JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to award minimum 1% grace marks out of the aggregate 1000 marks in each of the III and VII Semesters in the paper of "Mathematics III-(3EE6)" of III Semester Back Examination, 2011 and paper of "Power System Analysis (7EE2)" of VII Semester Examination, 2011. Further, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the revised and correct mark-sheets of III and VII Semester be issued to him. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to issue final/provisional degree of Bachelor of Technology to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is a student of Bachelor of Technology (B. Tech.) in Electrical Engineering Branch in Arya College of Engineering and Information Technology. Kukus, Jaipur. He had appeared in III Semester Examination, 2009, having Roll No. 07EAREE016, and had secured 24 marks out of total 80 marks in the University Examination, while he had secured 10 marks out of 20 marks in Term Test/Sessional. Thus, the petitioner secured total 34 marks out of 100 in paper "3EE6 Mathematics III" and was declared failed. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in Back Examination in the year 2010 and he was awarded 10 marks out of 80 marks in University Examination, while 17 marks out of 20 marks in Term Test/Sessional, bringing him to a total of 27 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner had again appeared in the said papers in Back Examination, 2011 and was awarded 18 marks out of 80 marks in the University Examination. He secured 19 marks out of 20 marks in Term Test/Sessions. Therefore, he had secured total 37 marks (Annexure-1).The petitioner had appeared in VII Semester Examination, 2011 and in paper "7EE2 - Power System Analysis", he was awarded 18 marks out of 80 marks in University Examination and 15 marks out of 20 marks in Term Test/Sessional and this brought him to a total of 33 marks out of 100 marks, after revaluation. The respondents had declared the petitioner failed.The petitioner had appeared in VIII Semester Examination, 2011 and in that he was declared passed as he secured 70.5% marks (Annexure-3). The respondents had declared the petitioner failed.The petitioner had appeared in VIII Semester Examination, 2011 and in that he was declared passed as he secured 70.5% marks (Annexure-3). In the Theory Paper (8EE2- Electric Drivers & Their Control), the petitioner secured 38 marks out of 100 marks and he had been declared passed by grace i.e. by giving 2 grace marks because the minimum passing marks was 40 marks out of 100 marks. 4. The petitioner had then brought to the notice of the respondent University about the judgment passed by the High Court, both in Single Bench as well as Division Bench, as delivered in the case of Gaurav Agarwal (SBCWP No. 9595/2008, 3027/2009 & 3625/2011 and DB Civil Special Appeal No. 1080/2011) and Sunil Khanchandani (SBCWP No. 14222/2011 & DB Civil Special Appeal No. 2482/2011). But the respondents did not take into consideration the said judgments and did not proceeded in accordance to them. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a notice for demand of justice to the respondent University on 04.01.2012 through registered A.D. Post as well as by e-Mail and Fax, wherein the petitioner had raised grievance with regard to award of grace marks in II, III and VII Semesters. Though the notice was duly served but the respondents did not respond for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner.The petitioner had then filed a writ petition (SBCWP No. 629/2012) before the High Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17.01.2012 whereby the petitioner was directed to resubmit the notice for demand of justice alongwith the copy of the order of the High Court to the respondent University. The Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University was directed to address to the said notice for demand of justice dated 04.01.2012 and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the enunciation of law by the High Court in the cases of Gaurav Agarwal and Sunil Khanchandani. It was in the said judgments that the High Court had interpreted the rules with regard to award of grace marks in the Faculties of Engineering & Technology, Rajasthan Technical University (Annexure-6). 5. In the meantime, the petitioner had cleared and passed the Theory Paper of Engineering Mechanics - Code 204 of II Semester by reappearing in the said examination. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner remained only in respect of III and VII Semesters. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner had cleared and passed the Theory Paper of Engineering Mechanics - Code 204 of II Semester by reappearing in the said examination. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner remained only in respect of III and VII Semesters. In compliance of the order passed by the High Court on 17.01.2012, the petitioner resubmitted the copy of the notice for demand of justice dated 04.01.2012 alongwith the certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2012 to respondent No. 2 on 27.01.2012 and had also obtained a receipt on the office copy of the same (Annexure-7). The petitioner had also submitted the copy of the notice dated 04.01.2012 alongwith the copy of the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the High Court to the Registrar of the University on 27.01.2012 (Annexure-8). But the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed, so much so, that he had not even received any response to the request so made on 27.01.2012, in compliance of the order of the High Court dated 17.01.2012.Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representation on 07.02.2012 to Shri Ram Kishore Saini, Hon'ble the State Minister for Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Alongwith the said representation, the petitioner had also submitted a copy of the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the High Court; notice for demand of justice dated 04.01.2012; copy of the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14222/2011; copy of the judgment passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 2482/2011; Rules for the Award of Grace Marks of Rajasthan Technical University, Kota and the application given to the Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota (Annexure-9). Similar representation, with aforesaid documents, was also given to the Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Annexure-10). 6. The University did not respond to the representations given by the petitioner but the State Government, vide letter dated 02.04.2012, had sent a copy of the letter dated 22.03.2012 written by the respondent University to the Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan (Annexure-11 & 12). 6. The University did not respond to the representations given by the petitioner but the State Government, vide letter dated 02.04.2012, had sent a copy of the letter dated 22.03.2012 written by the respondent University to the Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan (Annexure-11 & 12). Though in the letter dated 22.03.2012, the surname of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 'Gupta' in place of 'Gulati' but a perusal of the same goes to show that so far as VII Semester is concerned, it has been mentioned in the letter that as per University Grace Marks Rules, he is entitled to be awarded 10 grace marks i.e. 1% of total 1000 marks and the case of the petitioner is covered by the order of the High Court and he can be declared pass in B. Tech VII Semester Examination. But despite of the said observations made in the aforesaid letter, the revised mark-sheet of pass in VII Semester Examination has not been issued to the petitioner till date. 7. It is stated by the petitioner that looking to his final result in VIII Semester, the multi-national companies, such as WIPRO, INFOSYS, BAL KRISHAN TYRES, etc. were ready to offer placement to the petitioner, but on account of non-availability of pass mark-sheets of II, III and VII Semesters, his career has been jeopardized. The adamant attitude of the respondents, contrary to the rules, is not only coming in the way of the career of the petitioner but has seriously effected him, resulting in depression and he is not able to go for further studies of post graduation. 8. Being aggrieved of not awarding the grace marks in III and VII Semesters and the final mark-sheet of all the semesters having not been issued, no option was left to the petitioner but to file the present writ petition before the High Court. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly to the reference made in Para 11 of the writ petition, that the High Court had issued notices to the respondents and had additionally got the notice served upon the counsel for the respondent Rajasthan Technical University, Kota to seek instructions and to inform it. The Rajasthan Technical University had then filed a reply but the same is not a parawise reply to the writ petition. The Rajasthan Technical University had then filed a reply but the same is not a parawise reply to the writ petition. When the matter was listed before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.05.2012, after hearing both the sides, it has observed as under:-- "There can be no quarrel with the submissions of Mr. Prahlad Singh. However, Mr. Bhargav only wants one month's time till 16.07.2012 such that in the event the Hon'ble Supreme Court were to pass interim order, there would be no necessity of re-agitating this matter again before a Division Bench or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in accordance thereof. The submissions of Mr. Bhargava are basically focused on obviating the need of multiple litigation and he fairly submits that in the event, the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not pass any interim order on 16.07.2012, the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for." 10. When the matter was listed before this Court on 23.07.2012, the learned counsel for the respondent University had submitted that as the petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and notices have been issued, the petitioner cannot get the advantage of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Division Bench of this Court. In that regard, he had prayed for time to study the matter and place some case law on the point before the Court. On the next date, though the learned counsel for the respondents had, on the earlier date, sought time to place some case law on the point, it was insisted on behalf of respondent to contest the matter and to advance arguments. Learned counsel for the respondents presented the case of the respondents in the light that the petitioner is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for. It was in these circumstances that this Court had heard the counsels of the respective parties on merits. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had made submissions by reiterating the averments made by the petitioner in his writ petition. He has submitted that respondent University had failed to interpret the rules for award of grace marks under Graduate/Post Graduate (Main/Back Examinations) under the Faculties of Technology. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner had made submissions by reiterating the averments made by the petitioner in his writ petition. He has submitted that respondent University had failed to interpret the rules for award of grace marks under Graduate/Post Graduate (Main/Back Examinations) under the Faculties of Technology. Further, he has submitted that according to the rules, 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, dissertations, viva-voce and the aggregate, as the case may be, in which minimum pass marks have been prescribed. He has also invited attention of this Court to the relevant rules which has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a candidate passes in a paper/practical or the aggregate by the award of grace marks will be deemed to have obtained the necessary minimum for a pass in that paper/practical or in the aggregate and shown in the marks sheet to have passed by grace and the grace marks will not be added to the marks obtained by a candidate from the examiners, nor will the marks obtained by the candidate be subject to any deduction due to award of grace marks in any other paper/practical or aggregate.Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid rules for award of grace marks, the petitioner is entitled 3 grace marks in III Semester and 7 grace marks in VII Semester. He has also submitted that according to the Rules, the petitioner is entitled for grace marks, as mentioned above, in all the two semesters, because every semester is of 1000 marks and the rule makes the petitioner entitled for award of 1% grace marks prescribed for an examination. But the petitioner has not been awarded grace marks in accordance with the rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the judgments of the High Court, including that of Single Bench as well as the Division Bench in the cases of Gaurav Agarwal and Sunil Khanchandani were also brought to the notice to the respondents but they did not pay any heed to the request so made, on the basis of the said judgments. Thereafter, no response had been given by the respondents to the notice for demand of justice sent by the petitioner through his counsel. 12. In these circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition (SBCWP No. 629/2012) and the same came to be decided by the High Court on 17.01.2012 with the direction to the petitioner to resubmit the notice for demand of justice dated 04.01.2012 alongwith the said order of the High Court to the respondents, including the Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University with the direction to him to address the said notice and decide the same with a reasoned and speaking order. Though in compliance of the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the High Court, the notice for demand of justice was submitted alongwith the copies of the order of the High Court but the petitioner did not receive any response and the representation submitted by the petitioner to Hon'ble the State Minister for Technical Education, Government of Rajasthan. The State Government, vide letter dated 02.04.2012 had sent the copy of the letter dated 22.03.2012 written by respondent University to the Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan. It was the said letter of the respondent University itself wherein it was mentioned that the case of the petitioner is covered by the order of the Hon'ble High Court and he can be declared pass in B. Tech VII Semester Examination but even then the revised mark-sheet of said semester had not been issued to the petitioner till date.Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had to approach this Court, for the second time, and the inaction on the part of the respondents is wholly illegal, contrary to the rules of the respondent University with regard to awarding grace marks and the issue of interpretation of the rules for award of grace marks in the Faculties of Engineering & Technology, Rajasthan Technical University as laid down in the judgments of the High Court enunciated by the learned Single Bench as well as the Division Bench. 13. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition as well as the relief sought in the same by the petitioner. 13. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition as well as the relief sought in the same by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents had referred to the relevant rules (Annexure-4) and had submitted that according to said rules, the petitioner is not entitled for grace marks more than 2 (two). Further, he has submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the relevant rules of the Rajasthan Technical University for award of grace marks and therefore, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought by him. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the grace marks which has been sought to be awarded, that is to say 10 marks, is contrary to the University Rules for awarding of grace marks. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner cannot be granted two grace marks in three semesters by which the petitioner would still not pass the said semesters. In such view of the matter, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 14. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the counsels for the respective parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant rules as well as the interpretation of the same made by the Courts. The relevant rules of the respondent University for awarding of grace marks reads as under:-- "RULES FOR THE AWARD OF GRACE MARKS" UNDER GRADUATE/POST GRADUATE (MAIN/BACK EXAMINATIONS UNDER THE FACULTIES OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY. 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. Note:- if 1% of the aggregate marks or 25% of the papers works out in fraction, the same will be raised to the next whole number. 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. Note:- if 1% of the aggregate marks or 25% of the papers works out in fraction, the same will be raised to the next whole number. For example, if the aggregate marks prescribed for the examination are 450, grace marks to the extent of 5 will be awarded to the candidate, similarly, if 25% of the total papers is 3.2, the same will be raised to 4 papers which grace marks can be given. General:- 1. A candidate passes in a paper/practical or the aggregate by the award of grace marks will be deemed to have obtained the necessary minimum for a pass in that paper/practical 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 candidate be subject to any deduction due to award of grace marks in any other paper/practical or aggregate. 15. The question of interpretation of the said rule had, for the first time, come up before the High Court in the case of Gaurav Agarwal v. Rajasthan Technical University, Kota , SBCWP No. 9595 of 2008 wherein it was observed by the High Court in its judgment dated 04.11.2008 as under: "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 the 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 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 & Electronic Engineering and thereafter to act according to rules in the matter of declaring result of the petitioner. 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 & Electronic 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." 16. However, after passing of the said judgment, the respondent University had conveyed to the petitioner Gaurav Agarwal, vide order dated 21/24.11.2008 or after considering the award 10 grace marks to him that he could not yet be declared pass because he needed 15 marks to be declared pass in paper No. 105. it was also conveyed that as per B.Tech. 1st Semester, minimum required marks in Theory Paper as 24 and the petitioner secured 19 marks, which is less than 5 numbers. The minimum pass marks required are 40 but he has been awarded total 30 marks in paper No. 105, thus he has shortfall of 10 marks.The order dated 21/24.11.2008 came to be challenged by the petitioner Gaurav Agarwal in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3027/2009. After having considered the facts and the relevant provisions in details, the writ petition came to be decided by a learned Single Bench of this Court on 22.04.2009, 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 526, after making the following observations:-- "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. 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/practical 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 candidate be subject to any deduction due to award of grace marks in any other paper/practical 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 marks 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 rule although gives an outer limit for award of the marks to the extent of 1% of the aggregate which limit is 10 marks 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 has 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 to 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." Consequently, the said writ petition was allowed and after quashing of the impugned order therein, the High Court had directed the respondents to issue revised mark sheet to the petitioner forthwith and it was ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits. 17. It seems that Gaurav Agarwal had again been denied the benefit of 10 grace marks in VI Semester Examination of B.Tech Course. 17. It seems that Gaurav Agarwal had again been denied the benefit of 10 grace marks in VI Semester Examination of B.Tech Course. Therefore, he had to approach the High Court, for the third time, by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3625/2011 which came to be allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench this Court on 25.04.2011 holding that the same was governed by the judgment of Gaurav Agarwal v. Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 526 and the petitioner would be entitled to grace marks for VI Semester Examination.The said judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 25.04.2011 was challenged by the respondent University before a Division Bench of this Court (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1080/2011). The learned Division Bench, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the relevant rules, came to the conclusion that, "A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions does not rule out award of the grace marks by adding marks awarded in the practical as well as theory marks. In order to give effect to the provisions to make it purposeful, we agree with the interpretation made by the Single Bench in decision of Gaurav Agarwal (supra) in which the question has been considered." Accordingly the learned Division Bench had ordered that the correct mark-sheet be issued as early as possible within three days and the contempt proceeding in CCP No. 576/2011 shall remain stayed for a period of seven days. 18. In case of another student, namely Sunil Khanchandani v. Rajasthan Technical University & Anr., SBCWP No. 14222/2011, decided on 18.11.2011 , the issue with regard to interpretation of the rules of Rajasthan Technical University for awarding of grace marks for under graduate and post-graduate (main/back Examination) under the Faculties of Engineering & Technology had come up for consideration. Another Single Bench of this Court had thoroughly considered the facts as well as the rules and the contention raised by the counsels for the rival parties, it is pertinent to note that in the said judgment, it was observed that, "Mr. Another Single Bench of this Court had thoroughly considered the facts as well as the rules and the contention raised by the counsels for the rival parties, it is pertinent to note that in the said judgment, it was observed that, "Mr. A.K. Bhargava appearing on behalf of the Technical University did not dispute that the interpretation of the Rules for award of grace marks has received a construction by the Division Bench and the petitioner would under the said judgment be entitled to be declared pass in the subject of Statistics & Probability Theory in IV Semester Examination, 2009." However, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent University before the learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Khanchandani (supra) that the order of the Division Bench is founded upon a mis-construction of the Rules for award of grace marks and is thus per incuriam.A bare perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Khanchandani (supra) goes to show that all the arguments which are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the respondent University before this Court, in the present case, had all been taken therein. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Khanchandani (supra) had observed that, "Whatever the arguments of Mr. Bhargava may be, I am not inclined to entertain the submissions emphatically made by Mr. Bhargava in view of the fact that the matter admittedly is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench, referred above. Sitting single, in terms of judicial discipline, I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench." Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue a revised and correct mark-sheet of B.Tech. IV Semester to the petitioner by awarding 1% grace marks out of aggregate 1000 marks in the SPT-Subject (Statistics & Probability Theory-Subject Code 4CS5) and computing the aggregate marks of the petitioner in paper Statistics & Probability Theory not with reference to the actual marks obtained by the petitioner in theory but on the basis of the Rules for the award of grace marks for determination of the question of the petitioner passing the paper in Statistics & Probability theory in the aggregate. The petitioner therein was also held entitled to all consequential relief. 19. The petitioner therein was also held entitled to all consequential relief. 19. The said judgment of Sunil Khanchandani (supra) was also challenged by the respondent University before the learned Division Bench, by filing a special appeal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 2482/2011). The learned Division Bench of this Court had, on 16.12.2011, observed that, "The matter is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1080/2011, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota & Anr. v. Shri Gaurav Agarwal, decided on 29.07.2011 . For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid decision, the intra Court appeal is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed." 20. In view of the aforesaid rules of the Rajasthan Technical University with regard to award of grace marks as well as the interpretation of the same done on a number of occasions by the learned Single Bench which had been affirmed by the learned Division Bench, there is no room of doubt that the rules of the respondent University prescribed for a candidate failing in not 25% in theory paper, technical, sessionals, 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 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, only such theory papers, practicals, dissertation, viva-voce, etc. would be considered. 21. Last but not the least, it is important to note that in the letter dated 22.03.2012 written by the respondent University to Shri Hari Singh, Deputy Secretary, Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, it has been mentioned that "As per University grace rule, he is entitled to award 10 grace marks i.e. 1% of the total 1000 marks. In this case, candidate's case is covered under order of Hon'ble High Court and can be declared pass in B.Tech VII Semester Exam." But even then, the revised mark-sheet of VII Semester Examination had not been issued to the petitioner till date. It is also noteworthy that the aforesaid letter was issued by none else but the Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. On the contrary, the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent University by the Officer-Incharge Mr. It is also noteworthy that the aforesaid letter was issued by none else but the Controller of Examination, Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. On the contrary, the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent University by the Officer-Incharge Mr. K.C. Gautam, Deputy Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, reveals that the same is not parawise to the writ petition and the respondent University has contested the claim of the petitioner with regard to VII Semester also and stated that even by marks awarded as per the referred case, he cannot be declared pass.The facts and circumstances of the case clearly shows that the respondent University had been adamant all thorough out and had neither taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the rules or the interpretation of the same made in the number of judgments passed by the High Court, including the one given by the Division Bench. The respondent University has not even issued the mark-sheet to the petitioner with regard to VII Semester Examination which according to the Controller of Examination of the University itself, he was very much entitled and the petitioner is entitled to be awarded 10 grace marks i.e. 1% of total 1000 marks. 22. Adamant attitude of the respondent University is not only further reflected but has gone beyond all limits when before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.05.2012, the learned counsel appearing on its behalf had made a categorical statement that in the event, the Hon'ble Supreme Court were not to pass an interim order on 16.07.2012, the writ petition may be allowed as prayed for. But thereafter when the matter came up before this Court, the stand of the University was converse despite of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, till date, not passed and interim stay order. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner is entitled to award of grace marks as per the rules for award of grace marks prevalent in the Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner is entitled to award of grace marks as per the rules for award of grace marks prevalent in the Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. He is also entitled for 1% grace marks out of 1000 marks in each of III and VII Semesters in paper 3EE6-Mathematics III and paper 7EE2-Power System Analysis.However, this Court cannot overlook the fact that despite of the letter issued by the Controller of Examination on 22.03.2012 holding that the petitioner is entitled to be declared pass in B.Tech. VII Semester Examination, the reply filed by Deputy Registrar (Examination) goes contrary to it and when the learned counsel for the respondent University had made a fair statement before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.05.2012 to allow the writ petition as prayed for in case an interim order is not passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.07.2012, now the respondent University through its Officer-incharge has contested the writ petition before this Court on merits. Moreover, it is well-known to the respondent University and the Officer-incharge that the issue involved herein stands settled by the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court, which this Single Bench is bound to follow. The Court has been asked to give a judgment on merits whereas it was not required. In these circumstances, it is deemed appropriate by this Court to award cost in favour of the petitioner who has been made to wait for such long time and the intervening period has resulted in loss of good opportunity, as referred above, for his career. 24. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The cost shall be recovered from the Officer-incharge i.e. Mr. K.C. Gautam, Deputy Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, who shall pay the said amount to the petitioner within fifteenth day from today and deposit the receipt in the High Court. Thereafter, the office shall report to this Court.The respondent Rajasthan Technical University is directed to redeclare the result of the petitioner and issue the correct mark-sheets of III and VII Semester of B.Tech., within fifteenth day from today. It shall be the responsibility of the Officer-Incharge, present in Court, to get the needful done in this regard. Thereafter, the office shall report to this Court.The respondent Rajasthan Technical University is directed to redeclare the result of the petitioner and issue the correct mark-sheets of III and VII Semester of B.Tech., within fifteenth day from today. It shall be the responsibility of the Officer-Incharge, present in Court, to get the needful done in this regard. A copy of this order be sent to the Vice-Chancellor of the Rajasthan Technical University, Kota.As the writ petition itself has been decided, the stay application also stands disposed of.Writ Petition Allowed with Costs of Rs. 2,000/-. *******