Judgment : Earlier, the petitioner has challenged the communication of the Controller of Examinations, University of Madras, the second respondent, dated 19. 2000, wherein, it has been stated that as she had passed all the first year papers in the supplemental examination, i.e., in October 1999, the question of eligibility for University ranking does not arise. 2. Placing reliance on the University Regulations, which state that the candidates, who pass all the examinations prescribed for the course in the first instance and within a period of two academic years from the year of admission in the course are only eligible for ranking, the University has inter alia contended that the petitioner is not entitled to ranking. As the University Regulation has been put against the Writ Petitioner for amending university ranking, the petitioner has filed W.P.M.P. No. 911 of 2009, to amend the prayer in the present Writ Petition, declaring that the second proviso to Clause 6 of the University 1997-98 Examination Regulations and the resultant communication, dated 19. 2000 of the second respondent are illegal and to set aside the same and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate Rank Certificate in her favour for M.A. (Corporate Secretaryship) for the examination held for the batch of students who have undertaken the course in the Academic years 1998-2000. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that she did her M.A. (Corporate Secretaryship) during the academic year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in D.G. Vaishnav College, Arumbakkam, Chennai, affiliated to Madras University. During the first year examination conducted in April’ 1999, the petitioner fell sick and was bed ridden at Bombay and therefore, she did not appear for the examinations. However, she continued her studies for the second year and for the first time, she appeared in the first year examination in October’ 1999. After a span of six months, she completed her second year in April’ 2000 and stood first in the College. According to the petitioner, she is eligible for University ranking. She had completed the course within the stipulated period of two years and there were no arrears in any subjects nor she has made any attempt to improve her performance in any subject. On both the occasions, i.e., in October’ 1999 and April’ 2000, it was her first attempt. According to the petitioner, she is eligible for University ranking. She had completed the course within the stipulated period of two years and there were no arrears in any subjects nor she has made any attempt to improve her performance in any subject. On both the occasions, i.e., in October’ 1999 and April’ 2000, it was her first attempt. As the petitioner is eligible for University rank, she made a request on 20.8.2000 to the Registrar, University of Madras, first respondent, to award her rank for the academic years 1998-2000. With reference to her request, the second respondent, by a memo, dated 19. 2000, has informed that since shed had passed the first year paper in October’ 1999, she is not eligible for University ranking. 4. Assailingthe provisio to Clause 6 of the University 1997-98 Examination Regulations, Mr.K.Shakespeare, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the candidates, who could not write the examinations conducted by the University in the first instance, i.e., April’ 1999, on account of illness or for any other reasonable cause, but appeared for the first time in the supplemental examination, cannot be denied University ranking on the basis of the second proviso to Clause 6 of the University 1997-98 Examination Regulations. According to him, the examinations taken by the petitioner in October’ 1999, is the first attempt and when she had passed all the examinations, prescribed for the course within a period of two academic years, from the year of admission of the course, she is eligible for University ranking. .5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned clause as well as communication, dated 19. 2000 of the second respondent that the petitioner is not eligible for University ranking, as she had passed all the subjects in the Supplemental Examinations held in October’ 1999 would frustrate the meritorious candidates, who had put in hard work to pass all the subjects with high marks in one attempt. He further submitted that the interpretation of the University Regulations that appearance in the supplemental examinations would be construed as a second attempt, is arbitrary and illegal. In support of the contention that failure to appear in the examinations because of serious illness would not disentitle the student from staking his/he claim for University’s ranking, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit v. Dean, Govt. In support of the contention that failure to appear in the examinations because of serious illness would not disentitle the student from staking his/he claim for University’s ranking, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit v. Dean, Govt. Medical College, Aurangabad AIR 1987 SC 1362 : (1987) 3 SCC 478 . 6. Per contra, Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that as per University Regulations, those candidates, who have appeared for the examinations in the first instance alone would be considered for university ranking. According to him, the students are bound to appear for the examination for each year, as per the Schedule of examinations and pass all the subjects in the first instance. According to him, a candidate, who absents himself or herself in the first instance of his/her examination for regular course conducted in a particular month and year, cannot be considered for the purpose of University ranking. 7. Learned counsel for the University further submitted that if a candidate absents himself/herself in the first instance for the respective month and year became due, then he/she is not competing with the regular batch of students in that particular month and year of examinations and when he/she writes the supplemental examination, it will be treated as second appearance only as regular batch of students who study along with the petitioner, pass out the subjects in the first examination itself and they do not appear in the supplemental examinations. He further submitted that the question paper will be different in the supplemental examination and the inter-se evaluation of all the candidates, who have appeared in the examination for the first instance would be by different set of examiners. Therefore, as per the University Regulations, the students, who appear for the examination, as per the time Schedule of the University, with reference to the standards of examination set up by the examiners in the first instance alone are eligible for University ranking. 8. Therefore, as per the University Regulations, the students, who appear for the examination, as per the time Schedule of the University, with reference to the standards of examination set up by the examiners in the first instance alone are eligible for University ranking. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner, who did not appear in April’ 1999 examinations in the first instance, as per the University Regulations, is not entitled to University Ranking, as the question of ranking is a comparative and relative element within the same group of students, who compete with each other at the first instance and it cannot be measured at two different instances between different set of students. He therefore submitted that there is no arbitrariness in the Regulations, warranting interference. .9. The Registrar, University of Madras has apprehended that if the Writ Petition is allowed, it would run contrary to the Regulations and lead to further litigation from other candidates, who have not been considered for University Ranking, when they had failed to take their University Examinations as per the Schedule, but clear the papers in subsequent appearances. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. .Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. Appendix-5(R), a Revised Regulation for M.A. Corporate Secretaryship (Non-Semester) for the academic year 1997-98 deals with the duration, conditions of admission, course of study, scheme of examination, etc. Clause 4 of the said Regulation deals with examination and it reads as follows: “There shall be two examinations, one at the end of the first year and the other at the end of the second year. The candidates failing in any subject/subjects will be permitted to appear for such failed subject or subjects at a supplemental examination to be held in September in each year.” 11. Second proviso to Clause 6 of the abovesaid Regulations reads as follows: “Candidates, who pass all the examinations prescribed for the course in the first instance and within a period of two academic years from the year of admission in the course are only eligible for ranking.” 12. M.A. Corporate Secretaryship course, consists of two academic years. Second proviso to Clause 6 of the abovesaid Regulations reads as follows: “Candidates, who pass all the examinations prescribed for the course in the first instance and within a period of two academic years from the year of admission in the course are only eligible for ranking.” 12. M.A. Corporate Secretaryship course, consists of two academic years. As per the scheme of examinations conducted by the University of Madras, there shall be two examinations, one at the end of the first year and other at the end of the second year. On the facts of this case, students, studying in the said course in various colleges, affiliated to the University of Madras, have to take up the examinations for each year, as per the Schedule, prescribed by the University, i.e., in April’ 1999. The condition imposed in Clause 6 of the Regulations for the said course for awarding University Ranking, is that, the Candidates should pass all the examinations prescribed for the course in the first instance and within a period of two academic years within the year of admission to the courses. 13. From the reading of the regulations, it is clear that the intention of the University in framing the Regulation is not that the student should pass all the examinations in the first attempt, but it should be in the first instance. There is certainly a difference between “first instance” and “first attempt”. When the language employed in the said Regulation speaks of “first instance” and not “first attempt”, then the intention behind the usage of the said words, “first instance” assumes significance, when the performance of the students of all the colleges affiliated to the University is taken into consideration for awarding ranking. 14. It is well settled that while interpreting a provision or regulation in a statute, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, “first instance” should be given, unless it is shown in the legal context, in which the words are used, require a different meaning. It should also be borne in mind that while interpreting a provision, the entire statute or ‘regulation should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to other, so as to make both the provisions work together harmoniously. It should also be borne in mind that while interpreting a provision, the entire statute or ‘regulation should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to other, so as to make both the provisions work together harmoniously. Besides, the purpose for which the rule or regulation is enacted, should also be the part of interpretative process to see that the construction of the said regulation or rule achieves the purpose, for which, it is enacted. 15. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker AIR 1971 SC 815 : (1971) 1 SCC 442 , wherein the Apex Court, at paragraph 5 of the judgment, held as follows: “The legislature, which may generally be presumed to know the existing law, is not expected to intend to create confusion by its omission to express its intent to repeal in clear terms. The Courts, therefore, as a rule, lean against implying a repeal unless the two provisions are so plainly repugnant to each other that they cannot stand together and it is not possible on any reasonably hypothesis to give effect to both at the same time.” 16. Now, reverting back to Clauses 4 and 6 of the abovesaid Regulations, it could be seen that the University conducts two examinations, one at the end of the first year and another at the end of the second year. In the case on hand, the petitioner could not write her examinations in the first instance in April’ 1999 due to ill-health. There may be some other reasonable cause, which prevents a student from writing the examination in the first instance conducted for all. The petitioner may be right in contending that the supplemental examinations, which she had taken in October’ 1999, should be counted as the first attempt, because she did not even apply for a hall-ticket. But, whether it could be construed as first instance, immediately after the completion of one year course, is the question to be answered. 17. The petitioner may be right in contending that the supplemental examinations, which she had taken in October’ 1999, should be counted as the first attempt, because she did not even apply for a hall-ticket. But, whether it could be construed as first instance, immediately after the completion of one year course, is the question to be answered. 17. The contention of the University that if a candidate is absent in the first appearance of the respective month or year of the examination, then he/she is not competing with the regular batch of students in that month or year and when he/she writes the supplemental examination, it would be treated only as second appearance, cannot be accepted for the reason that insofar as his/her appearance is concerned, it should be treated only as first appearance or first attempt. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that when University ranking is awarded, there is a comparative and relative assessment of all the students, who study a particular course, for a specified period, in various colleges affiliated to the University and they have to appear in the examination, at the end of the first year of the course. 18. A candidate, who is unable to take up the examinations, as per the Schedule, for any reasonable cause, such as illness, sports events at higher level, cannot be distinguished from the one, who deliberately skips the University examination and takes a longer time to prepare himself for appearing in the supplemental examination. In that context, there is some difference between those eligible candidates, who take up the examination in the first instance, as per the time schedule, and the candidates, who take a longer time to prepare themselves for the said examination or candidates, who are constrained to take up supplemental examination due to ill-health or break in study, due to any disciplinary action or some other cause. Therefore, when Clauses 4 and 6 of the said Regulations are harmoniously read, then it makes it clear that there is certainly a difference between those candidates, who take up the examination in the first instance, i.e., within the specified time as per the Schedule and others, who take up the examination, after a little longer time, but within the period of the course prescribed under the Regulations. 19. 19. Ranking awarded by the University is based on the performance of all the candidates in a particular course, as per the time schedule and if the contentions of the petitioner are to be accepted, then it would amount to treating unequals as equals. A candidate, who appears for the examination in the first instance, cannot be compared with those, who appear in the supplemental examination. For instance, even a candidate, who is not permitted to take up the examination for want of attendance or for any misconduct, can avail the benefit of the period between regular examination conducted for all the students and the supplemental examination. 20. Reading of Clauses 4 and 6 together makes it abundantly clear that for University ranking, the meritorious performance, among the candidates, who have taken up the examination at the end of the year, i.e., in the first instance alone can be taken into consideration and not among the candidates in the first attempt. If the interpretation of the writ petitioner has to be accepted, then the candidates, who failed to take up the examination in the first instance, on account of misconduct, lack of attendance, but availed the second opportunity, i.e., supplemental examination, have to be treated as equals. There may be even cases in many colleges, where the student may prefer to take up the examinations at the end of the course, taking his own time for preparation or due to some other reason. Therefore, the assessment of inter-se merit between that class of candidates with others, who take up the examination, as per the Schedule, i.e., in the month and year of the examination, i.e., in the first instance cannot be made at the same time. Thus, they form two different classes and therefore, they cannot be treated on par with each other. 21. From the above said Regulations, it could be inferred that the bench mark for comparative assessment on merits of the students, is marks secured in the first instance for the purpose of awarding university ranking and not first attempt. Thus, they form two different classes and therefore, they cannot be treated on par with each other. 21. From the above said Regulations, it could be inferred that the bench mark for comparative assessment on merits of the students, is marks secured in the first instance for the purpose of awarding university ranking and not first attempt. As stated supra, for a student, who could not write the exams in the first instance and writes the supplementary examination, it may be his first attempt and he may also pass within the year in the first ranking among the students of that batch of students and he may be even considered for awarding first rank of that batch in the concerned College, in which, he/she studied, because the inter se merit is only among the students in the respective college. But, the same yardstick cannot be applied for University ranking, when many candidates appear in the examination from various colleges affiliated to the University, as per the Regulation. 22. In Abhijit v. Dean, Govt. Medical College, Aurangabad (supra), the appellant therein, who secured the first rank in order of merit in the IIIrd M.B.B.S. Examination of the Marathwada University in May, 1985 and also stood first in Surgery and ENT/Ophthalmology, sought admission to M.S. Degree course commencing in July, 1986. Though the selection to the said course was made on the basis of merit, the appellant therein was not selected as a deduction of five per cent was made from the marks obtained by him on the ground that he had passed the subject in his second attempt. The basis for holding that the appellant had passed in the second attempt was that in the IIIrd M.B.B.S. final term, the appellant therein suffered from infectious hepatitis and was, therefore, unable to attend classes and clinics. He applied to the Dean to cancel third M.B.B.S. final term and to permit him to attend classes and clinics regularly with the next batch. This was done and he passed the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination, by securing the first rank. In the reported case, the appellant was seriously ill and was hospitalised and that he was unable to attend classes and clinics. This was not disputed and he did not even submit his application Form for the IIIrd year M.B.B.S. examination in 1984. This was done and he passed the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination, by securing the first rank. In the reported case, the appellant was seriously ill and was hospitalised and that he was unable to attend classes and clinics. This was not disputed and he did not even submit his application Form for the IIIrd year M.B.B.S. examination in 1984. However, five per cent marks was deducted on the ground that he passed the IIIrd M.B.B.S. examination in the second attempt. The Supreme Court, after observing that the rules relating to appointment to Residencies could not be made to regulate admission to the M.S. Degree course, at paragraph 3, held as follows: “ We may at once say that the appellant was not ‘due’ to appear at the examination as he had not put in the necessary attendance of the classes and clinics and had not even submitted his application form for the examination. We are also of the view that if the rule has the effect of treating failure to appear at the examination because of serious illness as nonappearance at the examination so as to make the candidate liable to a deduction of five per cent of marks when seeking admission to a Post-Graduate course the rule is indeed arbitrary.” 23. The Rule applied in the reported case, is extracted hereunder: “For the purpose of the reductions, non appearance at any examination when due, is deemed as an attempt at the said examination.” 24. The above said rule defines the word “attempt” and not “instance” as employed in the Regulations of the University of Madras. The liberal meaning of the word, “instance” means “occasion” and therefore, the first occasion for the petitioner to take up the examination as per the Schedule is April’ 1999 along with other students in the said batch. The judgement relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is inapposite to the facts of this case. 25. Inview of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the regulation impugned satisfies the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.