JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. 1. In the above captioned writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the arbitrary action of the opp. Parties by not allowing them to appear in the Semester Examinations and have sought for a direction to the opp. Parties to allow them to appear in the examination, to publish their result and issue certificates in the event of their passing the examination. Since both the matters relate to a common question of law and based on almost similar facts, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 28027 of 2013 factual matrix leading to the case of petitioner is that he was admitted to the Three year Diploma Course in Electrical Engineering in Balasore School of Engineering in the year 2006. He completed the course and appeared at the First semester examination in the year 2007 and thereafter could not appear in the examination in two successive chances due to family disturbance and prolong illness of his parents. He appeared at all six Semester examinations in the year 2012 on being allowed by the authorities and passed all the Semesters except 1st Semester in which he got only one paperback i.e. PH3 Engineering Physics. It is alleged inter alia that he was awarded 13 marks out of 100, but he applied for re-checking of the paper as his preparation was good and not expected to get such less mark. The opp. Party no.2 intimated on 11.9.2013 that there is no chance of further marks to be added in the said subject. As the petitioner was declared fail in that particular subject he filled up the form and expressed his desire to appear in further examination to be held from 4.1.2014. He approached the opp. Parties including the school authorities to appear in the examination to clear up the back paper, but the admission was returned. According to him, some other students in similar footing were allowed to appear in the examination to clear the back papers. Since the concerned authorities refused to admit him to appear in the examination, he filed the present writ petition seeking relief to direct the opp. Parties to allow him to appear in the said back paper, to declare his result, issue certificate and mark sheets accordingly. 3. Since the concerned authorities refused to admit him to appear in the examination, he filed the present writ petition seeking relief to direct the opp. Parties to allow him to appear in the said back paper, to declare his result, issue certificate and mark sheets accordingly. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 4907 of 2014 the backdrop of the case of petitioner is that the petitioner was admitted to Three Year Diploma Course in Architectural Assistantship in Women’s Polytechnic, Bhubaneswar (Now Govt. Polytechnic) in the year 2006. She successfully completed the course and also appeared in the 2nd Semester examination in the year 2007, but to her ill luck she could not clear the examination in two successive chances. It is alleged inter alia that she had appeared in all six Semester examination and completed same except Th-2, Building Construction-1 of 2nd Semester and Th-2 Building Services of 4th Semester. She appeared in the examination within 2013 in all Semesters. Of course there is a gap between the Semesters she appeared because of her illness and family disturbances. It is alleged inter alia that when she applied to appear in the back papers to be held in the 1st week of April, 2014 the opp. Parties including the concerned authorities refused her to fill up the form to appear in the back paper examination in the said subjects. She learnt that few other students in the similar circumstances were allowed to appear to clear their back papers even after seven years lapsed from the date of their admission to the course. Finding no other way she approached this Court seeking necessary direction to the opp. Parties to allow her to appear in the back papers, to declare the result and issue certificate as well as mark sheet accordingly. 4. The opp. Party no.2 only filed counter affidavit. The same counter has been adopted in both the cases as submitted by learned counsel for opp. Party. It is the case of the opp. Parties that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 28027 of 2013 appeared in the 1st Semester examination four times during 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012 and did not clear all the papers and last time he appeared the 1st Semester in 2012 for paper in TH-3 (Engineering Physics). Party. It is the case of the opp. Parties that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 28027 of 2013 appeared in the 1st Semester examination four times during 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2012 and did not clear all the papers and last time he appeared the 1st Semester in 2012 for paper in TH-3 (Engineering Physics). According to him the petitioner has appeared in all the six Semesters to clear the 2nd Semester, 4th Semester, 5th Semester and 6th Semester in several chances. It is further averred in the counter that as per Examination Rule, a student has to clear all the Semesters within seven years from the date of admission. Since during July, 2013 he was not eligible to appear the back paper in Semesters in 2013, but due to order of this Court he was allowed to appear in the examination subject to result of the writ petition. According to this opp. Party, the petitioner is not eligible to appear after seven years to clear the back paper. There is no separate counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 4907 of 2014. SUBMISSIONS: 5. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that due to illness of both the petitioners and some family problems, they could not appear on certain examinations and also they could not pass in some of the papers in the Semesters although they have secured very good marks in the subjects cleared by them. It is further submitted by them that Rule 13.1 and 13.2 of the Examination Rules and Regulations of State Council For Technical Education & Vocational Training, Orissa for Semester Pattern of Examination with effect from the Academic Session 2001-2002 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules”) explicitly states that the candidates appear in the examination can be allowed one more chance even after seven years elapsed from the date of admission to the Diploma Course. According to him, when the petitioners have cleared all the papers except one paper by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 28027 of 2013 and two papers by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4907 of 2014, one more chance may be given to complete their Semesters. They further submitted that depriving the students from appearing the examination amounts to debarring them from prosecuting the technical studies which they have right to get under the mandates of the Constitution. They further submitted that depriving the students from appearing the examination amounts to debarring them from prosecuting the technical studies which they have right to get under the mandates of the Constitution. They submitted to allow the writ petitions of the petitioners in terms of the prayer made by them. 6. Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the opp. Party no.2 submitted that Rule 13.1 specifically stated that all students shall have to pass six Semesters of Diploma course within seven years including the period of absence, if any. It is further stated that under Rule 13.2 of the said Rule stipulates that any candidate who appears in all Semesters of examination continuously for seven years, but fails maximum in two subjects in any Semester, may be allowed to appear in the examination for one more chance in the subject failed, of course at the discretion of the Examination Committee. So, according to the Rule, he submitted, that both the petitioners have completed course within seven years, but they have not cleared the papers in terms of the aforesaid Rules, for which they cannot be admitted after seven years of their continuance in the course to appear in any back papers. He submitted that the Rules being framed for the benefit of the students have been followed by the authorities and there is no fault lies with the opp. Parties in debarring the petitioners to appear in the examination. So, he prayed to dismiss the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. 7. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents filed by both the parties. On documents it is not the disputed fact that the petitioners were admitted into Three Year Diploma Course in the year 2006. It is also the admitted fact that petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28027 of 2013 has not cleared one subject in 1st Semester and has cleared the other semesters in several chances and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4907 of 2014 has not cleared one paper in 2nd Semester and another paper in 4th Semester due to personal reasons. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case non-appearance in the examination for any other reason or fail in the examination are all construed to have same effect. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case non-appearance in the examination for any other reason or fail in the examination are all construed to have same effect. So, in our view either petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 28027 of 2013 failed in the subject or petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4907 of 2014 could not appear in the examination, amounts to the fact that they have not cleared those papers. It is also not disputed that they have completed seven years from the date of their admission in 2006 by the time of filing of the writ applications. 8. No doubt the Rule have been framed by the Government to streamline the Semester pattern in the institutions run by the State Counsel for Technical Education and Vocational Training. For better appreciation, relevant provision of Rule 13.1 and 13.2 are quoted below:- “13.1. Any student shall be required to pass 6 Semesters Diploma course within 7 years from the date of his/her 1st registration with the State Council including the period of discontinuance if any. 13.2. Any candidate who appears in all the Semester end examinations continuously for 7 years, but fails in maximum 2 subjects in any Semester/Semesters may be allowed to appear in the examination for one more chance in the subject/subjects failed, at the discretion of the Examination Committee.” 9. From the aforesaid Rules it appears that Rule 13.1 and 13.2 have to be read together so as to find out the intention of the law maker. Every Rule is made for the purpose of implementing the object of the said Rules. It is the principles of the statutory interpretation that the Act or the Rules should be read as a whole, but cannot be read as a piecemeal. It is reported in AIR 1992 SC 96 Union of India and another v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal that Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. On the other hand assuming, there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. 10. In [ (1986) 4 SCC 746 State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others] Their Lordships have been pleased to observe at paragraph-6 in the following manner:- “ ………. 10. In [ (1986) 4 SCC 746 State of Kerala v. Mathai Verghese and others] Their Lordships have been pleased to observe at paragraph-6 in the following manner:- “ ………. A court can make a purposeful interpretation so as to ‘effectuate’ the intention of the legislature and not a purposeless one in order to ‘defeat’ the intention of the legislators wholly or in part. When the court (apparently in the course of an exercise in interpretation) shrinks the content of the expression ‘currency note’, to make it referable to only ‘Indian currency note’, it is defeating the intention of the legislature partly inasmuch as the court makes it lawful to counterfeit notes other than Indian currency notes. The manifest purpose of the provision is that the citizens should be protected from being deceived or cheated. The citizens deal with and transact business with each other through the medium of currency (which expression includes coins as also paper currency that is to say currency notes). It is inconceivable why the legislature should be anxious to protect citizens from being deceived or cheated only in respect of Indian currency notes and not in respect of currency notes issued by other sovereign powers. The purpose of the legislation appears to be to ensure that a person accepting a currency note is given a genuine currency which can be exchanged for goods or services and not a worthless piece of paper which will bring him nothing in return, it being a counterfeit or a forged currency note…………. “ In the aforesaid decision their Lordships were dealing with the counterfeit currency notes of India vis-a-vis the foreign currency notes and it has been well observed that the object of the Act is to be protected by purposeful interpretation of the statute. It is also reported in the case of Harbhajan Singh Vs. Press Council of India and Ors., AIR 2002 SSC 1351, where Their Lordships were pleased to observe in the following manner:- “……… The golden rule is that the words of stature must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning. A departure is permissible if it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used or the object of the statute in which they occur requires a different meaning. A departure is permissible if it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used or the object of the statute in which they occur requires a different meaning. To quote, “Such a meaning cannot be departed from by the judges’ in the light of their own views as to policy’ although then can ‘adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find in the statute read as a whole or in material to which they are permitted by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament’s purpose or policy’. A modern statement of the rule is to be found in the speech of Lord Simon of Glasidale in Suthendran v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, (1976) 3 ALL ER 611, 616 to the effect-‘Parliament is prima facie to be credited with meaning what is said in an Act of Parliament. The drafting of statutes, so important to a people who hope to live under the rule of law, will never be satisfactory unless courts seek whenever possible to apply ‘the golden rule’ of construction, that is to read the statutory language, grammatically and terminologically, in the ordinary and primary sense which it bears in its context, without omission or addition. Of course, parliament is to be credited with good sense: so that when such an approach produces injustice, absurdity, contradiction or stultification or statutory objective the language may be modified sufficiently to avoid such disadvantage, though no further’………….” 11. With due respect to the said authorities, we are of the view that purposive interpretation of the statute is the real interpretation under golden rule so as to give effect to the object of any statutory provisions. Now adverting to fact of this case, we are of the view that Rule 13.1 and 13.2 of the Rules should be read together to find out the object of said Rules. After interpreting the Rules we find no gap in the Rules. Rule 13(1) is a general proposition, whereas Rule 13(2) speculates about the purpose of framing such Rules. Now adverting to fact of this case, we are of the view that Rule 13.1 and 13.2 of the Rules should be read together to find out the object of said Rules. After interpreting the Rules we find no gap in the Rules. Rule 13(1) is a general proposition, whereas Rule 13(2) speculates about the purpose of framing such Rules. By taking the conceptual views of these Rules, we are of the view that where the candidates either filled up forms or could not appear in any of the paper or papers in any of the semester within a period of seven years, he or she can be given one more chance even after lapse of seven years from the date of admission to the said course by doing the purposive interpretation of the said Rules so as to award even justice. Keeping in view the interpretation of the said Rules, without any aid or supplement to said Rules, petitioners who have either failed or could not appear in the examination are entitled to get one more chance even after seven years passed in 2013. The word “one more chance” occurring in Rule 13.2 is to sub serve the object of the Rule, i.e. to allow the candidates to clear the back papers even if seven years is the stipulation to complete the course after passing all Semesters within said seven years, but the students should never be deprived of clearing the papers when seven years lapsed. It is therefore, not possible to accept the view of the learned counsel for the opp. Party no.2 to the effect that the petitioners are not entitled to appear the examination even after seven years elapsed from their entry to the course in question. On the other hand we accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that “one more chance” as per the said Rules should be given to the petitioners to clear their back papers, so that their right to technical examination as mandated under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution can be properly articulated. CONCLUSION: 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to one chance more to clear their back papers after July, 2013 when seven years has passed. CONCLUSION: 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to one chance more to clear their back papers after July, 2013 when seven years has passed. From our interim order it appears that they have been already allowed to appear in the examinations. We, therefore, direct the opp. Parties to declare their results, issue certificates and mark sheets in the event of their passing the examination. In the result the writ petitions are allowed.