Judgment : (A.H. Joshi, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned Advocate for the parties. 2] The petition is ready for hearing as the affidavit in reply of the contesting respondent no.1 is already filed. 3] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 & 3 and the learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 at length. 4] The case proceeds in following admitted background: [a] The petitioner has passed the degree examination of Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical). He has secured 59.91% marks in aggregate of four years performance. [b] The class at the degree level is determined on the basis of marks secured at B.E. Final examination and accordingly he is declared having passed in First Class. [c] The petitioner has secured 60% marks out of 100 in the subject Finite Element Analysis & Simulations. [d] The petitioner was awarded zero marks for question no.1(b) out of 10 marks allotted to that question. [e] The petitioner secured photocopy of the answer sheet as per rules, found that assessment was wrong and applied for revaluation. [f] Revaluation was done and change by 9 marks was communicated, however, the University refused to substitute the marks memo with the change. [g] The reason towards refusal which was orally given that no change can be acted upon if the variation, deviation in marks is not for 10% of the head of passing. [h] Increase of 9 marks does not constitute 10% and hence the change was not acted upon. 5] The petitioner's prayer in this petition is for direction that the University should act upon the increased 9 marks and shall issue fresh marksmemo. According to the petitioner, his employment prospects improve because he has been selected in campus interviews for employment with Tata Consultancy Services, however, they want the students to have 60% marks on average of all four years. The petitioner can cope up with that requirement if he gets his result improved by addition of 9 marks, which he has not been given because of the error. 6] Learned Advocate for the University has placed reliance on Rule 19 of the North Maharashtra University Revised Rules and Regulations and Syllabi of all Branches of Engineering and Technology, and Ordinance 134 of 2007. Clause (xvi) of Rule 19 is the relevant clause. 6] Learned Advocate for the University has placed reliance on Rule 19 of the North Maharashtra University Revised Rules and Regulations and Syllabi of all Branches of Engineering and Technology, and Ordinance 134 of 2007. Clause (xvi) of Rule 19 is the relevant clause. The relevant text reads as follows:- "(xvi) If the marks awarded by the subsequent examiner vary / deviate by atleast 10% of the total number of marks of that head of passing, then only the marks awarded by the subsequent examiner or original marks whichever is more shall be awarded to the concerned examinee. Provided that, in a case where the candidate may pass and/or his/her class may change (from pass class to second class / second class to 55% and above / second class to first class / first class to distinction) and/or his/her, rank / merit may change, because of award of such additional marks as have been given by the subsequent examiner then, this condition of minimum variation / deviation of 10% shall not apply and the change shall be made operative. Provided further that this condition of atleast 10% variation/deviation shall not apply in the cases where the application of award of marks by the subsequent examiner and thereafter application of the other ordinance's (Ordinance 1,2 and 4) makes the alteration in the status of his/her passing/class, and in case of applicability of ordinance 163, the status of passing/class/rank/merit alters. Provided that fraction if any in calculation shall be made to next higher integer." 7] The University has relied upon the first portion of the main clause, which says that the change shall not be acted upon if it is less than 10% of total number of marks of head of passing. 8] The petitioner has relied on first proviso to clause (xvi) which provides that the condition of deviation / variation by 10% shall not apply and change shall be made operative if the deviation or increase of marks improves the pass class to second / merit / distinction / rank etc. of the student. In such an eventuality, the change has to be acted upon. 9] Initially, the learned Advocate for the University opposed the interpretation urged by the petitioner, as emerging from the first proviso to clause (xvi) of Rule 19. of the student. In such an eventuality, the change has to be acted upon. 9] Initially, the learned Advocate for the University opposed the interpretation urged by the petitioner, as emerging from the first proviso to clause (xvi) of Rule 19. However, in spite of repeated reading of the first proviso, it could not be shown by the learned Advocate that the first proviso cannot be applied to the petitioner's case. 10] In the result, it is obvious that whenever the change is for less than 10% marks and if acted upon, the rank or merit including class in which he has been declared pass changes, such change is liable to be acted upon. 11] Interpretation as emerging from plain reading of first proviso seems to advance a logical and laudable object namely that a student should not suffer when there is an error on the part of the University in the process of assessment. The text of clause (xvi) appears to pose an interpretation that in cases of students who have failed, such students cannot get benefit of acting upon increase of marks unless the increase is to the extent of 10% of head of passing. 12] The first and second proviso does not include a category of the students who have failed, rather it includes the category of students who have passed, and it further prescribes that for improving the grade, class, rank, merit etc., the change even if it is for less than 10% of head of passing, it has to be acted upon. 13] In the result, the petitioner's claim is based on just and plain reading of the Ordinance which has carved out the right in favour of the petitioner student. 14] Thus, the petitioner's claim is supported by legal right. The action of the University in refusing to substitute the old mark-sheet by corrected mark-sheet was erroneous and present is a case for issue of writ of mandamus. 15] We, therefore, make the Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (C) and direct that the respondent nos.1 & shall issue revised mark-sheet of the petitioner's performance in the B.E. (Mechanical) Final Year examination, upon incorporating increased marks in the subject Finite Element Analysis & Simulations. 16] The parties shall bear their own costs.