. 1 and 11. 5 also support the view taken above. Therefore, on a true construction of the validation rules, it must be held that a candidate for II year IPE who secured 30% in one paper and less than 30% in another paper of the same subject cannot be allowed to contend that he should be declared to have been passed in one paper where he got a minimum of 30%. The right of a candidate to get a declaration that the passed even if he gets 30% in one paper is only available when he gets in aggregate 35% in both the papers. The contra submission made by Sri. V. Venkataramana contrary to this cannot be accepted. ( 19 ) THE eligibility rules printed on the reverse side of the marks memorandum are also to the same effect. These rules read as under. ELIGIBITY RULES1. A candidate is declared as passed in the 1st /2nd year examination if he/she gets a minimum of 30% marks in each paper ard 35% aggregate in one attempt. 2. Minimum pass mark for individual papers of 1st/2nd or both under compartmental appearance is 35%. 3. Blind, Deaf and Dumb candidates are declared as passed 1st/2nd year, if the candidate gets a minimum of 25 marks in each paper. The award of division will be as per usual procedure. 4. The Deaf, Deaf and Dumb candidate are exempted from one language under Part I or Part II. The Division will be awarded as usual in consideration of papers appeared. @@ note: (i) N INDICATES NOT offered FOR PAPER. (ii) * - INDICATES MARKS obtained AT AN EARLIER examination. The award of division will be as per usual procedure. 4. The Deaf, Deaf and Dumb candidate are exempted from one language under Part I or Part II. The Division will be awarded as usual in consideration of papers appeared. @@ note: (i) N INDICATES NOT offered FOR PAPER. (ii) * - INDICATES MARKS obtained AT AN EARLIER examination. (iii) e INDICATES EXEMPTION in case of Deaf, Deaf and Dumb candidates. @@ ( 20 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Clause 1 of the eligibility rules where as the learned standing Counsel placed reliance on Clause 2. In my considered opinion, when a candidate fails to secure 35% aggregate, clause 1 has to be interpreted in the light of clause 2, which makes it clear that if a candidate appears in two papers can only be declared to have passed if he gets 35% aggregate. A candidate who gets 30%, but fails to get aggregate 35% in both the papers should be declared to have failed. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 21 ) THE upshot of the above discussion may now be summed up as under. (I) As per the validation/eligibility rules, a candidate is required to get 35% marks in each subject in either I year IPE or II year IPE. Then only such candidate can be declared to have passed; (ii) If Board of Intermediate Education conducts - as per its regulations and course structure; examinations in two papers of the same subject even then the aggregate is fixed at 35%. This is, however, subject to a candidate getting a minimum 30% in each paper and aggregate of 35% in both the papers of one subject put together; (iii) The benefit of declaration that he/ she passed in one paper even though the marks obtained is 30%, is available to a candidate only when such candidate appears either for I year IPE or II year IPE for all papers in one silting. To say in other words, if a candidate does not appear in all papers in one sitting, such a candidate cannot claim to have passed in one paper of a subject even in he gets 30%; and (iv) A candidate who gets high percentage of marks in one paper of one subject, but fails to get minimum of 30% in other paper of same subjects (though he gets 35% aggregate) cannot be declared to have passed in either I year or II year IPE. ( 22 ) THE petitioner appeared for II year pe in March 2003. He obtained 16 marks in mathematics II A and 11 marks in mathematics II B. He was declared failed, he applied for revaluation. When the marks, in vlathematics II B remained the same there was some improvement in Mathematics II A. He got 33, (sic. 23) marks out of 75. While ssuing a revised memorandum of marks dated 14-6-2003 after revaluation, instead of showing the petitioner as failed in vlathematics II A as he got 23 marks, it was by mistake shown an passed. After realizing :his, yet another marks memorandum dated 3-7-2003 was issued correctly showing the petitioner as having failed. In view of the validation/eligibility rules, the petitioner s result was correctly declared and no interference is called for. ( 23 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner got 23 out of 75 marks in Mathematics II A and 11 marks out of 75 in Mathematics II B. As per regulation 11. 2. 1. of the validation rules, he could not have been declared passed either n the subject of Mathematics or in each of the two papers. Therefore, it is treated as accidental omission committed by the concerned officer when revised marks memorandum was issued after revaluation. It is presumed that it is an accidental omission and if it is a mistake in relation to nonessential or collateral matter it could always be condoned. A reference may be made to paragraph 54 of the judgment of the supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of india1 . When this mistake was realized, it was rectified by issuing another marks memorandum showing the correct position. Even as per Regulation 11. 6, the Principals are required to see that defective marks memo is not issued to candidates. They have to verify the results in accordance with validation rules and issue memorandum of marks. When this mistake was realized, it was rectified by issuing another marks memorandum showing the correct position. Even as per Regulation 11. 6, the Principals are required to see that defective marks memo is not issued to candidates. They have to verify the results in accordance with validation rules and issue memorandum of marks. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal or unfair. The writ petition does not call for any interference. ( 24 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.