JUDGMENT S. G. SHAH, J. 1. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Hitesh N.Dave for the appellant and learned Counsel Ms. Tejal Vashi, for respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3. 2. By way of present Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order and judgment dated 4th March 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing her Special Civil Application No. 2465 of 2013. In the writ petition, appellant had prayed for writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order, or directions to the respondent Gujarat University to declare her entitled and eligible to receive the medal/award, price/trophy in subjects of 'Drafting Pleading and Conveyance, as well as 'Moot Court Exercise & Int.,' which was offered in the name of Advocate Shri C.K.Shah and Kunjbihari N. Patel for the 3rd year LL.B. examination conducted in April 2012: 3. Learned Single Judge has rejected the application without issuing notices i.e. without calling upon other side, but by reasoned order, holding that the Rule in question provides that as a result of re-assessment any change in Mark sheet would not entitle the examinee/student to secure any medal, award or re-ward due to change in the mark sheet. It is further held by the learned Single Judge that as the appellant was permitted an extra and additional condition of having her answers re-assessed and to that extent she can not be said to be similarly situated person qua examinee/student who is not having the benefit of said props. The extra benefit rather can not be permitted to act as instrument to hold or deprive the party acquiring right. So far as Ruling of this Court 21 cited by the appellant, as listed in paragraph No.6 of the impugned order are concerned, the Learned Single judge has observed that the Authority cited at bar are not applicable as facts are entirely different. 4. While issuing notices in the present Letters Patent Appeal on 5th March 2013, we have observed in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 as under :- "2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that she was entitled for awarding Gold Medal in subject of drafting as she has received 97 Marks which is highest in the drafting subject. 4. While issuing notices in the present Letters Patent Appeal on 5th March 2013, we have observed in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 as under :- "2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that she was entitled for awarding Gold Medal in subject of drafting as she has received 97 Marks which is highest in the drafting subject. It has also been urged by the Counsel for the, appellant that even if in another subject re-assessment has been made, it will not deprive the appellant from receiving Gold Medal in drafting subject, as there is no re-assessment in drafting subject. 3. The University has rejected the claim of the appellant only in view of paragraph No. 140 of Ordinance. We have perused para 140 of the Ordinance. We do not find that there is any bar that the student will not be awarded Gold Medal in a particular subject if he or she applies for the re-assesment of marks in some other subject. Prima-facie in our opinion, the appellant appears to be entitled for award of Gold Medal in drafting subject, therefore, the appellant is entitled for interim order." 5. By an order dated 13th March 2013 the respondents were directed to bring on record the donors wish for awarding Medals and the Rules which prohibit award of Medals to the students, who have secured highest marks in the subject, when such student has claimed any re-assessment in other subjects or has been awarded grace marks in the subjects other than subject for which he is claiming Medal. The respondents were also directed to produce entire records of decision taken by the University with regard to award of Medals. 6. On factual aspects, the appellant's case can be summarized as under :- 6.1 Appellant has appeared in 3rd year law examination conducted by the respondents in the month of April 2012. On 27th June 2012 appellant was declared successful in the examination as she has obtained 601 marks out of total 900 marks. However, 9 marks were given as grace marks in the subject of 'Legal Language including General English', wherein she has secured only 24 marks out of 100 and thereby to declare her pass in the subject with 33 marks; as aforesaid 9 marks were awarded as grace marks. However, 9 marks were given as grace marks in the subject of 'Legal Language including General English', wherein she has secured only 24 marks out of 100 and thereby to declare her pass in the subject with 33 marks; as aforesaid 9 marks were awarded as grace marks. It was made clear in the mark sheet itself that such grace marks will not be considered for aggregate total or for the class. But, surprisingly if we peruse and examine the mark sheet of the appellant which is bearing serial No. 2011-0337294 & Seat No. 523, produced at page 14 as Annexure A in the paper book of Special Civil Application, though the grand total of all the subjects came to 625 without grace marks and 634 with grace marks, the grand total disclosed in the mark sheet is only 601 i.e. without considering the marks of Legal Language including General English. On careful perusal it has become clear that though there is a list of 10 subjects, 5 is for Monsoon Semester and 5 subjects for Winter Semester. Total marks for Monsoon Semester are stated as 500 with passing marks as 250 and total marks for Winter Semester is stated as 400 with 200 as passing marks and thereby grand total is stated as 900 with 450 as passing marks. It is certain that against such criteria the appellant has obtained 601 marks out of 900 marks though she has appeared in 10 subjects with 100 marks each i.e. though she has appeared in examination having maximum marks being 1000, the mark sheet shows that grand total only from 900, and thereby one subject namely "Legal Language Including General English" is kept out from consideration of the total marks and the entire dispute is only with such subject which is outside the scope for considering the final result for class etc. 6.2. It is not disputed that the appellant has applied for re-assessment and after her re-assessment respondents have issued another mark sheet bearing serial No. 2012-0169557 with same Seat No. 523 for the LL.B. 3rd year examination, held in the month of April 2012, copy of which is produced at page 15 - Annexure B with the Special Civil Application. 6.2. It is not disputed that the appellant has applied for re-assessment and after her re-assessment respondents have issued another mark sheet bearing serial No. 2012-0169557 with same Seat No. 523 for the LL.B. 3rd year examination, held in the month of April 2012, copy of which is produced at page 15 - Annexure B with the Special Civil Application. If we peruse such final mark sheet, it is evident that after re-assessment the appellant was declared clearly pass even in the above subject of "Legal Language including General English" but showing the grand total again as 601 only. 6.3 Though both sides have argued at length on all other aspects, particularly when such facts have been asked to clarify to the respondents that though as per Rule and as per resolution dated 18.08.2012 by the Executive Council of the respondent University the effect of marks confirmed after re-assessment is to be given in the mark sheet, why total number of marks obtained by the appellant has not been changed from 601 to 617 when 16 marks have been added after re-assessment in the paper of Legal Language including General English, it has been disclosed and updated by the respondents that the marks of 'Legal Language including General English' are not to be counted for total, result and for class and, therefore, though the appellant's result in 'Legal Language including General English' examination has been changed from 24(+)9 marks to 40 marks, there would be no change either in the total or in the result or in the class being 'FIRST' obtained by the appellant and as disclosed in the result column of the mark sheet, except making change that in the first mark sheet the result was declared as "FIRST 0140" where as in the final mark sheet it is disclosed as "FIRST". Therefore, it is certain and clear that the appellant has cleared the 3rd year LL.B. Examination in first attempt with First Class. Therefore, it is certain and clear that the appellant has cleared the 3rd year LL.B. Examination in first attempt with First Class. 6.4 With this reference the appellant's case is such that in addition to having cleared the examination with First class in first attempt she has secured highest marks in the University in the subject of 'Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance' which is 97 out of 100 and also in the 'Moot Court Exercise and Int.' being 96 out of 100 and therefore she being highest scorer of marks in these two subjects, she is entitled to appropriate medal/award. prize/scholarship etc. as declared by the University. 6.5 However, it is contended by the appellant in both the Special Civil Applications and in the present Letters patent Appeal that the respondent University has decided not to award her Medal in two subjects relying upon Ordinance No.140 of the University Hand Book, stating that she is not entitled to Medal/Prize due to_ rule relating to re-assessment. Such fact was 40 communicated to the appellant by letter dated 26th February 2013 of the respondents. 7. Though the issue on hand is now clear that when marks and result of question paper in subject namely "Legal Language including General English" is not to be taken into consideration either for the result or for the grand total, because though appellant has practically failed in such subjects and since she cleared all other subjects, respondents have granted as many as 9 marks as grace marks to her as per Annexure A. Even with such grace marks, her result was declared as she has cleared the examination in First class and neither the original marks being 24 nor even the grace marks being 9 were counted in the total. The confirmation that marks of 'Legal Language including General English' is not to be counted either for the result or for the class or in the total is not only fairly confirmed by the learned Advocate for the respondents but it has been confirmed on record by Annexure-B also, wherein though respondent has revised the result of the appellant in the said subject by awarding 40 marks against original 24 marks, such 40 marks are not counted for the result or class or total. It is also clear that in fact though examination was given for 10 subjects i.e. for total 1000 marks, for the class and total as well as for the result of the students, for grand total 900 i.e. of 9 subject only is taken into consideration and interestingly the marks of 'Legal Language including General English' is kept outside the scope and purview of the total marks and class. Thereby, only thing which is to be considered for such subject is that the student must clear this examination for final result and such subject was so unimportant and insignificant that even highest marks like 9 marks were awarded to the appellant as grace marks in first mark sheet. However, it can not be ignored that the appellant has in fact secured passing mark in this subject also because after re-assessment of such paper respondent itself on its own revised the marks from 24 to 40 and issued a fresh mark sheet to that effect, which is at Annexure B. It is clear that there was no role of the appellant in such assessment, wherein practically during first reassessment the concerned examiner has awarded 43 marks to the appellant and on second re-assessment by the respondent University on its own, 40 marks were awarded to the appellant. It goes without saying that there is no role to play by the student at all in such reassessment and if any marks are being revised in such re-assessment it is purely and only because of the error on the part of the respondent and its administration and more particularly examiner who was assigned with such pious duty to examine the marks of the students whose career and life are depended upon such results. Therefore, if any student has got better result after re-assessment, it is purely because of the mistake and error, may be on the part of the respondents and its administration including process of examination of mark sheet, for which the students should not be held either responsible or they can not be denied of any right which has otherwise accrued" in favour of such students. In other words it can be stated that if there was no mistake or error, even if they are genuine, the result of the students which is declared after such re-assessment is the correct and final result and therefore practically such result will prevail for all purpose and to that extent any Rule, practice or decision by the respondents which otherwise effect denying the rights of the students on any count would be termed as arbitrary and perverse and to that effect illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It cannot be ignored that the Rule confirms that the result after re-assessment shall be final even it is against the student and shall be binding to the student. 8. Though discussion till this juncture made the case clear to allow the Appeal and thereby Special Civil Application so as to set aside the decision of the respondent University in denying Medals to the appellant and thereby declaring the appellant/petitioner as entitled candidate for the Medal in question, since both the Advocates have argued their case on different aspects, we think it proper to deal with all such aspects so as to avoid difficulty in such o cases in future both to the successful students and to the respondent University to make their house in order. 9. It is the case of the appellant that though the University has rejected her rights for Medal on the ground that she is not entitled due to re-assessment of marks, but re-assessment of marks was not in the same subject for which o appellant is entitled, and claiming for Medal. Grace Marks awarded by the respondents is totally in different subject and that grace marks will not alter the final result in any way and more particularly marks obtained in the subject of 'Legal Language including General English' will not be considered for class or total therefore same should not be a hurdle in granting award. It is also submitted that so far as Ordinance 140 of the University is concerned, it did not stipulate in any manner, whatsoever, that award or Medal is not to be issued in case of re-assessment even if it is in any other subject than subject for which student is eligible for Medal. It is also submitted that so far as Ordinance 140 of the University is concerned, it did not stipulate in any manner, whatsoever, that award or Medal is not to be issued in case of re-assessment even if it is in any other subject than subject for which student is eligible for Medal. It is further submitted that even considering the said Ordinance 140, respondents could not deny the right of the appellant for entitlement of Medal in question. It is further submitted that as per rules of the re-assessment when marks after re-assessment are to be corrected in final result, both for the class and for the total and effect of such re-assessment is to be given into final result, even if it is against the student, then practically the final result is the only result which is declared after re-assessment and practically first result before reassessment becomes null and void. Once result after re-assessment is declared and thus it can not be said that mark sheet after re-assessment is a second attempt in clearing the same examination. The appellant has relied upon few judgments also which will be dealt with hereinafter. 10. As against above pleading and facts, it is the case of the respondents in their affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 that there arc two Medals which are declared by the donors for awarding to the students in Drafting of documents, pleadings and Professional Ethics-one in the name of Advocate Mr. Kunjbihari N Patel and second is in the name of Advocate Mr. C.K.Shah; which is to be given to the students who pass the written examination in First trial of April 2012 and obtain highest marks in said subjects. Copy of the conditions and donors wish for awarding both Medals is produced at Annexure Rl. It is admitted by the respondent that the appellant had appeared in the examination which was conducted in April 2012 and she cleared all subjects but considering the provision of Ordinance 140 of the Gujarat University i.e. because the appellant was awarded grace marks in the subject of Legal Language including General English, considering the fact that if such grace marks was not awarded she could have failed in the said examination, her case was not considered for awarding Medal in such subjects. However it is also contended in the affidavit in reply and thereby admitted that the appellant had obtained 601 marks out of 900 marks and thereby she has been declared o to have passed in 1st class. 11. If we consider the relevant rules referred by the respondents, it becomes clear that effect of re-assessment is to be given in the result irrespective of the out come of the re-assessment i.e. even if the marks are reduced after reassessment then also such effect is to be given in the final result and which shall be binding to the student. Therefore, for example, if in the present case when appellant student was awarded 24 marks during regular assessment and if after re-assessment she is awarded 20 marks then even after permissible grace marks she would have been declared fail in that particular subject. 12. However, so far as final result is concerned when marks of the subject in question being 'Legal Language including General English' is not to be counted for the result. The difference is clear that even after re-assessment if appellant has been awarded more than 60 or 70 marks in the said subject, such difference being increased in the marks is not to be counted for the final result and grand total being 601 will remain as it is. Therefore, practically the result and marks obtained in the said subject namely 'Legal Language including General English' has no baring at all so far as final result or total or class is concerned. Thereby even after considering the increased marks after re-assessment of answer sheet of the subject under reference, if grand total of the appellant reaches to the upper level and if by chance she becomes topper in the final list also then it can be said that said change has been arrived after re-assessment and therefore it should not be considered for awarding medal or scholarship etc. as per Ordinance 140 of the I-land Book of the University. 13. However, in the present case the re-assessment does not change the final result of the appellant. as per Ordinance 140 of the I-land Book of the University. 13. However, in the present case the re-assessment does not change the final result of the appellant. The fact remains I that the appellant has obtained highest J marks being 97 out of 100 in the subject 41 of 'Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance' as well as highest mark being 96 in the subject of 'Moot Court Exercise & Int.' and such subjects and marks are not subject matter of the re-assessment and that appellant is not claiming medal for the entire result but only for the particular subjects being 'Drafting Pleading and Conveyance as well as 'Moot Court Exercise & Int.' Therefore, appellant is entitled to medal under reference. 14. For such decision we have also relied upon the discloser by the Donor of the Medal which is produced on record. On perusal of such details it has been clear that donors have nowhere restricted the award of medal to such students like present appellant. What is stated in simple and clear words by the donors is to the effect that medals is to be awarded to the students who obtained highest marks in the subject of 'Drafting Pleading and Conveyance as well as 'Moot Court Exercise & Int.' in examination of 3rd year LLB. The condition by donor confirms that medal is to be awarded as per the conditions imposed upon by the Executive Council of the Gujarat University by time to time, but it does not permit such Council to restrict the award on particular ground. Interestingly there is misconception in the affidavit-in-reply that if the said grace marks would not have been given to the appellant, she would not have scored marks which is required for obtaining 1st class, and that this fact is also considered by the respondents by awarding the medal to some other students. As discussed herein above, the fact is other wise that is practically marks awarded to the appellant for 'Legal Language including General English' is not to be considered at all for making grand total either in the first mark sheet before re-assessment or even in the second mark sheet after reassessment. As discussed herein above, the fact is other wise that is practically marks awarded to the appellant for 'Legal Language including General English' is not to be considered at all for making grand total either in the first mark sheet before re-assessment or even in the second mark sheet after reassessment. Such fact is proved on record by comparing both the mark sheets which makes it clear that grand total 601 remains the same in both the mark sheets, because that total has been arrived by adding marks of 9 subjects only without considering the marks of the subject 'Legal Language including General English' It is also evident from both the mark sheets that for such reason practically total marks for considering the results is taken as 900 and class and grand total is considered only from the result of 9 subjects excluding the result of 'Legal Language including General English'. Therefore, when the marks of the particular subject are excluded from consideration of class and result then it is not permissible to the respondents to plead that in absence of re-assessment of marks in particular subject the appellant would not have secured the result which is declared as such. 15. It is also contended that the appellant has received marks in the subject after re-assessment. It is further contended that in view of the condition No.5 and 7 of the Advocate Kunjbihari N. Patel medal and C.K.Shah medal, the Executive Council of the respondents called for a meeting on 18th August 2012 wherein by resolution No. 28 it was unanimously resolved that students who have passed after re- 411 assessment is not entitled for any medal/prize, contending that such resolution was made pursuant to the Ordinance 140 (2). It is further contended that another student namely Jigisha Satyam Joshi has obtained 623 marks out of 900 marks as total and 154 marks out of 200 marks in the subjects for which medal in question is to be awarded and therefore she was selected for the medal, considering that candidate who has got benefit of Ordinance 140 shall not be awarded any Prize or scholarship. 16. We have gone through the pleadings and documents on record. In addition to the reasons- stated in the former part of this judgment, it becomes clear that practically Ordinance No.140 deals only with he grace marks and not with the result after re-assessment. 16. We have gone through the pleadings and documents on record. In addition to the reasons- stated in the former part of this judgment, it becomes clear that practically Ordinance No.140 deals only with he grace marks and not with the result after re-assessment. For the sake of convenience Order 140 of the University which is produced by the respondents at page 62 (Annexure-R7) is reproduced here under :- "Ordinance 140 - Where a candidate at the University examination other than the Entrance Examination fails in only one head of passing, his failure in the head of passing shall be condoned on the following basis :- 1. for each percent of mark in the grand total secured by the candidate above the minimum required for the passing in the examination in which he appeared, one mark shall be added in one head of passing in which the candidate has failed. Provide further that even after applying the above provision if the student is lacking by note more than one mark for passing the examination the same one additional mark be also condoned in addition to the condonation given in (1) above to pass the examination. 2. A candidate getting the benefit of condonation on this basis shall not be entitled to prize or Scholarsip. 3. The grace marks so added shall not be counted for the grant total. 4. The candidate passing the examination under this Ordinance is eligible for a class, provided his percentage prior to condonation entitled him 5. For the purpose of this Ordinance, any fraction up to two decimal points of a percent be considered as one. Note :- The benefit of this ordinance shall be given only to a candidate who appears at a time in all the papers and practices (if any) without availing himself of exemption, for any subject or subjects or a part thereof. The provision of above condonation can not made applicable to a candidate who gets zero marks in one head of pass even though his excess-is more than the minimum required for passing." 17. If we peruse such rule it becomes clear that such rule relates to grant of condonation of marks i.e. grace marks. The provision of above condonation can not made applicable to a candidate who gets zero marks in one head of pass even though his excess-is more than the minimum required for passing." 17. If we peruse such rule it becomes clear that such rule relates to grant of condonation of marks i.e. grace marks. If any candidate fails only in one head of subject he or she may be entitled to grace mark with a condition that he or she shall not be entitled to prize or scholarship and that grace marks shall not be counted for grant total. However it is also clear from sub Rule 4 that the candidate who has passed examination under this Ordinance is eligible for class provided his percentage prior to condonation entitles him. If candidate is eligible to class, than he is eligible to the prize/award/medal also. 18. Thus above rule makes it clear that though student is not entitled to prize or scholarship out of grace marks and such grace marks are not to be considered for grant total, the candidate is eligible for a class which is confirmed to him before such grace marks. In light of the such rule if we consider the facts of the present case, then it is certain that marks obtained in the subject in question are not to be counted at all either for the class or for the result and even after reassessment the total is not going to be changed for the purpose, it is certain that the appellant is not claiming medal because of any benefit, if at all received by her due to such grace marks or due to the result after re-assessment. Therefore, in our opinion, Ordinance No. 140 is not applicable in the present case. 19. So far as other point raised by the respondents is concerned, there is no specific rule so far as consideration of award or medal after re-assessment is concerned. Though we have specifically directed the respondents by order dated 13th March 2013 to file any such rule on record, respondents could not come forward with any specific Ordinance from the Gujarat University Hand book which provides conditions for awarding medal in the case of re-assessment. Though we have specifically directed the respondents by order dated 13th March 2013 to file any such rule on record, respondents could not come forward with any specific Ordinance from the Gujarat University Hand book which provides conditions for awarding medal in the case of re-assessment. Therefore, respondents is relying upon the conditions disclosed with the wish of the donors which is to the effect that Executive Council of the respondents may change the terms and conditions of award in medal from time to time. However, granting of such powers to the respondents could not be termed or treated as restriction for awarding medal to the appellant, more particularly in the facts and circumstances discussed herein above. Since there is no specific Ordinance with reference to consideration of awarding medal after re-assessment, respondent is relying upon the conditions stated in the application for re-assessment submitting that by such application appellant has abided herself to follow the rules stated in such application which confirms that if marks or result has been changed due to re-assessment, student would not be entitled to medal or scholarship or award due to such re-assessment. However, the same rule also confirms that the result after re-assessment is to be considered as final result and it shall be binding to the student. The relevant rules which is found only in the form of application for re-assessment and not in confirmation of any Ordinance of the University, may be recollected here; "Rule 8: The result after reassessment shall he the final result and it shall be binding to the students. Rule 10: If any marks or result is changed after re-assessment, the student would not be entitled to medal, scholarship or award based upon such corrected marks or result' after res assessment." Thus the simple reading of the above two rules makes it clear that student is not entitled to medal, scholarship or award based upon the marks or result corrected after re-assessment and final result would be the result after giving effect of the re-assessment marks. 20. 20. Even if such rules are taken into consideration, then also the fact remains clear that in the present case the appellant is not claiming medal based upon the marks obtained by her in re-assessment; for two reasons, first medal is claimed for the subjects namely 'Drafting Pleading and Conveyance as well as 'Moot Court Exercise & Int.' whereas re-assessment asked for in other subject i.e. 'Legal Language including General English' and 2nd most convincing issue is even after re-assessment the result of the appellant has remained same, not because of re-assessment but because of the reason that marks of the subject for which re-assessment was done was other wise not to be counted for class or total. Such fact is well explained in the previous part of this judgment and it is in fact admitted position and disclosed by the respondents in the mark sheet under reference whereby making # (hash) against such subject in the mark sheet with a remarks that marks will not be considered for class or total. 21. Though there can not be judicial scrutiny of assessment of question paper by a competent examiner, it would not be out of place to record here that because of the difference of more than 15% of marks in re-assessment, respondents has carried out second reassessment and surprisingly original marks 24 was re-assessed to 43 in first re-assessment and it was again reassessed to 40 in second re-assessment i.e. the difference is only of three marks, but it confirms the major difference of 19 and 16 marks from original assessment. Therefore, it can certainly be observed that though there is discretion and difference in discretionary decision like assessment of answer sheets by different examiner, it is evident' that there is material difference between the original assessment and re-assessments which certainly goes to show that some thing was wrong in the original assessment for which appellant should not be made to suffer. 22. 22. In view of the above facts and discussion we are of the clear opinion that neither Ordinance 140 of the Hand Book of the respondents nor the Rules prescribed with the application for re-assessment nor the conditions disclosed by the donors restrict the respondents from awarding medals to the appellant, more particularly for the reasons that result of the subject for which re-assessment was asked for by the appellant was other wise not to be considered for final result in any circumstances. Therefore when entitlement of medal by the appellant is not based upon either subject for which re-assessment was asked or even the re-assessment is not making any change in the final result of the appellant, the conditions of the re-assessment disc loses in the re-assessment application form does not affect the right of the appellant to secure medals, and there is no reason for the respondents to refuse to award medals in question to the appellant. 23. After concluding arguments, parties were asked for the decisions, if any, available on the subject. Respondents have not cited any previous decision talking on the subject, whereas the appellant has pleaded in ground F of the Letters Patent Appeal that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the Full Bench decision reported in 2012 (1) GLR 574 in the matter of Gujarat University Versus Megha Bhupendrakumar Goswami. She also relied upon judgment passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1416 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 809 of 2010 between Dr. Manoj Kumar Bansal Versus Vice Chancellor dated 26th April 2011. 24. If we peruse the above referred judgments, in the case of Megha Bhupendrakumar Goswami (supra), the full Bench of this High Court considered the anomaly between different views of the Division Benches as well as anomaly in interpretation of Rules 9 and 11, prevailing at the relevant time, regarding second re-assessment of the question papers with reference to difference of marks being 10% accepted by the Supreme Court and 15% suggested by the Gujarat University for second re-assessment. In said judgment the Full Bench has observed that there is no statutory rule relating to reassessment, framed by the University and relevant rules for re-assessment which was referred by the Gujarat University, respondents herein, before the Full Bench did not disclose any date of publication of such rule and they are enclosed with the application form of re-assessment only. After discussing the relevant facts pertaining to the Rules in question at the relevant time, the Full Bench has dismissed the appeal of the University and confirmed the order of the Single Judge which allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant university to give effect of the marks revised upon re-assessment and to declare the student to have passed such examination with all necessary consequences thereof. Therefore, the out-come of such decision by the Full Bench of this Court makes it clear that once marks are re-assessed the effect of re-assessment is to be given with all necessary consequences thereof. Therefore, though the facts and number of rules are different in the present case, it is certain that the rules are to the same effect regarding giving effect of the re-assessment of marks to the student, as such said judgment supports the case of the appellant. The position in both the cases, reported and on hand is same, i.e. rules of re-assessment are not properly framed at all. 23. Whereas the decision in case of Dr. Manoj Kumar Bansal (supra) deals with the award of medal to the students in question wherein the student has cleared particular examination in second trial and secure maximum marks which entitles him to the medal in question. However, University has refused to award him medal on the ground that student has not secured highest marks in first trial. Relying upon relevant rule, the Court has held that the award is to be given per year and when student has cleared the examination in the same academic year and when student has not appeared in the same examination in the next year, but cleared all the examinations in the same academic year, appearing in the second examination in the same year itself can not be treated as second trial. Though such is not a situation before us, it can be considered to that extent that in such degree course semester system is there and when one semester is cleared in one examination then if the second examination in the same academic year, it must be treated that student has not cleared the examination in first trial. On verification of mark sheet, in the present case also the appellant has secured first 5 subjects in Monsoon Semester for which examination must have been taken after the end of Monsoon Semester and appellant has cleared remaining 4 subjects in Winter Semester examination which must have been taken after end of Winter Semester. Thereby though appellant has cleared the entire examination in 2 slots it has not been argued by the respondents that appellant is not entitled to medal on such count. Therefore, though the case of Dr. Manoj Kumar Bansal (supra) is dealing with the awarding of medal by the University, except for academic purpose it has no barring on the facts and circumstances of the present case, since respondent has not refused the award on such ground of clearing/passing the examination on in different semester, as it is the only practice in such course. . 25. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that the entitlement of the appellant to receive medal has not been changed or effected in any manner due to re-assessment, because even without the grace marks, appellant's result is that she has secured first class and the same fact has been categorically disclosed in the first mark sheet itself and even after grace marks, there is no change in her result or class and it is also mentioned in both the mark sheets that marks of the subject in dispute arc not to be counted either for class or for result. When marks of particular subject is not to be counted for class or result then marks of such subject can not be counted for awarding medal-scholarship or Prize also and therefore, appellant is entitled for medal. 26. It is also certain that appellant's claim for medal is not on the basis of re-assessed marks or changed result due to re-assessment. When marks of particular subject is not to be counted for class or result then marks of such subject can not be counted for awarding medal-scholarship or Prize also and therefore, appellant is entitled for medal. 26. It is also certain that appellant's claim for medal is not on the basis of re-assessed marks or changed result due to re-assessment. On the contrary, irrespective of re-assessment, the appellant has secured the highest marks in the concerned subject for which she is claiming medal and practically as discussed herein above, re-assessed marks arc not considered at all for final result of the appellant. 27. It is true that the Court cannot ignore the fact that the University is not able to produce any material, to show that the so-called rules with the reassessment application form were framed by the Competent Authority. The respondent University has not produced any resolution passed by any Authority, which is empowered to pass such resolution, so as to frame such Rule. In absence of such material the so-called rules cannot be taken note of, so far as Rules attached with the reassessment are concerned, they provided for grant of 'benefit of re-assessment.' Despite strenuous submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respondent University, is Court is not convinced of any justification for enforcing so-called Rule in the re-assessment application form only whereby a student is denied the fruits of her result only on the ground of re-assessment of marks in the subject which is otherwise insignificant for the final result. 28. It would be necessary to recollect the decision between Gujarat University Versus Arun Shusilkumar Bhakkad. That the order and judgment dated 29.06.2009/13th July 2009 in Special Civil Application No. 1712 of 2009 has been set aside by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1744 of 2009 by order and judgment dated 8th October 2009, but the fact remains that recommendation by the Single Judge has not been followed by the respondent University in framing appropriate rules for such situations. So far as such recommendations are concerned though judgment of the Single Judge is set aside by the Division Bench, the respondent University is always free to make their house in order so as to avoid any such controversy which results into heart burning for the competent students. So far as such recommendations are concerned though judgment of the Single Judge is set aside by the Division Bench, the respondent University is always free to make their house in order so as to avoid any such controversy which results into heart burning for the competent students. Probably for such reasons the respondent University has not relied upon and not referred the judgment and order dated 8th October 2009 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1744 of 2009' between Gujarat University Versus Arun Shusilkumar Bhakkad. However since such case decided on consideration of rule prevailing at the relevant time, the same can be distinguished from present case in as much as in such previous case, the student was claiming medal in the subject where he has prayed for reassessment and based upon the result confirmed in the said subject after reassessment, for which medal is to be awarded. 29. Where as in the present case as discussed herein above the facts arc quite different in as much as neither grace marks nor the re-assessment has changed the result or entitlement of the present appellant for medal in question, in as much as the subject for which grace mark was granted by the respondent on their own only and after re-assessment when original 24 marks was corrected to 40 marks was other wise also not to be considered either for class or for total. Thereby for awarding medal, since even before assessment 35 and after assessment, grand total of marks of the appellant remains same i.e. 601 and therefore when the benefit of re-assessment is not given upon final result, it is clear and certain that appellant is entitled to the benefits which is other wise available to her because of highest marks in two subjects. 30. To sum up the entire issue and discussion. it is made clear that we allow the appeal for the simple reason that irrespective of grace marks and reassessment, appellant has received the result as first class with highest marks in two subjects for which she is entitled to medal and therefore she can not be denied the medal only because of the error on the part of process and administration of the respondent. 31. 31. However, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition in limine stating that if the petitioner had not been given grace marks she would not have been declared successful in the examination itself and therefore, when appellant has cleared the examination only because of the grace marks she is not entitled to medal. This position could be admitted if appellant has not asked for re-assessment or even after re-assessment the appellant has failed to secure more than marks in 'Legal Language and General English', because of Ordinance 140. However, since the marks confirmed after re-assessment shall be treated as final marks and result shall be treated as per such re-assessment of marks, now the appellant's result is as per second mark sheet Serial No. 20120169557 only; thereby, first mark sheet has become void and if we peruse this final/second mark sheet, it no where restricts the entitlement of appellant to secure medal, for the simple reason that medal is not for the grand total but for the particular subject only and reassessment is not for the subject for which medal is claimed even not for the grand total which is to be counted in the final result but only for additional subject where in requirement was to secure 33 marks, whereas after re-assessment, the appellant has secured 40 marks out of 100. Therefore, we are not in confirmation with the reason stated by the Learned Single Judge in para 9 of the impugned order, since there is no rule which prevents the entitlement of the medal because of re-assessment and hence the order of the Single Judge is required to be set-aside. Since the Single Judge has dismissed the Special Civil Application the same is also required to be allowed as prayed for. 32. Therefore, we hereby set aside the order and judgment dated 4th March 2013 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the special Civil Application No. 2465 of 2013. This Letters Patent Appeal as well as Special Civil Application are allowed and it is declared that the appellant is entitled and eligible to receive the awards/medals in the subjects wherein she has secured highest marks without re-assessment of marks in that particular subject. 33. This Letters Patent Appeal as well as Special Civil Application are allowed and it is declared that the appellant is entitled and eligible to receive the awards/medals in the subjects wherein she has secured highest marks without re-assessment of marks in that particular subject. 33. The respondents University is directed to take fresh decision through its competent Authority for awarding appropriate medal/prize/scholarship/ trophy to the appellant in the relevant subjects which are under reference in this litigation i.e. 'Drafting Pleading and Conveyance as well as 'Moot Court Exercise & Int, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order by them. 32. While issuing the notices on 13th March 2013 we have granted interim relief in favour of the appellant and thereby directed the respondents not to award the medal in the subject to any other candidate. Such relief was continued till date and it is hereby modified to the above extent. 33. In view of the above facts and circumstances this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute