Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner had appeared in Class XII examination and obtained first division by securing 325 marks out of 450. He took admission in bachelor of Computer Application in Jabalpur College of Computer. It is put forth that in the first three semesters he obtained 65% marks. He appeared in the IVth semester examination and secured first division marks but in the subject of theory of Operating System he was declared failed by awarding 3 5 marks. It is contended that he had hoped to get more than 60 marks in the said subject. Because of the same he applied for revaluation. In revaluation only three marks were increased in the said paper. ( 2. ) IT is urged in the petition that the revaluation has defectively been done and has not been done as per the Ordinance No. 71. It is put forth that as per the postulation in the Ordinance No. 71 revaluation and scrutiny of the answer scripts are to be done by two examiners other than the one who initially valued it but before the revaluation, scrutiny of the marks is to be done and in case there is change in scrutiny of marks, the revaluation would be undertaken. It is put forth that in the case of the petitioner the revaluation has not been done as per the procedure and only three marks have been increased in an improper manner. In this backdrop a prayer has been made to command the respondent to revalue the answer scripts of the petitioner in the subject of theory of Operating System. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by the answering respondent contending, inter aha, that the petitioner had secured 35 marks in the subject of theory of Operating System and on that basis he was declared failed in that subject. On an application being filed for revaluation, the same was done as per procedure and three marks were increased in the, said paper. It is put forth that the answer scripts of the petitioner was properly checked and revalued as per Clause 6 of the Ordinance no. 71. On an application being filed for revaluation, the same was done as per procedure and three marks were increased in the, said paper. It is put forth that the answer scripts of the petitioner was properly checked and revalued as per Clause 6 of the Ordinance no. 71. Clause 6 of the said Ordinance has been referred to, to highlight that when a person applies for revaluation in respect of a paper, his marks are scrutinised (re-totaled) before the answer-scripts are sent for revaluation without the candidate applying for it and if any change is found, necessary action is taken to revise the marks and accordingly the revaluation is undertaken. If the candidate still desires to get his answer-scripts revalued meaning thereby if in case he is not satisfied by the change in marks which is found in scrutiny of marks, then he would have the option if he still desires to get his answer scripts revalued. If no change is found the answer scripts are sent for revaluation. It is put forth that as per the Ordinance the answer script of the petitioner was sent for valuation to two examiners. The examiners revalued the answer-script in accordance with clause 8 of the Ordinance. Clause 8 has been referred to in the return. It is contended that the revaluation has been correctly done by taking the average of the marks awarded by two examiners (amongst the three examiners i. e. one original examiner and two revaluers) of whose marks are nearest to each other. In the return it has been averred that the petitioner had received 35 marks from original examiner and he was awarded 52 marks by the first revaluer and 40 marks by second revaluer and taking average of the nearest marks which has been awarded by two examiners which is the second examiner in this case, the petitioner secured 37. 5 marks and eventually it was rounded up to 38 marks. Thus, the justification has been given that revaluation has been done correctly. ( 4. ) WE have heard Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyash Pandit, learned counsel, for the respondent university. ( 5. ) THE sole question that arises for consideration is whether the answer-script of the petitioner is revalued properly in accordance with Ordinance No. 71. Ordinance No. 71 deals with revaluation and scrutiny of answer-scripts. ( 4. ) WE have heard Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suyash Pandit, learned counsel, for the respondent university. ( 5. ) THE sole question that arises for consideration is whether the answer-script of the petitioner is revalued properly in accordance with Ordinance No. 71. Ordinance No. 71 deals with revaluation and scrutiny of answer-scripts. Clause 6 of the said ordinance deals with the scrutiny of the marks. The same reads as under: "6. The scrutiny of marks shall be done before the answer books are sent for revaluation, without the candidate applying for it. Should any change be found out, necessary action to revise the marks will be taken accordingly, and revaluation will be undertaken, if the candidate still desires to get his answer-books revalued. " ( 6. ) CLAUSE 7 deals with the procedure for revaluation. The said clause is as follows: "where a candidate applies for revaluation, the answer-book in which revaluation is sought, will be sent for valuation to two examiners (other than the one who initially valued it) who shall be from a place outside the jurisdiction of the Unviversity. The answer-books valued by the same examiner and a copy of the memorandum of instructions for the guidance of examiners, if prepared by the paper setter, will be sent to each of the two examiners to enable them to evaluate the answer-book concerned in the light of the standard set by the examiner and the memorandum of instructions. If less than ten candidates had appeared at the examination in the paper concerned, the answer books of all the candidates shall be sent to each of the examiners. Each of the two examiners shall receive such remuneration for the revaluation of an answer-book, which may be fixed by the University from time to time. " ( 7. ) CLAUSE 8 of the said Ordinance deals with how the marks are to be awarded. The same being fulcrum of the cavil, is reproduced below: "8. If the marks awarded in the paper by any of the two examiners varies from the marks given by the original examiner by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awarded by two of the examiners, the original examiner and the two revaluers and nearest to each other will be taken to represent the correct valuation. This average of marks will be awarded to the candidate for the revision of his result. " ( 8. ) SUBMISSION of Mr. Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the language of clause 8 is properly understood along with the proviso it would mean that the average marks awarded by the two revaluers is to be taken average of marks of the original valuer and the higher marks granted by one of the two revaluer should be considered. Per contra, Mr. Pandit would submit that the language of clause 8 does not so envisage inasmuch as if the said interpretation is placed on the said clause the words which have been used in the said clause "the average of the marks awarded by two of the examiners, the original examiner and the two revaluers and nearest to each other will be taken to represent the correct valuation. " would become totally redundant. In fact, the meaning would be given which is not intended. ( 9. ) ON a careful scrutiny of the language in which the clause 8 is couched, we are of the considered opinion that the interpretation that Mr. Greeshm Jain would like us to place on the said clause would actually cause violence to the language and it would usher in a different meaning which is not intended. We may however, proceed to state that the language used in the said clause on a first blush may give an impression that the submission of Mr. Jain is correct but on a deeper probe and keener scrutiny, it would be clear that placing of the said meaning would be reading the provision out of the context. It is settled in law a provision has to be read regard being had to the text and the context. If a purposive meaning is given to clause 8 by interpretative process, we are unable to accept the interpretation placed by Mr. Greeshm Jain. On the contrary, we are inclined to think that the interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the respondent university is correct as that is more in consonance with the words employed in the clause. Thus, we are disposed to think that the marks awarded on revaluation is neither incorrect nor unsound. ( 10. Greeshm Jain. On the contrary, we are inclined to think that the interpretation placed by the learned counsel for the respondent university is correct as that is more in consonance with the words employed in the clause. Thus, we are disposed to think that the marks awarded on revaluation is neither incorrect nor unsound. ( 10. ) THOUGH we have found that the revaluation is correct, we have been apprised that the university has power to confer certain grace marks on certain circumstances. Though the said provision has not been brought before us, we would require the university to consider the case of the petitioner for conferral of benefit of grace marks, if there is such provision and if the case of the petitioner comes within the permissible realm of law. ( 11. ) WITH the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.