JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Bhowmik for the petitioners, learned G.A., Mr. T. Dutta Majumder and learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty for the State-respondents and learned counsel, Mr. P. Dutta for the respondent-Tripura Board of Secondary Education. 2. The writ petitions involve identical fact and point of laws and hence are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage itself on the prayer of the learned counsel of both side. 3. The petitioners appeared in Higher Secondary (Plus two) Stage (HS+2), 2016 conducted by Tripura Board of Secondary Education (for short, TBSE). They were all candidates of Science stream. 4. TBSE took a decision to award grace marks in compulsory and elective subjects, to all students, maximum 12 marks per subject to those candidates who secured at least 9 marks in elective subjects in which pass mark is fixed as 21 and in other subjects in which who secured at least 18 marks where pass mark is fixed 30 and that the total 40 grace marks will be given to those candidates who secured 150 marks in aggregate and that who will pass the examination after the above grace mark is given. 5. The petitioner of WP (C) No. 663 of 2016 secured 12 marks in Physics, 7 marks in Chemistry and 15 marks in Biology and so failed in three subjects and she was not given the benefit of grace marks since in Chemistry subject she secured less than 9 marks and even if the grace mark is given in three elective subjects she will not pass the examination. 6. The petitioner of WP (C) 664 of 2016 secured 7 marks in Physics, 12 marks in Chemistry and 13 marks in Biology and she was also not given the benefit of grace marks since she secured less than 9 marks in Physics and even if the maximum of 12 grace mark is given she will not secure the minimum pass marks of 21. 7. 7. The petitioner of WP (C) No. 801 of 2016 secured 17 marks in Physics, 17 marks in Chemistry and 14 marks in Mathematics and since he secured 14 marks in Mathematics in which he was supposed to secure at least 18 marks, to avail the grace marks of 12 to secure 30 marks, he was not given the benefit of grace mark in all those three subjects, as he will not thereby pass the examination. It is an admitted position that TBSE took the decision that maximum 12 marks will be given in one subject as grace marks to make a candidate secure pass marks and in respect of Mathematics to secure the pass marks of 30 and avail the benefits of grace marks, one has to secure 18 marks. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik submitted that all these three candidates have not been given the benefit of grace marks on the ground that they have not secured the minimum standard marks as fixed by the TBSE, in one subject. According to Mr. Bhowmik, had the writ petitioners were given the grace marks in the subjects in which they secured the standard minimum marks fixed by the TBSE, they would pass in two subjects and in one subject in which they secured less than the minimum marks, they would appear in supplementary examination as per the TBSE Regulations. 9. According to Mr. Bhowmik, as per the Tripura Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 2014, a candidate who has failed to obtain pass mark in one subject (Theory) but has obtained pass marks in Practical portion or Project portion, as the case may be, and also obtained an aggregate of 150 marks, such candidate would be entitled to sit in the supplementary examination in the subject in which the candidate has failed. Since each of the petitioners only failed in one subject (Theory) whereas they have passed the Practical portion in those Theory subjects and also have an aggregate of total 150 marks, they were entitled to get the grace marks in two subjects in which they secured minimum standard marks as fixed by TBSE. 10. On the contrary, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the TBSE has submitted that a candidate who has failed in one subject only is entitled to avail the scope of supplementary examination as contained in the Regulations. According to Mr. 10. On the contrary, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the TBSE has submitted that a candidate who has failed in one subject only is entitled to avail the scope of supplementary examination as contained in the Regulations. According to Mr. Dutta, since the petitioners failed in more than one subjects and each of them has secured less than minimum standard marks than that of the marks fixed by the TBSE to award grace marks, they cannot, as of right, claim grace marks in two subjects and thereafter claim the benefit of supplementary examination of one subject in which they secured less than the minimum standard marks as fixed by TBSE. The case of the petitioners is in no way come within the purview of the decision taken by the TBSE to award grace marks since they have secured less than the minimum standard marks in one subject and since they will not pass the examination even if the grace mark is given in two subjects, their case is not covered under the scheme decided by TBSE. 11. TBSE took the decision that the grace marks will be given only to those candidates who secured minimum standard marks and after availing the grace marks, who will pass the examination. If the writ petitioners are given the benefit of grace marks in two subjects, in which they secured minimum standard marks to avail the concession of grace marks, they will not pass the examination. That means they will not secure the pass marks in all the subjects in which they have failed. So, the very basis of the stand taken by the TBSE that the concession of grace marks would be given to those candidates who will be within the parameter fixed by them and thereby will pass the examination, in my considered opinion, the case of the petitioners does not come within the purview of that standard. If grace mark is given in two subjects, the petitioners will not be in a position to be declared as pass. 12. Regulations 15(iv) prescribes provision for supplementary examination which reads as follows: “(iv) The Board shall conduct Supplementary Examination for those candidates who has failed to obtain Pass marks in ONE subject (Theory), but has obtained Pass marks in Practical portion or Project portion, as the case may be, and also obtained an aggregate of 150 marks. 12. Regulations 15(iv) prescribes provision for supplementary examination which reads as follows: “(iv) The Board shall conduct Supplementary Examination for those candidates who has failed to obtain Pass marks in ONE subject (Theory), but has obtained Pass marks in Practical portion or Project portion, as the case may be, and also obtained an aggregate of 150 marks. The Supplementary Examination may be completed within 60 days from the date of publication of results. The Supplementary Examination shall be held at District Headquarters only. Note:- A candidate failed to pass the Supplementary Examination shall have to appear at the Compartmental Examinations in the next year, provided that the candidate will not be entitled to appear at the Higher Secondary Examination for more than FOUR consecutive Examination including the first Examination appeared as Regular candidate.” As per the above provision, a candidate who has failed to obtain pass marks in one subject (Theory) but has obtained pass marks in Practical subject or Project portion of the subject, as the case may be, and also obtained an aggregate of 150 marks will be entitled to sit in supplementary examination in which he has failed. In the case of the petitioners, they have failed in three subjects. The petitioners of WP (C) No. 663 of 2016 and WP (C) No. 664 of 2016 have passed in Practical portion of the Theory subjects in which they have secured less than minimum standard marks as fixed by TBSE and they also secured an aggregate of 150 marks. But, that by itself cannot make them eligible for claiming supplementary examination in one subject since they are not coming within the criteria fixed under the above provision as they have failed in three subjects. According to Mr. Bhowmik, if grace mark is given the petitioners will pass in two subjects and for the rest subject they will be entitled to appear as supplementary candidates. In my considered opinion, this will be in conflict with the decision taken by the Board. Since the Board's decision is not under challenge, whether it was right or wrong, it has to be considered as a whole. 13. Learned counsel, Mr. In my considered opinion, this will be in conflict with the decision taken by the Board. Since the Board's decision is not under challenge, whether it was right or wrong, it has to be considered as a whole. 13. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik argued that the Board has no authority to empower or entrust the President to take decision or to give presidential award and that President's power so far prescribed in the Tripura Board of Secondary Education Act, does not prescribe that the President can take such a decision or make such an order. Though it is argued by learned counsel Mr. Bhowmik, but in the writ petitions, the decision taken by the Board or the authority of the Board and the President has not been challenged. So, ultimately he did not press his submission on that count. It is expected that the Board being a statutory body shall exercise its power within the four corners of the Statute and the Regulations made by it. 14. Be that as it may, here we are concerned only whether as per the decision the petitioners should be given the grace marks in two subjects to make them eligible to appear as supplementary candidates in one subject in which they secured less than the minimum standard marks. 15. I cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik on this score. In my considered opinion since the petitioners will not pass the examination, if concession of grace marks is given in two subjects, they cannot claim the benefit of grace marks only to make them eligible to appear as supplementary candidates in the other failed subject. 16. The writ petitions are therefore found to be devoid of merit and therefore, stand dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.