JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in fact as second round of litigation aggrieved by he communication sent to him by Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. The petitioner earlier approached this Court when he was declared failed in paper no. 105 of BE. 1st Semester, in which out of 80 marks of the theory paper, he, as against required 24 marks, could secure only 19 marks whereas out of 30 marks of sessional test, he secured 11 marks. In this manner, he secured 30 marks, whereas the minimum pass marks in that subject required were 40. 2. According to the petitioner he was entitled to 1% of grace marks of the aggregate and total marks of the every examination being 1000 and 10 marks being 1%, would be required to declare him pass. This Court upon hearing the parties, disposed of earlier writ petition of the petitioner viz. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9595/2009 by judgement dated 4.11.2008 in the following terms: "With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard finally. The petitioner has prayed that award of 10 grace marks in paper no. 105 Electrical & Electronics Engineering which are less than 1 % of the aggregate marks and has further prayed to declare him pass in he examination of B.Ed. 1st Semester, 2008. As regards award of 10 grace marks, Mr. Bhargava has frankly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to 10 grace marks but as regards declaring him pass, he submits that the matter should be left to the University to act as per the rules. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties. I direct the respondent University to award grace marks in Paper No. 105 Electrical & Electronics Engineering and thereafter to act according to rules in the matter of declaring result of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above." 3. As would be seen from the above judgement, the respondents agreed to award 10 grace marks to the petitioner, rather submitted that the petitioner was entitled to 10 grace marks and in those facts this was left to the University authorities to declare him pass as per the Rules. The Writ Petition is disposed of as indicated above." 3. As would be seen from the above judgement, the respondents agreed to award 10 grace marks to the petitioner, rather submitted that the petitioner was entitled to 10 grace marks and in those facts this was left to the University authorities to declare him pass as per the Rules. That was because the Rules for award of grace marks provided that even award of such grace marks obtained by the candidates need not be reflected in the mark sheet while showing him pass. 4. The respondents however conveyed to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 21/24.11.08 that after considering the award of 10 grace marks to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Court, he could not yet be declared pass because he needed 15 marks to be declared pass in paper no. 105. It was conveyed that as per B.Tech. 1st Semester, minimum required marks are required in Theory Paper as 24 and the petitioner secured 19 marks, which is less than 5 numbers. Minimum pass marks required are 40 but he has been awarded total 30 marks in paper no.105, there was thus shortfall of 10 marks. 5. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the respondents have completely misconstrued the rule relating to the award of grace marks according to which, grace marks of 1% will be awarded to a candidate failing in not more than 25% of the total theory papers, practicals, sessions, dissertation, viva-voce and the aggregate, as the case may be, in which minimum pass marks have been prescribed. It is contended that since petitioner failed only in one paper, therefore, he cannot be taken to have failed in more than 25% of the total number of papers and that since 10 marks are required for declaring him pass, out of 5 marks aded at the stage of theory, therefore remaining 5 marks at the stage of aggregate of that very paper. The petitioner having already secured 30 marks in that subject, he would require only 10 more marks in total to be declared pass. The respondents when the case was earlier argued before this Court did not project the case which they are now seeking to canvass. The sole purpose of the respondents is to frustrate the order passed by this Court earlier on 4.11.2008. The respondents when the case was earlier argued before this Court did not project the case which they are now seeking to canvass. The sole purpose of the respondents is to frustrate the order passed by this Court earlier on 4.11.2008. The impugned-order be, therefore, set aside and the respondents be directed to declare the petitioner as pass. 6. Shri A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that bifurcation, as is being made by the petitioner, cannot be accepted as the Rules for awarding the grace marks do not permit doing so. It is contended that the minimum pass marks required in theory are 24 whereas the petitioner secured 19 marks and at that stage he required 5 marks. Even if he is taken as pass in theory, yet those marks cannot be reflected in the mark sheet as provided by note no. 1, supra and thereafter at the stage of aggregate marks because the petitioner had secured actual 19 + 11, he would still need 10 marks to clear that subject. 7. I am afraid, such an interpretation which the respondents are seeking to place on the Rules for award of grace marks promulgated by the University of Rajasthan, which they have adopted for their purposes, can neither be supported on logic, nor on law. The relevant rule is reproduced herein: "Grace marks to the extent of 1% of the aggregate marks prescribed for an examination will be awarded to a candidate failing in not more than 25% of the total number of theory papers, practicals, sessionals, dissertation, viva-voce and the aggregate, as the case may be, in which minimum pass marks have been prescribed; provided the candidate passes the examination by the award of such Grace marks. For the purpose of determining the number of 25% of the papers, only such theory papers, practicals, dissertation, viva-voce etc. would be considered, of which, the examination is conducted by the University." 8. The note no. 1 given there below in the caption general is also reproduced: "A candidate who passes in a paper/practicals or the aggregate by the award of grace marks will be deemed to have obtained the necessary minimum for a pass in that paper/practicals or in the aggregate and shown in the marks sheet to have passed by grace. The note no. 1 given there below in the caption general is also reproduced: "A candidate who passes in a paper/practicals or the aggregate by the award of grace marks will be deemed to have obtained the necessary minimum for a pass in that paper/practicals or in the aggregate and shown in the marks sheet to have passed by grace. Grace marks will not be added to the marks obtained by a candidate from the examiners nor will the marks obtained by the candiate be subject to any deduction due to award of grace marks in any other paper/practicals or aggregate." 9. Aforesaid Rule prescribes that a candidate failing in not more than 25% of the total theory papers, practicals, sessions, dissertation, viva-voce and the aggregate, as the case may be, in which minimum pass marks have been prescribed, shall be entitled to 1 % of the aggregate marks prescribed provided the candidate passes the examination by the award of such grace marks. For the purpose of determining the number of 25% of the papers, all theory papers, practicals, dissertation, viva-voce etc. would be considered. It is not in dispute that 10 marks which this Court had directed to award to the petitioner and which the respondents to do were required only in one single paper no. 105 because petitioner secured 19 marks in theory as against the required 24 and 30 marks in aggregate as against required 40 marks in the very same paper. The rule although gives an outer limit for award of the marks to the extent of 1% of the aggregate which limit is 10 markis and taking that interpretation earlier judgment was passed by the Court, conscious of the fact that 10 marks were awardable in theory paper as well as in aggregate. The contention that having awarded 5 marks to the petitioner in theory paper, the respondent would yet not consider the petitioner as having passed in theory even though the total of 19 + 5 would be 24, which is the minimum pass marks and even thereafter they would consider him to have secured 19 marks for the purpose of further awarding the marks at the stage of aggregate because bonus marks cannot be reflected in the mark-sheet and then in that case he would need again 10 marks,. Such an interpretation is highly unreasonable and would be contrary to the spirit of the aforesaid rule, which is intended to help the student in a border line case to wriggle out the situation where he was declared fail by reason of shortage of only 1 % or less than that, of the aggregate marks. 10. The petitioner would be entitled to 5 marks at the stage of declaring him pass in theory paper and additional 5 marks at the stage of aggregate, after the marks of practical are added thereto, thus keeping total of the two within the outer limit of 1 % of aggregate, as directed by this Court and in this manner, he would be entitled to secure 40% total marks out of 100, which is required to declare him pass in paper No. 105. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21/24-11-2008. is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to Issue revised mark sheet to the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid discussion forthwith and this would entitle the petitioner to all consequential benefits.Writ Petition Allowed. *******