VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner passed his M.A. Examination in English from the Panjab University in April, 1965, securing 367 marks and was thus placed in third class. In order to improve his prospects of service, he again took Part II Examination in 1966 to improve his class. This was permissible to him under Regulation 16 of the Regulations framed by the Panjab University under Section 31 of the Panjab University Act. In that examination the Petitioner secured 207 marks out of 400. In Part I Examination he had already secured 186 marks. Adding the two the total came to 393 out of 800 marks, with the result that the Petitioner again got third class instead of second class. The Petitioner claimed that he was entitled to seven marks to be added to the aggregate of both Part I and Part II Examinations to award him a higher class under Rule 6(d) in Chapter XXIX of the Panjab University Calendar, 1966, Volume III. Rule 6 deals with the moderation of results with regard to M.A..M. Sc. and M. Ed. examinations and reads, as under:

(2.) SUB -rules (a) and (b) of Rule 6 have no applicability to the Petitioner. The question to be decided is whether the Petitioner's case is covered by Sub -rule (c) or Sub -rule (d) of Rule 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submits that it is Sub -rule (d) which applies and not Sub -rule (c), while the learned Counsel for the Respondent contends that Sub -rule (c) applies and not Sub -rule (d). The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Sub -rule (c) does not apply because grace marks are those marks which are given to a candidate in order to enable him to pass the examination and not to improve his class, to which Sub -rule (d) applies. I regret my inability to agree to this submission.