BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANAversusARUN RATHI AND ORS.

                  BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION HARYANA                                  A
                                   v.
                         ARUN RATHI AND ORS.

                                  FEBRUARY 9, 1994

                                                                                     B
             (M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. AND S.C. AGRAWAL, J.]


             Education: School educatiort-Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate
       Examination Regulations 1990: Regulation 26-Grace mar~ for passing--
       Award of 1% of aggregate of marks-£xtending such concession to students       C
       for earning compartment-Validity of.

             Regulation 26 of the Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate Examina-
       tion Regulations, 1990 provided for award of 1% of aggregate of marks as
       grace marks to enable such students to pass the examination. However,
       this concession was not extended to enable students to eam compartment.       D

-+ '        Following tile direction of the High Court in Anil Kumar v. Board of
       School Education, Haryana, that the benefit of grace marks be given to
       students to eam compartment, the Board proposed an amendment and
       forwarded it to the State Government for approval.
                                                                                     E
             In the meantime, a Full Bench of the High Court in Meenakshi
       Shanna v. The Board of Education Haryana & Ors., held that grace marks
       could be awarded only to the extent of the total marks in the subject(s)
       alone in which the candidate reappeared. It also negatived the challenge
       to Regulation 26. Thereafter the Board in its meeting held on 23.4.1993       p
       decided that the result of the Examination held in March 1993 would be
       declared giving the benefit of 1% grace marks to students only to pass the
       examination and not to earn compartment.

             The respondents filed Writ Petitions before the High Court contend-
       ing that the right that had accrued to the students could not be permitted    G
       to be taken away by giving retrospective effect to the regulation. The High
       Court allowed the Petitions. The Board came in appeal. On the question
       whether a candidate for the Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate Ex-
       amination is entitled to the award of grace marks so as to enable him to
       earn compartment;                                                             H
                                          741
    .742                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A          Allowing the appeals, this Court

          HELD: 1.1. The High Court was in error in interfering with the
    decision taken by the Board at its meeting held on April 23, 1993, to enforce
    Regulation 26(b), as originally framed, with effect from the Senior Secon·
    dary Certificate Examination March, 1993 and to deny to the respondents
B   the benefit of grace marks to earn compartment. (752-E, F]

          1.2. Prior to April 23, 1993 the Board had been following the law as
    laid down by the High Court in Anil Kumar's case but on April 23, 1993 in
    accordance with the subsequent decision of the Full Bench in Meenakhsi
C   Shanna's case the Board decided to enforce Regulation 26(b), as originally
    framed, with effect from the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
    March, 1993. There was no amendment in Regulation 26(b) at any stage
    because the approval of the State Government to the amendment proposed
    by the Board in the said Regulation after Anil Kumar's case had not been
    received by the Board till April 23, 1993 and, therefore, there is no question
D   of the Board having changed the rules with retrospective effect on April
    23, 1993. (750-F·G·H, 751-A]

          1.3. It cannot be said that the respondents had acquired any right to
    award of grace marks to earn compartment prior to the decision of the
    Board dated April 23, 1993 and, therefore, there is no question of depriva-
E   tion of any right which had vested in the '·respondents. Nor can the
    principle of estoppel be invoked to preclude the Board from enforcing the
    provisions of Regulation 26(b). (751-A-B]

         Mennakshi Shanna v. The Board of School Education Haryana & Ors.,
    C.W.P. No. 1803 of 1993 decided on July 21, 1992 by the Punjab & Haryana
F
    High Court, approved & explained.

          Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Shri Sunder Singh, (1984) 3 S.C.R.
    31, approved.

         Anil Kumar v. Board of Schon! Education, Haryana, Civil Misc. No.
G
    6963 of 1990 and C.W.P. No. 9164 ot 1990 decided on August 18, 1990 by
    the Punjab & Haryana High Court, disapproved.

          Naresh Shoshi v. Punjab School Education Board, C.W.P. No. 9760 of
    1989 decided by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Vishal Kumar v.
H   State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Writ Petition No. 14021of1990 decided on
\
            BOARDOFSCHOOLEDU. v. ARUNRATHI[AGRAWAL,J.)                   743

    December 3, 1991 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Shri Raj Kumar         A
    & Ors. v. State Board of Technical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh, (1990-2
    (XCVIII) P.L.R.179 andAnita Devi':". State of Haryana, (1993) 2104 P.LR.
    137; referred to.

          2. Since the respondents may have proceeded on the basis that they
    would be placed under compartment and they would not be required to B
    appear in regular examination in all the papers in accordance with the
    judgment of the High Court and they may not have taken steps to register
    themselves as students for the regular examination in all the subjects, it
    is but appropriau that the Board should permit them to appear in the
    regular examinations in all the subjects without insisting upon their C
    complying with the requirements regarding attendance etc. [752-G, HJ

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 690-93 of
    1994.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.1993 of the Punjab &             D
    Haryana High Court in W.P. Nos. 9280, 9830 & 10060of1993.

            U.N. Bachawat, Anil Mittal and Manoj Swarup for the Appellant.

            B.S. Walia and S.C. Patel for the Respondents.
                                                                                E
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted.

            Heard learned counsel for the parties.
                                                                                F
           1. These appeals raise the question whether a candidate who has
    taken the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination of the Board of School
    Education, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') is entitled to
    the award of grace marks so as to enable him to earn compartment. The
    respondents in these appeals appeared in the Senior Secondary Certificate G
    Examination of the Board held in the month of March, 1993 but were
    declared as failed since they did not secure the minimum pass marks in
    two of the subjects. They moved the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, by
    filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, and claimed that
    they should be awarded grace marks and be placed under compartment,
    so as to enable them to appear in the supplementary examination in one H
                                                                                    {
    744                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A   paper in September, 1993. The said writ petitions have been allowed by the
    High Court by orders dated September 6, 1993 and September 10, 1993.

          2. The Board has been constituted under the provisions of the
    Haryana Board of School Education Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as
    'the Act'). In exercis~ of the powers conferred by Section 19(1)·of the Act
B   the Board has made the Haryana Senior Secondary Certificate Examina-
    tion Regulations, 1990 . (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations').
    Regulation 26 of the Regulations contains the provisions for awarding of
    1% of the aggregate of marks as grace marks to the candidates appearing
    in 10 + 2 examination to be conducted by the Board. The said Regulation
C   reads as under:

            "26. Grace marks :-

            (a) If a candidate fails in one or more subject(s) and the
                total deficiency is not more than one percent of the
D               aggregate of marks, he will be awarded the required
                grace marks (that can be distributed among any num-
            • ber of subjects) provided, the grace marks awarded in
               practicals do not exceed the marks actually obtained
               by the candidate in the practical examination.

E           (b) A candidate shall not be entitled to the benefit of grace
                marks to earn compartment though he shall be entitled
                to the grace marks to pass the compartment examina-
                tion to the extent of one percent of the maximum
                marks allotted to the examination.
F           (c) A candidate appearing in a subject(s) for improvement
                in his previous performance, will not be entitled to
                grace marks.

            (d) A candidate appearing in one or more additional
               subjects shall also be eligible for grace marks upto 1%
G
               of the aggregate of the total marks allotted to the
               papers."

         3. In Naresh Shosi v. Punjab School Education, Board, (C.W.P. No.
    9760 of 1989) decided by Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab &
H   Haryana on September 15, 1989, the High Court considered Regulation
      BOARDOFSCHOOLEDU. v. ARUNRATHI(AGRAWAL,J.]                       745

16(b)(l) of the Punjab School Education, Board Senior Secondary Certifi- A
cate Examination Part-I, Regulations, 1988 wherein provision was made for
award of grace marks. In the said regulations there was no provisio!l similar
to clause (b) of Regulation 26 of the Regulations whereunder the benefit
of grace marks cannot be given to earn compartment. The High Court has
pointed out that the duty of holding the Senior Secondary Certificate B
Examination was being performed by the Punjab University and the said
work had been transferred to the Punjab School Education Board only
recently. After referring to Regulation 27(1) of the General Regulation for
Examinations contained in Chapter III of the Punjab University Calender
Volume II, 1984 wherein provision was made for award of grace marks and
it was also provided that grace marks be also awarded to a candidate if by C
awarding such grace marks he could earn exemption or compartment in
subject;s and part/s, the High Court has observed that it was difficult to
believe that merely by transfer of work of holding the examination from
the University to the Punjab School Education Board, the benefit of award
of grace marks would be denied in the case of "compartment" candidates D
and its applicability would be restricted to the candidates only to enable
them to pass the examination. It was, therefore, held that Regulation
16(b)(l) of the Punjab School Education, Board Senior Secondary Certifi-
cate Examination Part-I, Regulations, 1988 shall apply to the cases of
compartment candidates also and grace marks shall be awarded to a
candidate if by awarding such marks he can earn exemption or compart- E
ment in subject/s and part/s. It was observed that if the regulation was
capable of the interpretation that grace marks could not be awarded to a
candidate if by awarding such marks he can earn compartment then the
regulation would be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

       4. Following the said decision a division bench of the High Court in
                                                                              F
Anil Kumar v. Board of School Education, Haryana, Civil Misc. No. 6963
of 1990 and Civil Writ Petition No. 9164 of 1990 decided on August 18,
1990, directed the Board to award grace marks so as to entitle the
petitioner in that case to earn a compartment. The Court rejected the
contention urged on behalf of the Board that the decision in Naresh Shosi's G
case (supra) was not applicable in view of the express provision regardip.g
non-award of grace marks in the Regulations of the Board.

      5. Thereafter in Vishal Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., (Civil Writ
Petition No. 14021of1990 decided on December 3, 1991), a single Judge         H
    746                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A of the High Court, relying upon the observation made in Naresh Shosi's
    case (supra) held that Regulation 26(b) of the Regulations, insofar as it
    debars a failed candidate to the entitlement of the benefit of grace marks
    in order to earn compartment is arbitrary and violative uf Articles 14 and
    16 of the Constitution.
B          6. After the decision inAnil Kumar's case (supra), the Board, at its
    meeting held on Septmeber 26, 1990, decided that 10 + 2 candidates who
    had appeared in March, 1990 annual examination but 'had failed, be given
    the benefit of grace marks to earn compartment as per the said decision
    and the candidates whose result are liable to be revised be intimated that
C   they can apply to be placed in compartment in the supplementary examina-
    tion, 1990. It was also decided that a proposal to carry out amendment in
    the relevant Regulations be considered in the next meeting of the Board.
    It appears that the Board also proposed an amendment in Regulation 26
    in the light of the decision of the High Court inAnil Kumar's case (supra)
D   and the same was forwarded to the State Government for approval.

           7. The question whether the concession of grace marks could be
    given to students for earning compartment came up for consideration
    before a full Bench of the High Court in Shri Raj Kumar & Ors. v. State
    Board of Technical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1990-2 (XCVIII) P.L.R.
E   179, in the context of Rule 21 of the Examination Rules of the State Board
    of Technical Education, Punjab, for Pharmacy Course. The said Rule was
    silent about the concession of grace marks being given to students for
    earning compartment. The full Bench construed the Rule as meaning that
    grace marks shall be given only to those students who by getting the same
F   are able to pass in all the subjects. Rejecting the contention that the
    absence of a provision regarding concession of grace marks for earning
    compartment though a provision is made about the grant of grace marks
    for passing out the examination, renders the rule discriminatory, the Full
    Bench has observed:

G           "Moreover, the intention of the rule framers that the
            students of 1st year should get more than one chance to
            pass the preliminary examination can well be gathered
            from plain reading of the rules and once the more benefi-
            cial provisions has been made by providing supplementary
H           examination for a student who is unable to pass out
            BOARD OF SCHOOL EDU. v. ARUN RATHI [AGRAWAL, J.)                  747

              examination, no grievance can possibly be made that the               A
              rules should be held discriminatory only because no
              provision had been made for the grant of concession of
              grace marks to the stude:its for the purpose of earning
              compartment." [p.185)

            8. Recently another Full Bench of the High Court in Anita Devi v.       B
      State of Haryana, (1992) 2 104 P.L.R. 157, has considered the question of
      confining the award of grace marks only to a candidate who can pass the
      examination but not if he is placed in compartment in connection with the
      examinations for awarding of Diploma in Education at the Government
      Elementary Teachers Training Institute, Bhiwani. In the relevant provisions   C
      there was an express prohibition to the effect "that the candidates cannot
      be placed in the compartment by awarding a grace marks." The validity of
      the said provision was assailed as being violative of Article 14 of the
      Constitution and reliance was placed on the decision in Naresh Shosi's case
      (supra). The said contention was, however, rejected and it was held that      D
      the view taken in Naresh Shosi's case (supra) as well as in Vishal Kumar's
-+    case (supra) is not correct and both these decisions have been overruled.
      The Court has agreed with the earlier full bench decision in Raj Kumar's
      case (supra). It has been observed:

              "The academic standards laid down by the appropriate                  E
              authorities postulate the minimum marks that a candidate
              has to secure before he becomes eligible for the award of
              the diploma. The award of grace marks is a concession.
              It results in diluting academic standards. A rule for the
              award- of grace marks has to be construed strictly so as to
                                                                                    F
              ensure that the minimum standards are not allowed to be
              diluted beyond the limit spacifically laid down by the
              appropriate authority. ll is only in a case where the lan-
              guage of the statute is absolutely clear that the claim for
              the award of grace marks can be sustained. Normally, the
              Court shall be slow to extend the concession of grace                 G
              marks and grant a benefit where none is intended to be
.-(
              given by the appropriate authority." (p. 160)

           9. Before the said decision inAnita Devi's case (supra) the provisions
      of Regulation 26 came up for consideration before a full Bench of the High    H
    748                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1994) 1 S.C.R.

A Court, Punjab & Haryana in Meenakshi Shanna v. The Board of School
    Education Haryana & Ors., (Civil Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1992 decided
    on July 21, 1992). In that case the petitioner could qualify only in four
    subjects out of five subjects and was placed under compartment in the
    subject of English Core. She availed the first chance but could not clear
B   the compartment. She appeared for the second time in March, 1991 and
    secured 29 marks out of 100, against the pass percentage of 33. The
    question for consideration was whether the award of grace marks was
    restricted only to the extent of 1% of the maximum marks allotted to the
    subject concerned or 1% of the total aggregate m_arks of all the five           y
    subjects. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Punjab University,
C   Chandigarh v. Shri Sunder Singh, (1984) 3 S.C.R. 31, the High Court has
    held that the grace marks could be awarded only to the extent of 1% of
    the total marks of the subject(s) alone in which the candidate reappears.
    In that case the validity of Regulation 26 had also been diallenged on the
    grou.ud that it was arbitrary. Negativing the said contention it was held:
D
            "So far as the challenge to the vires of regulation 26 ibid
            is concerned, we do not find any constitutional or legal
            infirmity or any arbitrariness in the said regulation. Ob-
            viously, the intention of the Legislature and the object of
            the legislation, were only to promote the interest of educ-
E           tion by requiring the students to achieve success in the
            examination on the basis of their own performance and
            not by depending on the grace of the examining bodies.
            The object underlying the grant of grace marks is to
            remove the real hardship to a candidate who has otherwise
            shown good performance in the academic field but is
F
            somehow losing one year of his scholastic career for the
            deficiency of a mark or so in one or two subjects, while
            on the basis of this overall performance in other subjects,
            he deserves to be declared successful. The consideration
            being a laudable one, regulation 26 is neither arbitrary nor
G           unfair or unjust. In fact, it seeks to lay emphasis on the
            excellence in the field of education; hence, deserves to be
            u~held."


          10. The 'Board, in its meeting held oi;i April 23, 1993, taking nqte of
H the decision in Meenakshi Sha_nna's case (supra) wherein Regulation 26
      BOARD OF SCHOOL EDU. v. ARUN RATHI [AGRAWAL, J.]                  749

has been held to be valid, decided that withdrawal of the benefit given to A
the candidates who had already been granted the benefit of 1% grace
marks to earn compartment on the basis of the decision taken by the Board
on September 26, 1990 and December 21, 1990 pursuant to the earlier
judgment in Anil Kumar's case (supra) would not be justified but the
judgment of the High Court in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) should be B
made applicable from the examination in March, 1993 and onwards, and
that the result of the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination in March,
1993 would be declared giving the benefit of 1% grace marks only to pass
the examination. As a result of the said decision, the Board did not give
the benefit of 1% grace marks to the respondents so as to enable them lo C
be placed under compartment.

       11. In allowing the writ petitions of the respondents the High Court
has proceeded on the basis that prior to April 1993 the Regulation 26(b)
provided for award of grace marks to earn compartment and the Board
had been acting on the said regulation since December 1990 till April 1993 D
and the students were awarded grace marks and were placed under com-
partment but after April 1993 the Board has amended the Regulations to
the effect that no grace marks would be granted for placing the students
under compartment. According to the High Court the respondents took
the examination in March 1993 when the regulation providing for grant of E
grace marks to the students was in operation and was being acted upon by
the Board and the studt>nts acted on the basis of the said regulations and
took the examination and though the Board had amended the regulation
in question on April 23, 1993 before declaration c..i the result yet the right
accrued to the students could not be permitted to be taken away by giving
                                                                               F
retrospective effect to the regulation and the amended regulation, in view
of the full Bench decision, has to come into operation only with regard to
the students who took examination after the regulation had been amended.
The High Court has also observed that the Board was estopped by its act
and conduct in denying grace marks to the respondents for placing them
under compartment particularly when it had acted on the said regulation G
for almost three years and granted the said concession to the students who
had taken examination under the said rule.

     12. Shri Bachawat, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
Board, has submitted that the High Court has proceeded under an er- H
     750                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1994) 1 S.C.R.
.A roneous impression that Regulation 26 had been amended by the Board
      on April 23, 1993 after the decision in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra).
      The learned counsel has pointed out that on April 23, 1993 'the Board had
      taken note of the decision in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) and had
      decided to drop the the amendment which had been proposed in the light
      of the decision inAnil Kumar's case (supra) and had been sent to the State
 B
      Goven~ment for its approval and that .on April 23, 1993 the Board had
      decided to enforce Regulation 26(b), as originally framed, with effect from
      the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination March, 1993 since the Board
      did not wish to withdraw the benefit of 1% of grace marks to earn
      compartment which had been granted to students taking earlier examina-
 c    tions. This contention is fully borne out by the proceedings of the meeting
     .of the Board held on April 23, 1993 which show that in compliance with
      the decision of the High Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) the Board
      started giving 1% grace marks even to a failed candidate to enable him to
      earn compartment with effect from the examinations held in November,
 D    1990 in anticipation of the sanction of the State Government to the
      proposal to amend Regulation 26(b). The said proceedings indicate that
      sanction of the State Government had not been received till the date of the
      meeting of the Board. The proceedings of the meeting dated April 23, 1993,
      also show that having regard to the decision in Meenakshi Shanna's case
 E    (supra) wherein Regulation 26(b) has been upheld, the Board concluded
      that 1% grace marks are not to be given to earn compartment but it
      decided that it would notbe justified to withdraw the benefit of 1% grace
      marks that has already been granted to the candidates and that the judg-
      ment of the High Court in Meenakshi Sharf!1a's case (supra) should be
 F    made applicable from the examination of March 1993 and onwards. The
      proceedings show that prior to April 23, 1993 the' Board had been following
      the law as laid down by the High Court in Anil Kumar's case (supra) but
      on April 23, 1993, in accordance with the subsequent decision of the full
      Bench in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra), the Board decided to enforce
      Regulation 26(b), as originally framed, with effect froni the Senior Secon-
 G    dary Certificate Examination March, 1993. There was no amendment in
      Regulation 26(b) at any stage because the approva~ of the State Govern-       >-
      ment to the amendment prnposed by the Board in the said Regulation after
     Anil Kumar's case (supra) had not been received by the Board till April
      23, 1993 and, therefore, there is no question of the Board having changed
 H
          , BOARD OF SCHOOL EDU. v. ARUN RATHI (AGRAWAL, J.]                751

     the rules with retrospective effect on April 23, 1993. It cannot be said that A
     the respondents had acquired any right to award of grace marks to earn
     compartment prior to the decision of the Board dated April 23, 1993 and,
     t~erefore, there is no question of deprivation of any right which had vested
     in the respondents. Nor can the principle of estoppel be invoked to
     preclude the Board from enforcing the provisions of Regulation 26(b).         B

           13. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted
     that in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) the Court was not dealing with
     the question regarding giving benefit of grace marks to earn compartment
     and the question for consideration before the full Bench was with regard
     to the basis for computing 1% grace marks to be awarded to a candidate C
     who had been placed under compartment and who had appeared in the
     supplementary examination. It is submitted that the validity of Regulation
     26 had been challenged in the said case in the light of the said <!Uestion
     and that the decision in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) negativing the
-+   said challenge cannot be construed as upholding the validity of Regulation D
     26(b) which prohibits award of grace marks to earn compartment. It has
     been urged that since in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) the validity of
     Regulation 26(b), insofar as it prohibits giving the benefit of grace marks
     to earn compartment has not been considered, the Board was in error in
     placing reliance on Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) to take the decision E
     on April 23, 1993 to discontinue the practice of awarding grace marks to
     earn compartment which was being followed since November 1990 in view
     of the decision in Anil Kumar's case (supra)

            14. It is no doubt true that in Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) the
     full Bench of the High Court was considering the question as to the mode F
     of computing the benefit of 1% grace marks to be given to a candidate who
     had been placed under compartment and who had appeared in one subject
     only and the High Court was not required to consider the question whether
     benefit :Of grace marks should be given to earn compartment and the
     validity of Regulation 26, as being discriminatory, was also assailed in the G
     said context. But we find that while negativing the challenge to the validity
     of Regulation 26 the full Bench has considered Regulation 26 in its entirety
     and having regard to the intention of the Legislature and object of the
     legislation, namely, to promote the interest of education by requiring the
     students to \achieve success in the examination on the basis of their own H
    ·152                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1994) 1 S.C.R.

A   performance and not by depending upon the grace marks of the examining
    bodies, the High Court has held that Regulation 26 is neither arbitrary nor
    unfair or unjust. These observations apply to all the clauses of Regulation
    26 including clause (b). For like-reasons a full Bench of the High Court in
    Anita Devi's case (supra) upheld a provision similar to Regulatioh 26(b)
B   which provided that grace marks shall not be awarded to enable a can-
    didate to be placed under compartment. Moreover the judgment in
    Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) has to be read with the earlier judgment
    of the full Bench of the High Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra) wherein
    the Court did not accept the contention that a rule which did not provide
C   for grant of grace marks to enable a candidate to earn compartment was
    arbitrary and discriminatory.

           15. In these circumstances, It cannot be said that the Board at the
    meeting held on April 23, 1993 committed any error in proceeding on the
    basis that Regulation 26(b) has been held to be valid by the High Court in
D   Meenakshi Shanna's case (supra) and in deciding to enforce Regulation         -+--
    26(b) with effect from the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination of
    March 1993 and in declaring the result of the said examination in acwrd-
    ance with the said Regulation.

E          16. The High Court, in the judgment under appeal, was in error in
    interferring with the decision taken by the Board at its meeting held on
    April 23, 1993, to enforce Regulation 26(b), as originally framed, with
    effect from the Senior Secondary Certificate Examination March, 1993 and
    to deny to the respondents the benefit of grace marks to earn compartment.
F   The judgment of the High Court cannot. therefore, be upheld and must be
    set aside.


        17. Since the respondents may have proceeded on the basis that they
  would be placed under compartment and they would not be required to
G appear in regular examination in all the papers in accordance with the
  judgment of the High Court and they may not have taken steps to register
  themselves as students for the regular examination in all the subjects, it is
  but appropriate that the Board should permit them to appear in the regular
  examinations in all the subjects without insisting upon their complying with
H the requirements regarding attendance, etc.
                  BOARD OF SCHOOL EDU. v. ARUN RATHI (AGRAWAL, J.)               753

-l                18. In the result the appeals are allowed, the judgment and order of A
           the High Court dated September 6, 1993 and September 10, 1993 are set
           aside and writ petitions filed by the respondents in the High Court are
           dismissed. The respondents will, however, be permitted to take the next
           Senior Secondary Certificate Examination to be conducted by the Board
           in all the five subjects without their being required to fulfil the require- B
           ments of Regulations relating to attendance, etc. No order as to costs.

           G.N.                                                    Appeals allowed.




...... .