JUDGMENT Heard Shri. Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents-appellants and Shri. Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent. 2. Present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 9.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 51369 of 2016 (Biswadip Barua v. Union of India & Ors.). The operative portion of the judgment dated 9.11.2016 is reproduced as under: - "13. The issue that requires determination in the facts of the present case is as to whether petitioner is entitled to award of degree in terms of the provisions contained in the Ordinances framed by the University? 14. Clause 10.1 of the Ordinance provides that a student who completes all programme requirement specified in Section 9 and has paid all dues to the Institute and the hostel and has no case of indiscipline against him, shall be recommended by the senate to the Board of Governors for the award of appropriate degree in ensuing convocation. Section-9 in turn consists of four sub sections. 9.1 deals with attendance requirement, whereas, 9.2 provides for minimum and maximum duration of course. Academic requirements have been specified in clause 9.3, whereas additional requirements are provided in section 9.4. The specific academic requirement is to complete successfully all the course of the curriculum prescribed for under graduate programme and attain a minimum level of academic performance i.e. obtained minimum CPI 5.0 with no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. Web generate transcripts annexed by the petitioner clearly goes to show that petitioner has acquired a minimum 5 CPI and has no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. It is also not the case of the respondent that petitioner has not paid dues of institute or hostel or that any case of indiscipline is pending against the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contents that academic requirement as well as award of degree under Clauses- 9.3 and 10.1 are not determinative and these clauses have to be read with clause-7 which specifies academic performance requirement. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contents that academic requirement as well as award of degree under Clauses- 9.3 and 10.1 are not determinative and these clauses have to be read with clause-7 which specifies academic performance requirement. It is pointed out that under Clause - 7(i), a student unless scores SPI and CPI equal to or greater than 5 in each semester, he/she would be categorized as academically deficient and, therefore, not entitled to grant of degree. 16. In order to examine such contention, it would be appropriate to refer to SPI and CPI, which have been defined in the Ordinance. The formula by which SPI is determined is provided under Ordinance 6.3.2. Semester Performance Index is the weighted average of the grade points earned by a student in all the courses credited and described his/her academic performance in a semester. The grade points are denoted by 'g' in the formula whereas course is denoted by 'm'. The corresponding weight or credits of the course is denoted by 'w'. 17. Clause-7 of the Ordinance states that in order to enable a student to be promoted to the next higher semester of the academic performance, his/her SPI and CPI are required to be equal to or greater than 5, and that he/she ought not to have under E or F or X grade in any registered course or academic activities. Such a student, who fails to secure it is categorised as academically deficient. Clause-7 further provides that such academically deficient students would have to undergo remedial action to remove academic deficiency and he may be permitted to register for course in which he/ she has E or F or X grade . Sub Clauses-(iii) and (iv) further elaborates the manner in which academic deficiency is to be removed. The Semester Performance Index (SPI in short) essentially assesses the academic performance of a particular semester and also provides the remedial measures suggested in Clause-7. However, for the purposes of grant of degree, it is the CPI which alone is determinative under the Ordinance. The Ordinance 10.1 specifically deals with award of degree and as per it, the student has to meet the programme requirement specified in Section 9. Section 9.3 merely requires CPI of 5 with no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. The Ordinance 10.1 specifically deals with award of degree and as per it, the student has to meet the programme requirement specified in Section 9. Section 9.3 merely requires CPI of 5 with no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. It appears that for the purpose of award of degree, it is the CPI which provides the benchmark for assessing a candidate's academic performance. Once the petitioner fulfils the academic requirement in terms of Clause-9.3 and is otherwise entitled to award of degree under Clause- 10.1, the respondent would not be justified in denying the award of degree to him. It seems that respondents are conscious of this position and that is why the senate in its 55th meeting has referred the matter to Chairman, Ordinance Review Committee to make provision explicit in the revised Ordinances. The resolution clearly shows that the respondents are conscious of the fact that in terms of the existing provisions of the Ordinance, the insistence of acquiring 5 SPI is not contemplated. The argument of Sri. Ramesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent, that in the past also institute has insisted upon acquiring 5 SPI in all semester, is not material inasmuch as once the field is occupied by specific ordinance, the convention or practise will have no role to step in. So long as the Ordinances are not adequately amended to require possessing of 5 SPI as a condition for grant of degree, the institute cannot insist upon such a requirement. 18. Law is otherwise settled that if an statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone and not otherwise. Reference may be had to the judgment in Taylor v. Taylor: (1875) LR (1) CH-D-426, as followed in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor: AIR 1936 PC 253 , which has consistently been followed. 19. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner having secured 5 CPI or above in all his semesters with no E or F or X in any course during the entire programme, is entitled to award of B. Tech. degree. Writ petition consequently is allowed. A mandamus is consequently issued to the respondents to issue B. Tech. degree. Writ petition consequently is allowed. A mandamus is consequently issued to the respondents to issue B. Tech. degree to petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order." 3. The writ petition in question had been filed for a direction to the respondents to issue original mark-sheets of all semesters and degree to the petitioner for B.Tech. (Mechanical Engineering) Course passed in July, 2015. It was further prayed to declare that any amendment proposed in the ordinance shall have no retrospective effect. It appears that the petitioner had cleared All India Engineering Entrance Examination, 2011 and consequently he was allotted Moti Lal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (MNNIT) for pursuing B.Tech. course in the Mechanical Engineering stream. The petitioner claimed that he had cleared the last semester of the course in May, 2015. Thereafter, he appeared in All India Common Admission Test conducted for admission to MBA course, and having cleared it, has been granted admission to the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta and at present he claims to have cleared first semester in the management course. 4. The entire genesis of case flows from the web generated transcript, whereby petitioner secured following marks:- Semester I II III IV V VI VII VIII CPI 5.15 5.54 5.53 5.38 5.44 5.49 5.67 5.68 5. On the basis of aforesaid marks it had been urged before the learned Single Judge placing reliance upon the provisions of ordinances that once the petitioner had secured more than five Cumulative Performance Index (CPI), he was entitled for issuance of engineering degree. The MNNIT had taken a stand through their counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner's performance was found to be academically deficient and as such he was not entitled to get B.Tech. degree in as much as petitioner's Semester Performance Index (SPI) was below 5 for 4th semester, whereas he was required to have secured above 5 SPI in each semester. It was also stated that no student had been issued degree unless he/she secured five and above score in CPI and SPI separately. This much is admitted position that the petitioner secured 4.92 (SPI in 4th semester, which was below 5 and on this score being as academic deficient he was denied B.Tech. Degree. 6. It was also stated that no student had been issued degree unless he/she secured five and above score in CPI and SPI separately. This much is admitted position that the petitioner secured 4.92 (SPI in 4th semester, which was below 5 and on this score being as academic deficient he was denied B.Tech. Degree. 6. Just to appreciate the controversy in hand, Clauses 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 of the Ordinance in question, which talks about the SPI and CPI are reproduced as under: - "6.3.2 Semester Performance Index (SPI). The Semester Performance Index (SPI) is a weighted average of the Grade Points earned by a student in all the Courses credited and describes his/her Academic Performance in a Semester. If the grade points associated with the letter grades awarded to a student are g1, g2, g3......... gm Courses and the corresponding weights (or credits of the courses) are w1, w2, w3 ....... wm, the SPI is given by" S and X grades shall not be considered in the computation of the SPI. 6.3.3 Cumulative Performance Index (CPI). The Cumulative Performance Index (CPI) indicates the overall Academic Performance of a student in all the Courses registered up to and including the latest completed Semester term. It shall be computed in the same manner as the SPI, considering all the courses (say, n), and is given by" Whenever a student is permitted to repeat or substitute a Course, the new letter Grade replaces the better of the old and new letter Grades in the computation of the CPI, but, both the Grades appear on his/her Grade Report". 7. Clause 7 of the Ordinance provides for academic performance requirement and reads as under: - "7. Academic Performance Requirement A student is promoted to the next higher (Odd or Even) Semester of the Academic Programme only if (i) His/Her SPI and CPI are equal to or greater than 5.0. (ii) He/She does not have E or F or X grade in any registered course or academic activities. A student who does not fulfil either or both of the above conditions shall be categorized as Academically Deficient (ACD)". Following rules shall be applicable to ACD students. (i) The Dean (Academic) and the DUGC Convenors shall advise the students regarding remedial actions to be undertaken to remove the Academic Deficiencies. A student who does not fulfil either or both of the above conditions shall be categorized as Academically Deficient (ACD)". Following rules shall be applicable to ACD students. (i) The Dean (Academic) and the DUGC Convenors shall advise the students regarding remedial actions to be undertaken to remove the Academic Deficiencies. (ii) An Academically Deficient student may be advised and permitted to register for Courses in which he/she has E or F or X Grades. (iii) He/She may be permitted to register either in regular Semester as back paper (s) or Supplementary Examination for the courses in which he/she has E or F or X grade. Further, he/she may be permitted to register for the courses, in which he/she has got D grade only if he/she is unable to meet the requirements of SPI and/or CPI, and has no E or F or X grade. (iv) An Academically Deficient student shall be allowed to register in the Third, Fifth and Seventh Semester if and only if he/she has E or F or X grades in not more than three courses of previous Semesters. However, he/she has to acquire SPI & CPI equal to or greater than 5.0 after replacing the old Grades by better of the old and new Grades obtained by such a student to remove Academic Deficiency." 8. Programme requirement has been enumerated in Clause-9 of the Ordinance. Clause 9.3, which prescribes the academic requirement is reproduced as under: - "9.3 Academic Requirements. A student is required to complete successfully all the Courses of the Curriculum prescribed for his/her Undergraduate Programme and attain a minimum level of Academic Performance, i.e., obtain a minimum CPI 5.0 with no E or F or X grade in any course during entire Programme." 9. Award of degree to a student is specified in Clause 10.1, which reads as under: - "10.1 Award of Degree. A student who completes all the Programme requirements specified in Section 9, has paid all dues to the Institute and the Hostels, and has no case of indiscipline pending against him/her shall be recommended by the Senate to the Board of Governors (BOG) for the award of the appropriate Degree in the ensuing Convocation. The Degree shall be awarded only after the BOG accords its approval." 10. The Degree shall be awarded only after the BOG accords its approval." 10. In this backdrop, Shri. Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the respondents-appellants in support of his submissions has vehemently contended that the provisions of the Ordinances relating to Bachelors program cannot be read in isolation inasmuch as Ordinance Nos. 9 and 10 have to be read along with Ordinance No. 7, which relates to academic performance, requirement and promotion of the petitioner in the higher semester and removal of Academic deficiency. In case a student is to be permitted in the next semester, then by all means he/ she necessarily has to obtain 5 SPI in every semester and only then he/she can be promoted in the next higher semester. Even the remedial measures are also provided in Ordinance 7, where a student secures less than 5 SPI. As such this is the precise submission that as per the Ordinance there is absolutely uniformity in Bachelor's programme and the same is applicable to every student. In case a student secures less than 5 SPI in any of the semester, the degree would not be issued without crossing such hurdle. It is mandatory to secure at least 5 SPI and even as remedial measures he/she may be permitted to appear either in supplementary or in the back paper. It is sought to be contended that without securing 5 SPI in any of the semester the said semester would not be cleared in any manner. 11. He further submits that the present institute is premier institution established by an Act of Parliament and as such it is imperative that its efforts to maintain academic standards are protected and promoted. By all means the institution is determined to maintain academic standards and cannot deviate from the Ordinance. He further apprised to the Court that the present Ordinances relating to undergraduate courses are applicable on the institution since 2013. Prior to this, undergraduate Ordinances, which were applicable from December, 2003 to 2013 also contemplated CPI and SPI equal to or greater than 5.00 for the purposes of award of degree. 12. Shri. Lokesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has vehemently opposed the present appeal and submits that the petitioner was never academically deficient and as per the web generated transcript he had scored more than 5 CPI in all eight semesters. 12. Shri. Lokesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has vehemently opposed the present appeal and submits that the petitioner was never academically deficient and as per the web generated transcript he had scored more than 5 CPI in all eight semesters. He has also placed reliance on the chart, which has been presented by him at the time of his argument by which he claimed that the performance of the petitioner was not academically deficient in 4th semester. For ready reference the charts are reproduced as under:- Present Transcript (Final) of 4th Semester Sub Code Subject Name Credits (A) Grades Points (B) (A) X (B) AM402 Kinematics of Machines 4 C 6 24 AM404 Fluid Mechanics 5 D 4 20 ME401 Computational and Statistical Techniques 4 D 4 16 ME402 Heat and Mass Transfer 5 C 5 25 ME403 Measurement and Metrology 4 C 5 20 ME404 Production and Operations Management 3 C + 6 18 Total 25 123 SPI = Total of (A) X (B)/Total of A = 4.92 If value of C in Measurement & Metrology given 6 Present Transcript (Final) of 4th Semester Sub Code Subject Name Credits (A) Grades Points (B) (A) X (B) AM402 Kinematics of Machines 4 C 6 24 AM404 Fluid Mechanics 5 D 4 20 ME401 Computational and Statistical Techniques 4 D 4 16 ME402 Heat and Mass Transfer 5 C 5 25 ME404 Production and Operations Management 3 C + 6 18 Total 25 127 SPI = Total of (A) X (B)/Total of A = 5.08 13. From the aforesaid chart, it is sought to be contended that in the subject Measurement and Metrology (ME403) the petitioner had been accorded Grade "C' against which the MNNIT had given 5 points and as such total point comes to 20. He submits that the petitioner was not accorded correct marks in Measurement and Metrology (ME403). As per the chart, for the said subject the petitioner had secured 4 points in 'Credits (A) column', grade 'C' in 'Grades column' and 5 points in 'Points (B) column' and as such multiplying A and B column i.e. 4 x 5 he had been accorded 20 marks in the subject Measurement and Metrology (ME403). As per the chart, for the said subject the petitioner had secured 4 points in 'Credits (A) column', grade 'C' in 'Grades column' and 5 points in 'Points (B) column' and as such multiplying A and B column i.e. 4 x 5 he had been accorded 20 marks in the subject Measurement and Metrology (ME403). But in fact as per the Ordinance 2013 he had to be given 6 points towards Grade 'C' for the said subject and as such it comes 24 (as evident from the aforesaid second chart) and grand total in the 4th semester would be 127 in place of previous 123 and as such his SPI would come 5.08 and therefore on that score the petitioner would not be academically deficient in the 4th semester. The entire marks so calculated by the MNNIT is contrary to the present Ordinance and as such learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded into the matter and no interference is required in the matter. 14. Once the aforementioned chart has been produced by Shri. Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, we have asked Shri. Ramesh Upadhyaya to seek instructions from the MNNIT concerned in the matter. Thereafter, when the matter was placed for further hearing at 3.30 p.m. on the same day, relevant instructions have been sent in which it is stated that the MNNIT Allahabad had followed 09 point-scale till June, 2013. In this evaluation system grading included: C = 5 and C+ = 6. The new Ordinances came into existence in July, 2013 in which C+ was removed and C was made equal to 6 (C = 6) from forthcoming session 2013-14 for all the students. In the instruction an example is also mentioned as under: - "1. Two different grades will have to be awarded same grade points in an examination. An attempt to award C = 6 will create an anomaly as C+ is also equal to 6 in the same examination. Mr. Biswadip Barua (Registration No.20113004) himself has got C as well C+ in the first attempt in IV Semester held in May, 2013. 2. Granting such favour to any one student will be against justice and if it is to be done it will distort the whole system. The result of all the students who had got C in any course prior to July, 2013 will have to be revised. 2. Granting such favour to any one student will be against justice and if it is to be done it will distort the whole system. The result of all the students who had got C in any course prior to July, 2013 will have to be revised. This chain of revision will completely destabilize the system and create havoc along with innumerable other issues." 15. In the instruction reliance has also been placed on "New Grading System for UG/PG Programmes", which is also reproduced as under: - "New Grading system for UG/PG programmes Grades, Semester and Cumulative Performance Index Grade and Grade Points- At the end of the semester/summer term, a student is awarded a letter grade in each course he/ she is registered for indicating his/her overall performance in that course. There are nine letter grades. The correspondence between grades and points (on a 10-point scale)/rating is given below:- Grade Suggested Grade Point of UG/PG Courses Grade Point Presently operative Description A+ 10 10 Outstanding A 9 Excellent B+ 8 8 Very Good B 7 Good C+ 6 6 Average C 5 Below Average D 4 4 Marginal E 2 2 Poor F 0 0 Very Poor In addition, there are three letter grades, viz., I, S and X, which stand for Incomplete, Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory, respectively." Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 16. For appreciating the controversy in hand, it would be relevant to reproduce the marks awarded to the petitioner in 4th Semester, which is as under:- "IV semester (Jan 2013-May 2013) Sub Code Subject Name Credits Grades AM402 Kinematics of Machines 4 E AM404 Fluid Mechanics 5 D ME401 Computational and Statistical Techniques 4 D ME402 Heat and Mass Transfer 5 C ME403 Measurement and Metrology 4 D ME404 Production and Operations Management 3 C+ SPI 4.12 IV semester (Summer Semester-2013) AM402 Kinematics of Machines 4 D ME403 Measurement and Metrology 4 C SPI 4.6 IV semester (Supplementary Exam-2015) ME404 Fluid Mechanics 5 D SPI 4.6 IV semester (Supplementary Exam-2016) AM402 Kinematics of Machines 4 C SPI 4.92" 17. The aforementioned grading of 4th semester would clearly reveal to us that initially the petitioner appeared in 6 papers in 4th semester and accordingly grades were recorded and total SPI was 4.12. In the present matter Shri. Lokesh Dwivedi has placed much reliance on the marks accorded by the MNNIT in Measurement and Metrology subject. The aforementioned grading of 4th semester would clearly reveal to us that initially the petitioner appeared in 6 papers in 4th semester and accordingly grades were recorded and total SPI was 4.12. In the present matter Shri. Lokesh Dwivedi has placed much reliance on the marks accorded by the MNNIT in Measurement and Metrology subject. The details of 4th semester provides that in fact initially the petitioner secured Grade 'D' in Measurement and Metrology subject. 18. The petitioner has also produced the programme of B. Tech. 2nd & 6th, 4th & 8th semester in the supplementary exam 2012-13, which was scheduled between 15.7.2013-22.07.2013 and for Measurement and Metrology subject, the exam took place on 17.7.2013 between 2: 30-5: 00 p.m. 19. The instructions so supplied by Dean (Academic) MNNIT clearly proceeds to mention that MNNIT, Allahabad had followed 09 point-scale till June, 2013 and in that evaluation system grading included C = 5 and C+ = 6. A categorical averment has been mentioned that new Ordinances came into existence in June, 2013 in which C+ was removed and C was made equal to 6 (C = 6) from forthcoming session 2013-14 for all the students. As such defence was taken that if we take C = 6 in the examination held prior to July 2013 then two different grades will have to be awarded same grade points in an examination. An attempt to award C = 6 will create an anomaly as C+ is also equal to 6 in the same examination. It is also claimed that the petitioner himself has got C as well C+ in the first attempt in IV semester held in May, 2013 and as such granting such favour to any one student will be against justice and if it is to be done it will distort the whole system. 20. In this backdrop, again we have proceeded to examine the record minutely. We find that in the 4th semester initially the petitioner got 'C+' in Production and Operations Management (ME 404) and 'D' in Measurement and Metrology (ME 403). When he appeared in the supplementary exam for Measurement and Metrology, which took place on 17.7.2013 he scored 'C' and admittedly as per the instructions so submitted by Shri. Upadhyaya this is clearly mentioned that in Measurement and Metrology subject in supplementary exam towards 'C' grade the petitioner was accorded only 5' point. When he appeared in the supplementary exam for Measurement and Metrology, which took place on 17.7.2013 he scored 'C' and admittedly as per the instructions so submitted by Shri. Upadhyaya this is clearly mentioned that in Measurement and Metrology subject in supplementary exam towards 'C' grade the petitioner was accorded only 5' point. Once it has been accepted that the Ordinance 2013 came into effect from the month of July, 2013 and admittedly the petitioner appeared in the supplementary exam, which took place on 17.7.2013 for Measurement and Metrology, wherein he scored 'C' marks, then definitely the MNNIT cannot take such plea that even in that contingency the petitioner had to be given only 5 marks towards 'C' grade and as such the petitioner was wrongly accorded 5 marks towards 'C' in the subject of Measurement and Metrology (ME 403). In fact he had to be accorded 6' as per the present ordinance, wherein for C and C+ in both grades equal 6' marks is to be accorded. 21. So far as the objection that the petitioner was also accorded C+ grade in 4th semester examination in ME 404- Production and Operations Management, the same would have no bearing in the matter as he had appeared subsequently in the supplementary exam in Measurement and Metrology and admittedly he scored Grade C and as such he had to be accorded 6 for such grade. 22. It is also relevant to indicate that '+' grade has not been abandoned by the MNNIT after the ordinance has come into effect. Even in 5th semester the petitioner had been accorded B+ in Principles of Management subject. In 8th semester (Jan 2015-May 2015) B+ is also given in the subject of Bio-Medical Instrumentation. Once the MNNIT had permitted the petitioner to appear in the supplementary exam and he had scored 'C' grade in Measurement and Metrology, then we are of the opinion that against 'C' grade for the said subject the petitioner was liable to be accorded 6 points instead of 5. 23. Once the MNNIT had permitted the petitioner to appear in the supplementary exam and he had scored 'C' grade in Measurement and Metrology, then we are of the opinion that against 'C' grade for the said subject the petitioner was liable to be accorded 6 points instead of 5. 23. As per the chart, which has been supplied by Shri. Lokesh Dwivedi, it is clear that the petitioner is accorded 5 points against the subject of Measurement and Metrology and total of the said subject comes to 20 points and SPI has been 4.92, whereas in case for the same subject if he is given 6 points for Grade C, the total of the said subject would come 24 and grand total would become 127 resulting SPI to be 5.08. As such on this score the submission advanced by Shri. Lokesh Dwivedi has force and is accordingly accepted and as such the petitioner is not academically deficient in 4th semester and as per the chart his SPI would be 5.08, much higher to 5. 24. So far as the issue, which has been framed by learned Single Judge in para 13 "as to whether petitioner is entitled to award of degree in terms of the provisions contained in the Ordinances framed by the University", learned Single Judge has erred in law while answering the same. The submission of Shri. Upadhyaya that the Ordinances relating to bachelor programme cannot be read in isolation in as much as Ordinances 9 and 10 have to be read along with Ordinance 7, which relates to academic performance for promotion to the higher semester and removal of academic deficiency has definitely bearing in the matter and on such score learned Single Judge has erred in law wherein he has solely relied upon Ordinance 10.1, which provides for grant of degree and held that it is only CPI, which alone is determinative under Ordinances for according degree, the same is in fact incorrect. Clause 10.1 clearly proceeds to mention that "a student who completes all the Programme requirements specified in Section 9, has paid all dues to the Institute and the Hostels, and has no case of indiscipline pending against him/her shall be recommended by the Senate to the Board of Governors (BOG) for the award of the appropriate Degree in the ensuing Convocation. The Degree shall be awarded only after the BOG accords its approval". The Degree shall be awarded only after the BOG accords its approval". As per Clause 10.1, the student has to meet the programme requirement specified in Section 9. Section 9.3 merely requires CPI of 5 with no E or F or X grade in any course during the entire programme. He further held that for the purpose of award of degree, it is the CPI, which provides the benchmark for assessing a candidate's academic performance. Once the petitioner fulfils the academic requirement in terms of Clause 9.3 and is otherwise entitled to award of degree under Clause 10.1, the respondent would not be justified in denying the award of degree to the him. Such an observation is not sustainable under the present scheme in question, wherein Clause 9.3 clearly provides that "a student is required to complete successfully all the Courses of the Curriculum prescribed for his/her Undergraduate Programme and attain a minimum level of Academic Performance, i.e., obtain a minimum CPI 5.0 with no E or F or X grade in any course during entire Programme." In fact the aforesaid provision is in two part. Firstly a student is required to complete successfully all the courses of the curriculum prescribed for his/her undergraduate programme. The said requirement corresponds to Clause 7, which talks about the academic performance requirement and which provides that: "A student is promoted to the next higher (Odd or Even) Semester of the Academic Programme only if (i) His/Her SPI and CPI are equal to or greater than 5.0. (ii) He/She does not have E or F or X grade in any registered course or academic activities. A student who does not fulfil either or both of the above conditions shall be categorized as Academically Deficient (ACD)". Following rules shall be applicable to ACD students. (i) The Dean (Academic) and the DUGC Convenors shall advise the students regarding remedial actions to be undertaken to remove the Academic Deficiencies. (ii) An Academically Deficient student may be advised and permitted to register for Courses in which he/she has E or F or X Grades. (iii) He/She may be permitted to register either in regular Semester as back paper(s) or Supplementary Examination for the courses in which he/she has E or F or X grade. (ii) An Academically Deficient student may be advised and permitted to register for Courses in which he/she has E or F or X Grades. (iii) He/She may be permitted to register either in regular Semester as back paper(s) or Supplementary Examination for the courses in which he/she has E or F or X grade. Further, he/she may be permitted to register for the courses, in which he/she has got D grade only if he/she is unable to meet the requirements of SPI and/or CPI, and has no E or F or X grade. (iv) An Academically Deficient student shall be allowed to register in the Third, Fifth and Seventh Semester if and only if he/she has E or F or X grades in not more than three courses of previous Semesters. However, he/she has to acquire SPI & CPI equal to or greater than 5.0 after replacing the old Grades by better of the old and new Grades obtained by such a student to remove Academic Deficiency." 25. After careful examination of Clauses 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, which provides for SPI and CPI as well as Clause 7, this much is clearly reflected that for every semester the SPI is the benchmark, whereby a student has to have 5 points and there is also contingency provided therein to improve his/her performance in case he/she cannot secure 5 points, then appear in the supplementary exam and as such we are of the considered opinion that Ordinances 9 and 10 have to be read along with Ordinance 7 and a student has to secure 5 points in SPI marks in every semester otherwise he/she would be academically deficient. 26. The petitioner himself has appeared thrice in supplementary examination for fourth semester. Even he was deficient in 5th semester and secured SPI as 4.21. But subsequently he appeared in 5th semester supplementary exam- 2015 and had achieved SPI as 5.64. No doubt he had secured CPI in all semester higher than 5 but admittedly as per the marks, which were accorded in 4th semester, as per the calculation of MNNIT he was shown as deficient in 4th semester and continued to be academically deficient till 8th semester and as such we are of the considered opinion that on this score the judgment passed by learned Single Judge cannot stand. But once we have already reached to such conclusion that towards Measurement and Metrology in which he scored 'C' in supplementary exam and instead of 6 he was accorded 5, on this score if this is rectified then for such subject i.e. Measurement and Metrology, his total comes to 24 and grand total would become 127 making SPI as 5.08 and accordingly the petitioner is not academically deficient in 4th semester. On this score the petition is allowed but the reasoning assigned by learned Single Judge, while allowing writ petition, is contrary to the Ordinance in question, as such unsustainable and is accordingly rejected. 27. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of asking the respondents-appellants to issue B. Tech. Degree to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.