BRAJENDRA KUMAR SRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions relate to the interpretation of Regulation no. 16 of Bachelor in Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S. for short) Examination framed by the Syndicate of the University of Bihar under Section 34 (2) (i) of the Bihar State University Act. The petitioners are students of Dhanwantari Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Ahirauli, Buxar, who have moved this Court for issuance of a direction that they have passed the B.A.M.S. Pre- Ayurvedic examination held in the month of April 1983 and 1984 as per Regulation No. 16 aforesaid.

(2.) Facts.In C.WJ.C. No. 3733 of 1985 the petitioner after being admitted in the session 1981-82 appeared in the month of April 1984 in Pre-Ayurvedic examination at the State Ayurvedic College Centre, Patna. The result of the said examination was published in January 1985. The petitioner is shown to have failed in one subject, namely, Physics (Prarambhik Padarth Vigyan as he obtained 87 marks in theory out of a total of 200 marks in theory of that subject, the pass marks being 100. He however, obtained 29 marks out of 50 in practical in that subject whereas the pass mark was 25. The total marks in Physics was 250 and his total mark was 116. In brief, he failed in theory paper of Physics by 13 marks. In C..W.J.C. No. 3041 of 1986 the three petitioners were admitted in Pre- Ayurvedic course of the session 1980-81 and after completion of their course appeared at the Pre-Ayurvedic examination held in the month of April 1983, the result of which was published in September 1983 but their names were not in the list of successful candidates. They, were not forwarded the marksheets. The petitioners were, however, allowed to take their admission in B.A.M.S. Part I course and they completed their B.A.M.S. Part I course, which is of two years' duration. They were permitted to appear at the B.A.M.S. Part I examination and were promoted to B.A.M.S. Part 11. They were, however, shown to have failed in B.A.M.S. Part I because they had not cleared Pre-Ayurvedic examination. In that view of the matter, they were not allowed to participate in B.A.M.S. Part II University examination. On having obtained the marksheets of B.A.M.S. Pre-Ayurvedic examination it was found that all the three petitioners failed in the theory paper of Physics but have all passed in the practical paper in that subject. Petitioner no. I was short by 9 marks, petitioner no. 2 by 10 marks and petitioner no. 3 by 13 marks.

(3.) All the petitioners in both the cases, thus, have failed only in the theory paper of Physics and have passed in the practical paper of the said subject but the marks obtained by them in Physics paper are not short by more than 6% of the total marks (250) in that subject According to the petitioners, in that view of the matter, having failed by not more than 6% of the total marks in a single subject, they should be deemed to have passed in view of Reegulation No. 16 of the Regulations, but the contention on behalf of the University is, petitioners are not entitled to the said benefit as they have not admittedly got 60% marks in the practical paper in Physics. Thus, the moot question in these cases is what is the correct meaning of Regulation No. 16 of the Regulations.