JUDGMENT : MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. 1. The appellant is a MBBS student. He appeared for the first professional MBBS examination conducted in the month of August, 2015. There are altogether three papers in the said examination and he failed in all the three papers. Subsequently, he appeared in the Anatomy paper alone (Anatomy paper I and II) in the supplementary examination held in February, 2016 and again failed. Thereafter, he appeared in the second supplementary examination in the month of August 2016 and passed in the said paper. The appellant now contends that he ought to have been declared as passed in Physiology paper in the light of the marks obtained by him in August 2015 in terms of Ext.P11 decision of the Academic Council. So far as the paper of Bio-Chemistry is concerned, there is no dispute in the marks and the appellant contends that once he passes in Physiology paper, he would be entitled to get grace marks (5 marks) to pass in the Bio-Chemistry paper. 2. Ext.P1 Regulation states that the entitlement of grace marks is limited to those students who have passed in two papers and failed in one paper. According to the University, the said Regulation necessarily discloses that grace marks are available to the students who appear in three papers and passes two out of the three papers at a stretch. It means that the grace marks cannot be granted to a student who passed the examinations in different sittings. 3. The case of the appellant is that he is entitled to claim the benefit arising under Ext.P11 decision of the Academic Council wherein the Council has decided that if the score of a student is improved in the third valuation, the marks obtained in the third valuation shall be treated as the final mark of the student. The said submission is opposed by the University. 4. The learned single Judge, by the impugned judgment, had refused to accept the contention of the appellant herein and dismissed the writ petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant scored between 45% to 49% of marks in Physiology paper. In the first valuation, out of 50 marks, the appellant scored 30 marks for first paper and for the second paper, he scored 13 marks. 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant scored between 45% to 49% of marks in Physiology paper. In the first valuation, out of 50 marks, the appellant scored 30 marks for first paper and for the second paper, he scored 13 marks. In the second valuation, the appellant scored 18 marks for first paper and for the second paper, he scored 21 marks. Accordingly, the Physiology papers of the appellant were sent to third valuation. In the third valuation, out of 50 marks, for the first paper, he scored 34 marks and for the second paper, he scored 31 marks. According to the appellant, he is entitled to be declared as "pass" in Physiology papers inasmuch as he scored pass marks in the third valuation as per the Academic Council's decision in Ext.P11. However, the University had taken the average of the nearest two marks, by which he could not secure pass marks. 6. To decide the said question, it is better to note the relevant portion of Ext.P11 decision taken by the Academic Council which is heavily relied upon by the appellant. The relevant portion of the academic council's decision is as under: "Awarding of Grace Marks for MBBS and BDS courses The existing rules for awarding grace marks to the students of MBBS and BDS courses, permits awarding of marks only to one subject to obtain a whole pass. It does not permit distribution of marks among different subjects. On perusing the results of various course over years it is also noted that considerable number of failed students score between 45 to 49 marks, when the average of the two valuation is taken as final mark. The Act governing the University also does not permit revaluation after the results. In the above circumstances, it has become imperative on the part of University, that such students get another valuation before the finalization of the result so as to ascertain that students are metered out justice to their actual performance. Hence the following recommendations in addition to the existing rules are placed before the Academic Council for consideration: (i) The answer books of those students who have scored, between 45 marks to 49 marks (both inclusive) where the average is taken, shall be sent for another valuation. 1. Hence the following recommendations in addition to the existing rules are placed before the Academic Council for consideration: (i) The answer books of those students who have scored, between 45 marks to 49 marks (both inclusive) where the average is taken, shall be sent for another valuation. 1. If the score of a student is improved in such valuation, that mark shall be taken as the final mark of the student. 2. If the score of a student after the said valuation, goes below the marks already obtained as average of two valuation, the better score shall prevail. xxx xxx xxx The Academic Council approved the amendment with the following modifications:- (i) For examinations with double valuation system (UG and PG), answer books carrying average marks between 45% to 49% shall also be send for third valuation. For cases where there are more than two valuations this will not be applicable. (ii) Papers with 35% or above marks in any one of the valuation shall only be send for third valuation. (iii) Distribution of grace marks may be permitted among theory and practicals. It shall be limited to one subject, for MBBS and BDS course as there is statutory council restrictions." (Emphasis supplied) It is also relevant to note the order dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Kerala University of Health Sciences dealing with valuation strategy, the relevant portion of which reads thus: "Valuation Strategy Double valuation of the answer papers in two different centers/Centralized Valuation Camp will be performed. If the variation in marks is more than 15% of the total marks, the paper should go for a third valuation. No re-valuation should be permitted, only re-totaling permitted. The average of marks obtained for double valuation is taken as the original mark of the student. In the case of answer papers going for third valuation the average of nearest two marks is taken." 7. The order of the Kerala University of Health Science dated 15.11.2011 is produced by the University as Ext.R2(a). The said order is in existence since 15.11.2011. The Standing Counsel for the University submits that the University has been following the very order from that day onwards. The order of the Kerala University of Health Science dated 15.11.2011 is produced by the University as Ext.R2(a). The said order is in existence since 15.11.2011. The Standing Counsel for the University submits that the University has been following the very order from that day onwards. The valuation strategy mentioned in Ext.R2(a) order, quoted supra, discloses that if the difference in marks obtained by the candidate pursuant to the double valuation is more than 15% of the total marks, the paper should go for a third valuation. Thus, as on the date of passing of the order [Ext.R2(a)] the third valuation was not possible. If the variation in marks obtained by the candidate in the double valuation is less than 15% of the total marks, no third valuation is possible. 8. Subsequently, the academic council has approved the amendment to the said order/ regulation as per Ext.P11. The above quoted paragraphs in Ext.P11 reveal that certain recommendations were made to the Academic Council in addition to the existing rules. One of the recommendations was that the answer books of the students who have scored marks between 45% to 49% of the total marks shall be sent to third valuation. If the score of the student is improved in such valuation, that mark shall be taken as the final mark of the student, i.e., if the score of the student after the third valuation goes beyond the marks already obtained, the better score shall prevail. 9. Thus, the proposal to the Academic Council was to make the result of third valuation final if the score of the student has improved in the third evaluation. If the score of the student after the third evaluation goes below the marks already obtained in the average of two valuations earlier made, then the better of the three valuations will prevail. But such recommendations, made to Academic Council, were approved with certain modification subsequently and while approving amendment of the rule, the Council has not agreed to approve all the recommendations made to it. It has merely approved the amendment with the following modification: "For examinations with double valuation system the answer books carrying average marks between 45% to 49% shall also be sent for third valuation." This is the only modification which is approved by the Academic Council and no other proposal was accepted. It has merely approved the amendment with the following modification: "For examinations with double valuation system the answer books carrying average marks between 45% to 49% shall also be sent for third valuation." This is the only modification which is approved by the Academic Council and no other proposal was accepted. It means that the Academic Council has approved the amendment only to an extent that if the student obtains marks between 45% to 49% when the average of first and second valuations is taken, such paper should be sent to third evaluation. The pass marks for a particular paper is 50%. Thus in order to help the students who have secured 45% to 49% marks in any subject, the Academic Council took a decision to get such papers re-valuated through third evaluation. For all other practical purposes, all other regulations which are already in existence as found in Ext.R2(a) dated 15.11.2011 continued till this day. The valuation as stated in Ext.R2(a) clearly reveals that average marks obtained for double valuation is taken as the original mark of the student. 10. In the case of answer papers going for third evaluation, the average of nearest two valuations is taken, i.e. in case the candidate gets more marks in the third valuation when compared to first and third valuation, the average of the nearest of the two marks (obtained among the three valuations) is taken as final. 11. The learned single Judge, on evaluating the material on record, the rules and concerned regulations, has correctly concluded so holding that the average of the nearest two marks is to be taken into consideration in case the papers are subjected to third valuation. Though a proposal was made to the Academic Counsel to treat the result of the third valuation as final, the same was not accepted by the Academic Council as is clear from Ext.P11. In view of the same, the University is justified in refusing to declare as passed in Physiology paper in so far as the appellant is concerned. Hence, no interference is called for. The writ appeal is dismissed.