JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Verma, learned counsel representing the respondents-Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra. 2. The petitioner has prayed that respondents be given a direction to allow him to appear in the 4th year examination of B.D.S. Professional Course which is scheduled to be held w.e.f. 17.10.2016 to 25.10.2016 and further that the respondents be also directed to award 5 grace marks to him in the subject of General Surgery in its 3rd year B.D.S. Course having Roll No.158607761005 in terms of the Rules framed by the Dental Council of India. 3. The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India which provides criteria for pass marks, according to which a candidate for being declared pass in the B.D.S. examination has to secure 50% marks in aggregate in Theory including viva voce and internal assessment. The said Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India also provides that grace marks up to a maximum of 5 may be awarded to students who have failed only in one subject but passed in all other subjects. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of the total marks of 600, petitioner has secured 315 marks. He has secured the minimum pass marks in aggregate. He has also stated that the petitioner has passed in all the subjects except in General Surgery and if he is given the benefit of 5 grace marks in the said paper of General Surgery in terms of the Regulations as framed by the Dental Council of India, he will be declared as passed. 5. Countering the aforesaid argument, learned ocunsel representing Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra has stated that the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India only prescribes that a maximum of 5 grace marks may be awarded to students who have failed only in one subject and have passed in all the subjects. According to Shri Verma, learned counsel representing the University, under the said provision, the University shall award grace marks up to a maximum of 5 to the students. He has further stated that the Regulations regarding grace marks has to be understood to mean that a student can be awarded 1 grace mark, 2 marks and similarly, 3, 4 and 5 marks. He has further stated that the Regulations regarding grace marks has to be understood to mean that a student can be awarded 1 grace mark, 2 marks and similarly, 3, 4 and 5 marks. He has also stated that for the purposes of awarding grace marks in terms of the provisions contained in the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India, the University itself has framed Ordinance for admission to M.B.B.S. courses which are applicable to the B.D.S. course as well. According to the said Ordinance framed by the University, a candidate who fails in one subject and is pass in aggregate will be allowed grace marks upto the maximum of 5, in accordance with a scale given in the said Ordinance. The relevant provision of the Ordinance framed by the University is extracted hereinbelow: - "(a) candidate who fails in one subject but passes in the aggregate at the M.B.B.S. Examinations will be allowed grace marks to the extent of 5 according to the following scale-- 1 to 9 marks above to the minimum aggregate 1 grace mark 10 to 19 marks above to the minimum aggregate 2 grace marks 20 to 29 marks above to the minimum aggregate 3 grace marks 30 to 39 marks above to the minimum aggregate 4 grace marks 40 or more marks above to the minimum aggregate 5 marks " 6. According to the aforesaid Ordinance, a candidate failing in one subject but who has passed in all other subjects also in aggregate can be awarded one grace mark provided he has secured 1 to 9 marks above to the minimum aggregate, similarly 2 grace marks are available to a candidate securing 10 to 19 marks above the minimum aggregate and so on. 7. According to the said Ordinance, depending on the marks obtained over and above the minimum aggregate, a student can thus be awarded grace marks, ranging from 1 to 5 and it is not in dispute that the minimum marks in aggregate to be obtained by a student to be declared pass is 50%. Since the petitioner has secured 315 marks in aggregate as such maximum grace marks which can be awarded to him as per the scale mentioned in the Ordinance framed by the University, which has been extracted hereinabove are 2. The petitioner needs 5 grace marks to pass the General Surgery subject. Since the petitioner has secured 315 marks in aggregate as such maximum grace marks which can be awarded to him as per the scale mentioned in the Ordinance framed by the University, which has been extracted hereinabove are 2. The petitioner needs 5 grace marks to pass the General Surgery subject. All these factual aspects are not in dispute. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has feebly attempted to submit that once the provision for grace marks has been provided by the Dental Council of India, the same will prevail and will have over-riding effect over the Ordinance framed by the University. This submission made by the learend counsel for the petitioner has been considered only to be rejected for the reason that the question as to whether the Ordinance framed by the University will have over-riding effect or the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India will have the over-riding effect can be said to arise only when there is a conflict between these two. From a perusal of the Regulations framed by the Dental Council of India pertaining to the grace marks and also on perusal of the Ordinance framed by the University on the subject, I do not find any conflict between these two. The Dental Council of India Regulations prescribes that the grace marks up to maximum of 5 marks can be given to the students and so is the prescription in the Ordinance framed by the University. 9. I am of the consdiered opinion that grace marks can be given to a candidate ranging from 1 to 5. As to whether a candidate can be given 1 mark or 2 marks, 3, 4 or 5, it depends upon the marks obtained by such a candidate over and above the minimum aggregate in terms of the provision contained in the Ordinance framed by the University. The Ordinance only lays down the criteria which is to be followed for the purposes of grant of grace marks ranging from 1 to 5 and thus it is not, in any manner, in contradiction with the provisions contained in the Regulation framed by the Dental Council of India. 10. At this juncture, observations made by this Court in a judgment dated 18/3/2016 in the case of Aswani Kumar vs. Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University (Writ C No.7071 of 2016) is relevant to be noted. 10. At this juncture, observations made by this Court in a judgment dated 18/3/2016 in the case of Aswani Kumar vs. Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University (Writ C No.7071 of 2016) is relevant to be noted. Para 11 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: - "11. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it is clearly discernible from a plain reading of the Regulations that it only prescribes the maximum extent to which a University can be permitted to dilute the academic standard of the course. It could only be in one paper and upto an extent of five marks only. Any relaxation beyond it is not permissible. The provision does not impose any obligation on the University to award grace marks, but leaves it to its discretion. In today's age of competition, it is always open to a particular University to strive towards achievement of higher standards of education. It is competent to frame its own guidelines in regard to award of grace marks, so that the academic standard is not diluted beyond the limit which in its opinion will not militate against its goal of maintaining higher standard. Any exercise taken in this regard, could never be in derogation of the provisions of the MCI Act. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 while dealing with the provision of the MCI Act and List III Entry 25 and List I Entry 66 held that the State is competent to lay down guidelines for admission to post graduate medical courses in addition to those prescribed by MCI. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards of education and such a provision would not be contrary to any provision of the Act. On the other hand, any lowering of norms beyond the limits permitted by the Act would impinge upon the Regulations framed by the MCI. It has been held thus: - "On course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under List I Entry 66. For example, the State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under List I Entry 66. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. For example, the State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under List I Entry 66. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education." (emphasis supplied) 11. For passing the General Surgery paper by awarding of 5 grace marks, petitioner should have obtained 340 marks in the aggregate whereas petitioner has secured only 315 marks in the aggregate. Thus, he is not entitled to be given the benefit of 5 grace marks as claimed by the petitioner. 12. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the writ petition fails, which is hereby, dismissed. 13. No order is passed as to costs.