JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the 1st and 3rd respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P8 and P9 requests of the petitioner, further directing the respondents to award grace grade points to the petitioner for the Mathematics paper in the 3rd and 4th semesters in terms of Ext.P6, and to set aside Ext.P10 order of the respondents and declare that the petitioner is entitled for award of grace marks in accordance with Ext.P6 guidelines. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner herein was a student of B.Sc. Physics at St. Albert's College, Ernakulam, functioning under the Mahatma Gandhi University during the academic session 2013- 2016. Petitioner was very active in sports activities. As per Ext.P6 order, students who participate in sports, arts, NSS and NCC and cultural activities are awarded grace marks in University Examinations. According to the petitioner, petitioner is eligible for such grade points, since he had taken part in NCC activities. Thereupon, petitioner had submitted necessary application for award of grace marks on time. However, respondents have not considered the application of the petitioner on time, and it is found, when Ext.P1 mark list is issued, petitioner has not passed the course since he is declared failed in the Mathematics paper in the supplementary examinations of 3rd and 4th semester. According to the petitioner, it has happened since respondents have applied the grace grade points in accordance with Ext.P7, which is not applicable to the petitioner. Thereupon, requests have been made before the 1st and 3rd respondents to grant the grace marks in terms of Ext.P6. Even though petitioner has submitted Exts.P8 and P9 requests dated 10.02.2017 and 23.02.2017, seeking to apply Ext.P6 guidelines, same were declined as per Ext.P10 order dated 18.03.2017. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 3. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the 1st respondent University, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, petitioner was a student during the academic session 2013-2016, and therefore, the grace mark order pertaining to him is as per Annexure-I (Ext.P7) and not Ext.P6 order dated 25.06.2010. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the 1st respondent University, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, petitioner was a student during the academic session 2013-2016, and therefore, the grace mark order pertaining to him is as per Annexure-I (Ext.P7) and not Ext.P6 order dated 25.06.2010. As per item No.3 of Annexure-I guidelines, it is stipulated that eligible grace marks shall be distributed equally on all theory papers. Re-distribution of grace marks shall be allowed only in the case of those papers of an examination for which the candidate has passed i.e., to say, re-distribution can be done from passed papers to other failed papers only. Re-distribution of grace marks is not permissible from failed papers to other failed papers, for a pass. As per item No.8 of Annexure-I, eligible grace marks awarded for regular examinations shall be carried over only to the corresponding paper/course for the next immediate supplementary examination. 4. Petitioner has submitted application and relevant documents for grace marks on 06.05.2016 and it was processed in accordance with Annexure-I, evident from Annexure-II application. As such, petitioner has been given 22 grace marks each for 3rd semester conducted during October, 2015 and 4th semester conducted during March, 2015. Later, University issued modified orders enhancing the existing grace marks for NCC, evident from Annexure-III order dated 20.02.2017. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted an application on 14.06.2017, stating that petitioner is eligible for 13% (47 marks each for 3rd and 4th semesters) in accordance with Annexure-III, so as to secure a pass in failed Mathematics paper in the 4th semester. Considering his petition, grace mark was re-distributed in tune with Annexure-III order. Hence, the petitioner was given 47 marks each in the 3rd and 4th semesters. Even though petitioner could pass his 3rd semester Mathematics with grace mark, he could not pass Mathematics in the 4th semester. 5. That apart, it is submitted, the candidate has to secure a minimum of 6 marks for internal examination, but the petitioner secured only 2 marks for English. So, as per the provision of re-distribution of marks from the passed subjects to failed subjects, 4 marks have been taken from Hindi and a total of 14 marks have been given to the petitioner for a pass in English. So, as per the provision of re-distribution of marks from the passed subjects to failed subjects, 4 marks have been taken from Hindi and a total of 14 marks have been given to the petitioner for a pass in English. Two marks have been taken from Hindi and redistributed to the paper Advanced Physical Chemistry for a pass. Now, there is only 4 marks for the subject Hindi for redistribution and it is not enough for the paper Electricity and Electro-dynamics and mathematics. So, the marks for the subjects were reserved for the candidate's next immediate supplementary examination. 6. It is also submitted that, petitioner is not eligible for grace marks as per Ext.P6 notification, which is applicable only to candidates up to 2012 admission, and since petitioner belongs to 2013 admission, he is eligible for the grace mark distribution as per Annexures-I and III, and has been awarded the maximum marks eligible in accordance with the Rules. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 8. The subject issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition revolves around Exts.P6 and P7 orders issued by the 1st respondent University dated 25.06.2010 and 16.04.2016 respectively. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is entitled to get grace marks/grade points on account of his participation in the NCC. The primary question to be considered is, whether the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of Ext.P6. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner was a student during the academic session 2013-2016. Therefore, when petitioner started his academic pursuits, Ext.P6 was the order in vogue, and the petitioner was entitled to get grace marks as per Ext.P6. It is clearly stated in clause 12 of Ext.P6 order that the award of Grace Points shall be made effective from the academic year 2009-2010 onwards. Various parameters and stipulations are made in Ext.P6 in order to distribute the grade points. 9. However, the issue arose when Ext.P7 order is issued by the 1st respondent University dated 16.04.2016, providing guidelines for the award of Grace Mark for courses other than Professional Courses. Various parameters and stipulations are made in Ext.P6 in order to distribute the grade points. 9. However, the issue arose when Ext.P7 order is issued by the 1st respondent University dated 16.04.2016, providing guidelines for the award of Grace Mark for courses other than Professional Courses. The last clause of the said order states that, Ext.P7 University order will have effect from 2013 Admission onwards, however, it is explained that, settled cases will not be re-opened. According to the petitioner, the distribution of marks as per Ext.P6 guidelines is more beneficial to him than the distribution stipulated under Ext.P7 guidelines. 10. The sole question remains to be considered is, whether as stipulated in Ext.P7, the case of the petitioner is a settled one, which is not liable to be re-opened. When the petitioner started his academic pursuits, as I have pointed out earlier, Ext.P6 University order was applicable. Thereupon, petitioner had expected, when he participated in the activities of NCC that, he is entitled to get marks in accordance with Ext.P6 University order. Therefore, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, when the petitioner became eligible to secure the grace marks, Ext.P6 had become applicable to the petitioner. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, the case of the petitioner has become settled from the academic year 2013 onwards. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the notification applicable to the petitioner is Ext.P7. If Ext.P6 is advantageous to the petitioner, then it is most unfair, improper, and arbitrary to stipulate that a notification issued, after the course period is over, will apply to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, a beneficial approach shall be made in the award of grace marks, since the students participating in various sports activities, NCC, NSS, cultural activities etc. etc. are diverting their substantial academic hours for the purpose of practice and participation. 11. In my view, such a rigid approach made, can only defeat the purpose for which the grace points/marks are awarded. Which thus also means, the approach should be gracious enough to protect the interest of the beneficiary. Moreover, if such rigid stipulations are brought forth by giving retrospective operation, scuttling a beneficial order, it creates a negative impact in the mind of the students participating in such extracurricular activities in due course, interfering with the laudable objects of such programmes. Which thus also means, the approach should be gracious enough to protect the interest of the beneficiary. Moreover, if such rigid stipulations are brought forth by giving retrospective operation, scuttling a beneficial order, it creates a negative impact in the mind of the students participating in such extracurricular activities in due course, interfering with the laudable objects of such programmes. Therefore, the stipulation contained in the last clause of Ext.P7, that it will not apply to cases settled, is read down to mean, it will not apply to the students who have completed their academic session during the period 2015-2016. 12. Even though petitioner has submitted exts.P8 and P9, they were declined by Ext.P10 order applying the last clause of Ext.P7, stipulating that Ext.P7 is the guideline applicable to the petitioner. In view of my above findings, I do not think that the decision taken by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P10 can be sustained under law, being arbitrary and illegal. 13. Resultantly, I allow the writ petition and direct the 1st respondent University to apply Ext.P6 stipulations to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and re-consider Exts.P8 and P9 applications, also read along with Annexure-III order dated 20.02.2017. If the petitioner is entitled to succeed in his venture, then the marks shall be redistributed in accordance with the guidelines specified above, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, all consequential actions shall follow, if the petitioner is successful. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.