Judgment 1. All 13 petitioners are students of Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga. This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing letter, dated 17.7.2002, issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Governor Secretariat, to the extent to which it has been clarified that grace mark up to maximum five may be awarded for the written (theory) portion only of a subject and not in clinical and practical portion of one subject. Further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioners pass by awarding them minimum necessary grace marks in their respective subject up to five marks under the provision of the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the, the Regulation 2002). 2. Petitioner no. 1 appeared at the professional (M.B.B.S.) Par II final examination 2003 conducted in May, 2004, but was declared failed in one subject, i.e., medicine. He passed in all other subjects but failed by four marks in practical portion of one subject of medicine. He obtained 61 marks in practical portion of medicine whereas the pass marks is 65. Petitioners 2 to 13 appeared at the third professional (M.B.B.S.) Part I examination 2003 (1st exam.) held in the month of May, 2004. They all passed in all the subjects but failed in practical portion by one subject, i.e. E.N.T. opthalmology. Petitioners 2 to 7 secured 17 marks which is three marks less than pass marks. Petitioners 8, 9 and 10 secured 18 and 15 marks respectively, which is only 2 to 5 marks less than the marks in the practical portion of E.N.T. subject. Petitioners 11, 12 and 13 have obtained 19, 18 and 17 marks respectively in practical portion of opthalmology (eye) subject, which is only 1, 2 and 3 marks less than the pass marks. After publication of their result, petitioners submitted their representation before the Deputy Secretary, Governor Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Patna, respondent no. 2, for awarding them minimum necessary grace marks In terms of Regulation 2002 of Medical Council of India and declare them pass. This was not considered, as such, the petitioners have filed this writ application. 3. The Graduation Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2002 came into force in the month of July, 2002, in the official gazette. 2, for awarding them minimum necessary grace marks In terms of Regulation 2002 of Medical Council of India and declare them pass. This was not considered, as such, the petitioners have filed this writ application. 3. The Graduation Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2002 came into force in the month of July, 2002, in the official gazette. As per the Regulation the grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student, who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects. From the office of the Chancellor of the Universities (respondent no. 1) a letter, dated 17.7.2002, was issued to the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities through which it was indicated that the advantage of grace marks up to a maximum of five marks would be extended by the Universities under its discretion to a student, who has failed in one subject. This letter was issued with regard to award of grace marks up to five in M.B.B.S. examination and implementation of Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation, 2002. By this letter it was further clarified that grace marks up to maximum of five marks may be awarded for the written (theory) portion only of a subject and not in clinical and practical portion of subject. 4. Petitioners are aggrieved by the letter, dated 17.7.2002, whereby a clarification of the Regulation has been made which is detrimental to their interest. Petitioners case is that medical students of different Universities across the country are being given the benefit of grace marks in one subject irrespective of theory or practical portion of the subject as per the Regulation of the Medical Council of India. Medical Council of India being the highest regulatory body of the medical education has been conferred with power under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) to make regulation for Medical Education and its regulation is binding upon all Universities, providing Medical Education. The action of the respondent authorities in making further clarification/direction beyond contents of the Regulation 2002 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature and in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation, as such, it should be quashed. 5. The action of the respondent authorities in making further clarification/direction beyond contents of the Regulation 2002 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature and in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation, as such, it should be quashed. 5. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that in the identical matter this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9672 of 2000 (Udbhatt Mishra vs. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University & Ors.) has directed the University to award the necessary grace marks to the petitioner in respect of the practical or theory part of the one subject. 6. Counsel appearing for the Universities and the Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar have not filed any counter affidavit, but they have opposed the relief prayed on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the Universities, it has been contended that M.B.B.S. course being a specialized course it has rightly been decided by the Chancellor to allow the advantage of grace marks subject to live under its discretion to a student only in theory (written) paper of one subject. The clinical and practical part of the medical education is vital and a student must pass in the clinical and practical portion of a subject without any grace mark. The counsel appearing for the Chan-cellor of the Universities of Bihar submitted that under Section 9 clause 7(11) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976, the Chancellor has power to issue direction to the Universities in the administrative or academic interest of the Universities, which he considers to be necessary. The direction so issued by the Chancellor is to be implemented by the Vice-Chancellors, syndicates, senate and other bodies of the Universi-ties. Further it has been submitted that under Section 9 clause 7(lII) of the Universities Act "any person aggrieved by such order of the Chancellor may file representation to the Chancellor, who on consideration of the representation shall have the power to affirm/modify or rescind his earlier order and pass such other order or orders which he may deem fit and proper". Letter, dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure 3) has been issued under Section 9 subject 7{li) of the Universities Act. The Chancellor has got jurisdiction to issue such orders in the administrative and academic interest of the student of the University, as such, there is no illegality in the order. Letter, dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure 3) has been issued under Section 9 subject 7{li) of the Universities Act. The Chancellor has got jurisdiction to issue such orders in the administrative and academic interest of the student of the University, as such, there is no illegality in the order. The Chancellor considering the specialized nature of the education of medical education under his wisdom has issued this letter and there is neither any arbitrariness or illegality in the order. It has also been submitted that the petitioners instead of filing a writ application should have represented their case before the Chancellor under Section 9 subsection 7(lll) of the University Act, which is the remedy available to them under the University Act. 7. Considering the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the documents as well as the provisions under the Act, I find that the Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulation 2002 has come into force from the date of its publication in gazette on 1st July, 2002. The Medical Council of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, has come out with this notification. Regulation 10 of Graduate Medical Education, 1997, has been amended by this Regulation. As per the amended Regulation 10, the grace marks up to maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student, who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects. Under this notification, no distinction has been made so far theory, practical and clinical part of any subject is concerned. Simply it has been mentioned as one subject which includes theory, practical and clinical. The Medical Council of India being the highest regulatory body of the Graduate Medical Education has only been conferred with the power under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, to make regulation for Medical Education and any regulation made by the Medical Council of India is binding upon all the Universities which is providing Medical Education. The Chancellor has got no jurisdiction to make any further clarification and issue direction beyond contents of the regulation. 8. The counsel appearing for the University has also submitted that the petitioners or any other students cannot claim five marks as a matter of right. The Chancellor has got no jurisdiction to make any further clarification and issue direction beyond contents of the regulation. 8. The counsel appearing for the University has also submitted that the petitioners or any other students cannot claim five marks as a matter of right. It is the discretion of the University to award grace marks to pass students who have failed in one subject and pass in all other subjects. The counsel has stated that the word "discretion" in the Regulation is the discretion which should be exercised for the benefit of the students. The amended regulation is beneficial in nature and it is expected that discretion will be exercised by the University for the benefit of the students, spedaily those students who are meritorious, have passed in ail other subjects but have failed in one subject only. Such student can pass, if grace of five marks is given to them, in the case of the petitioners this discretion is fully applicable as they have passed in all other subjects, but have failed only in one subject by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 marks. In case five marks is awarded to them they will pass. All the petitioners have done good in their respective examinations in ail other subjects except in clinical (practical) portion of one subject and if they are not declared pass by awarding them maximum necessary marks as per Regulation 2002 in their concerned subjects, it will affect their career adversely. 9. I find sufficient force in the arguments of the petitioners. I also find that there is no distinction under the Regulation 2002, so far theory, practical or clinical part of one subject is concerned. The word subject has been exercised under the amended Regulation, which includes theory, practical and clinical of one subject. 10. Accordingly, the respondent University is directed to award necessary grace marks to the petitioners as per the Regulation 2002 in their concerned subjects and declare them pass and publish their result preferably within two weeks from the date of communication/production of this order. So far the letter, dated 17.7.2002, issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Governor Secretariat, (Annexure 3) is concerned, it is in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation of the Medical Council of India and, as such, not tenable in the eye of law and quashed. 11. This application is allowed.