ROSHAN LAL SETH Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Roshanlal has filed this writ petition and it arises out of the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner appeared at the M. A. Final Examination held by the University of Rajasthan in the year 1972 and was declared unsuccessful as he failed to obtain 36 per cent aggregate marks. THE petitioner's contention is that he had appeared in M. A. Previous examination in Economics in 1971 and had obtained out of the total of 400 in four papers 165 marks and was permitted to appear at M. A. final examination in 1972. Out of total of 500 marks including Viva-voce test he secured in M. A. (final) 169 marks. THE petitioner's case is that according to Regulation 12 a candidate who wants to pass his M. A. Examination in any subject is required to get 25 per cent marks in each individual paper both in M. A. previous and final examinations and has to secure 36 per cent aggregate in the subject. According to the marks list supplied to the petitioner, out of 900 total marks he got 334 marks in both the examinations, viz. . M. A. Previous and M. A. Final, which is more than 36 per cent as required by Regulation 12. Petitioner's grievance is that the University by misconstruing Regulation 12 declared him as fail. A representation was made by the petitioner to the Registrar of the University to reconsider his case in the light of the interpretation of Regulation 12 as given by him, but his representation was turned down by the Registrar on the ground that as he failed to secure 36 per cent of aggregate marks in M. A. (Final) examination he could not be declared to have passed the M. A. Examination. THE letters exchanged with the University have been placed on the record, and are marked as Ex. P/7. THE petitioner has now filed this writ petition praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued by this Court quashing the declaration of the result of M. A. Examination by the University as far as it relates to the petitioner and the University may be directed to declare the petitioner as pass in the M. A. Examination in Economics held in the year 1972.

(3.) I have given a very careful thought to the different interpretations given to Regulation 12 by learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the language of Regulation 12 is unambiguous and does not admit of two different interpretations. According ; to this Regulation a student appearing for M. A. Examination is required to obtain 25 per cent marks in each individual paper including the Viva-voce test and he has to secure 36 per cent of the aggregate marks in each subject, which he has chosen to get his degree for Master of Arts. The expression used in Regulation 12 "candidates must obtain for a pass at least 36 per cent of the aggregate marks in each subject" cannot be interpreted to mean that he has to obtain 36 per cent of the aggregate marks for half of the subject also which he covers by taking up four papers in the Previous and the other half taking four papers with Viva-voce test in the Final Examination. In order to find out whether a candidate has secured 36 per cent of aggregate marks in the subject, which he has taken for the Degree of Master of Arts, the University shall have to take into consideration the marks obtained by such a candidate in all the eight papers and in the Vive-voce test covered at both the examinations. Ordinance 212 no doubt requires that a candidate can appear in M. A. final examination only. When he has completed a regular course of study for one academic year after passing his M. A. Previous examination, but it does not lay down any standard for passing previous examination. In order to find out whether a candidate has passed his M. A. previous examination, we have to refer to Regulation 12 which requires that a candidate should obtain 25 per cent marks in each paper. Since the entire subject is not covered by a student in his M. A. previous course, the requirement of getting 36 per cent of the aggregate marks cannot be attracted to declare a candidate as pass in his M. A. (Previous) Examination. The requirement to get 36 per cent of the aggregate marks is for the subject and not for the part of the subject. Therefore, aggregate marks can be considered only when the result of a candidate is to be declared for M. A. Examination and not for the Part of M. A. examination, i. e. , M. A. (Previous) or M. A. (Final), as is clear from the language of Ordinance 210. Therefore, in the scheme of things aggregate marks cannot be considered by the University to declare the result of M. A. (Previous) or M. A. (Final) Examinations separately. In this view of the scheme of examination a candidate shall be taken to have passed his M. A. (Previous) or M. A. (Final Examination if he has obtained 25 per cent marks in each paper, and this Ordinance 212, as canvassed by Shri Kasliwal, can not provide any clue to interpret Regulation 12. The only meaning that can be given to Regulation 12 is that in order to declare a candidate pass at the M. A. Examination which undoubtedly would consist of M. A. (Previous) and M. A. (Final) examinations, a candidate is required to secure 25 per cent marks in each paper and 36 per cent of the aggregate marks in the subject which percentage can be calculated only after taking into consideration the total marks obtained by him in all the eight papers and the Viva-voce test when a candidate can be said to have covered the entire subject by appearing in at the M. A. Previous and M. A. Final examinations.