Holding

The amendment to the university regulation granting grace marks was prospective, not retrospective, and the Senate lacked power to apply it retrospectively; therefore the old rule could not be invoked by Subash Chander and he was not entitled to the extra grace marks.

Summary

The case concerned Subash Chander, who entered the M.B.B.S. programme of Punjab University in 1965 under Regulation 25 which allowed grace marks up to 1% of the total aggregate. In 1970 the University amended the rule, adding an exception that for M.B.B.S. examinations grace marks could be given only up to 1% of each subject’s total, not the aggregate. When Chander appeared for his final exams in 1974 he failed Midwifery by one mark under the new rule and claimed that the old rule should apply to him. The Supreme Court examined whether the amendment was retrospective and whether the Senate, under Section 31 of the Punjab University Act, could frame regulations with retrospective effect. It held that the amendment was prospective, not retrospective, and that the Senate lacked power to impose retrospective regulations; consequently the old rule could not be applied to Chander and he was not entitled to the additional grace marks. The appeal by Punjab University was allowed, affirming the lower court’s decision that Chander had failed.

Issues considered

Whether the amendment to Rule 2.1 of Punjab University regulations granting grace marks was retrospective in operation.
Whether the Senate of Punjab University, under Section 31 of the Punjab University Act, has authority to make regulations with retrospective effect.
Whether a student admitted under the old regulation is entitled to its benefit for examinations conducted after the amendment.
Whether the University can alter the percentage of marks required for passing and the basis of grace marks without infringing vested rights.

Legislation cited

Punjab University Acts. 31(1), s. 31(2)(n)

Subjects

retrospective legislationuniversity regulationsgrace marksPunjab University Actsection 31M.B.B.S. examinationvested rightsprospective amendmenthigher education law

Judgment

A PUNJAB UNIVERSITY

v.

SUBASH CHANDER AND.ANR.

8 May -17, }984
•
[A.P. SEN, A. VARADA\lAJAN AND V. BALAKRIS!lNA BRAD!, JJ.) ,
'
Punfab University Calendar, 1965·Rule 7.1 re'tating to M.8.B.S. course read -
with Regu!dti(Jn 25 of Punjab University Regulations framed under P,iinjah. Univer-
sity Act'-Rule 7.1 a'"'!nded by Univmlty in May 1970 by way of addition of
excep"tif;n to-Rule 2.J .ofPunjab Univefsity.CalenUar, 1970 co_iresponding_ to ]J.ule
7.1of1965-Incorporated in Punjab University Calendar 1974-Whether amendtd
rule had retrospective o'peration-Whether candidate joining ~M."B.B.S. course in
1965 and appearing for final exarnination in 1974 governed by old rule in force in
1965-or new rule in force in 1974-Whether ~ student has ~ested right to claim
benefit ofdny regulation·ot ru1e which was in 'force when he was admitted to th'e
' .
o· c-ourse.

Words and Phrases-'~etros.p~ctive"-Meaning of.

The first respondent joined M.B.B.S. course of the appellant· Punjab
University in 1965. At that ti1ne Regulation 25. of the Punjab University framed
under s.31 of the Punjab Universit\)"-Act required a minimum of 50 pe~ cent of
E lnarks to pass in each subject and Rule 7.1 relating, inter alia, to M.B.B.S.
"course IJfOvided that a candid<ite who fails in one or more papetsfsubjects /or
aggregate may be given grace m1rks up.to 1 p~r cent of the .total aggregate
0

·marks excluding-for _practical and internal assessment to h is best advantage in
· order to have ~im declared to- have passed. the examination. In 1970, Rule 7.1
Was amended by the addition of an exception to Rule 2.1-which provided that
in the case of M.J;i.B,S. examitlation however the grac;e marks shall be given
F
upto 1 per cent of the total ms.rks of each subject and not upto t per cent of
the aggregate marks of all the subjects. The first. respondent who appeared for
the final M.B.B.S. examination in 1974 Was declared to have failed in one
SUbjeCt b,:CaUS~ he COU]d fl Qt s'ecure. 50 petA centin that Sl,lbject even after being
· award'ed the grace ~ar~s according to the new rule. This was cha1lenged before.
the Hii:;h Court by the first respondent ort the grouud that the old R.egula~ion 25
.•
G r,e~d with the old Rule 7.1 which was in force when he joined the course in 1965
should be made applicable to him and he should be declared to.have Passed in
that subj_ect. The Punjab University~ wntended that there was no element of
retrospectivity in the application of the .amended rule and that students were
bound to se~ure 1narks as per the regulation in force at the time of Commence- '
ment of the exaa1ination concerned and they had no !vested right to claim. the
H benefit of any regulation or rule.Which was in force when they ,were admitted to
the course. Confirming the judgment of a single Judge, a Fun Bench _of the
· High Court in a Letters Patent ilppeal·opined that there was nothing ill s.31 of
the Punjab University Act ~bich would' clothe the Senat~, explicitly or iffipliedly

•
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY v. S. Clli\NDER 823
With the power to frame-regulations retrospectively and held that the regulation,
as amended in 1970, ha4. fetrospectively altered tJ?.e condition_ of the
firsf respondent taking the examination to his detriment and could not be
applied to him and that he was governed only by Regulation 25 read with Rule.
·1.1 as it wa"' in force whl!n he joined the course in 1965. The 1-ligh CoU!t
observed that M.B.B.S. was a siOgle integrated composite cour~e and the change
in the regulations was· a change in the C!?urse of that single Integrated course and
B
was retrospective in natqre. Hence this iippeal.

'f Allowing the appeal,.

HELD : The Senate of the Punjab University had the necessary power
unde·r s.3J of the Act to fix, trom time to tin1e, the percentage of marks required
for passing the examination and to grant or to refuse to grant grace marks o~ G
to enhance .or reduce the quantum of grace marks. [8308]

The"re is rio element of retrospectivity in the change brought about by the
addition of the excepti.on to Rtile 2.1 of the ·Ca la lid er for the year 1970. ''Retros-
pective" according to the Shorter Oxford English !Dictinoary, Third Edition. in
relatiori·to StatUtes etC. means ''Operath,·:;: \Vith regafd to past tirne 0 • The" change D
brought about by the addition of the exception to Rule 2.1 does not say tha'.t ;t
sbaJl be oP'erative with effect from any earlier date. It is ob:viousljr.prospective.
Jt is Dot Possible to hold that it is retrospective in operation merely because
though introduced in 1970 it was applied ·to the first rcspondent;who apperred
for the final eAamina:tion in 1974, after he had joined t.he courS""e earJ.ier in 1965.
'No prOmise was made or could be deemed to have been made to him at the time
of his admission in 1965 that there will be no ~Iteration of the rule or regulation
A• in reg~rd to the percentage of marks required for passing any exatnination or
award of grace marks and that the rules relating thereto which' were in force
at the: time of his adII1iSsion Would continue to be applied to bim _until he finish-
ed his whole course. [8JOE-G]

Shorter Oxford English ~ictionary, Third Edition, referred to~ F
There is no question of the Cban.ge in the rule ·made in the year 1970 ·hav·
,. . , ing retrospective operation merely because it was applied in 1974 to the fir~t
respondent who had joined the M.B.B.S. course in 1965 when the rtile regard·
ing award of grace marks was different. [832C]

The University was right in holding_ .that the first respondent was not G ·.
-entitled to grace inarks·under the old rule but was entitled· to grace marks under
tho new rule and had therefore not passed·the examination. (8320]

Sewa Ram v. Kurukshetra University.I LPA 97 of 1961 decided on
17.7.1968 by Punjab and Haryana High' Court, upheld.

B.N. Mishra v. State, [1965) 1 SCR 297, referred t9,
...

('.
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.R, r
:
A CIVIL APPELLATE JuR1smc110N: Civil Appeal No. 2828
of 1977.

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 7th Septep'l.ber, 1976 of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in·
Letters Patent Appeal Nq. 352 of 1975. ·
B
Jmvahar Lal Gupta, . Janendralal and B.R. Agarwala for the -\ ,
Appellant.

Randhir Jain for the Respondent.

c The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by

VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is bY. Punjab
University against the Judgment of a Full Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in tqe Letters "Patent Appeal. 352 of 1975
confirming the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P. 1017
D of 1975;

Subash Chander, respondent 1 in this appeal,, joined the
Daya Nand Medical College, Ludhiana, for the M.B.B.S. course in
1965 when Regulation 25 of t~ Punjab University was in . force.
E That regulation required a minimum of 50 per cent of. marks to
pass in each subject. However Rule 7.1 relating to the M.B.B.S,
and certain 0ther courses provided that-

"a candidate who fails in one .or mor~ papers/subjects
·and/or aggregate may be given grace marks up to 1 per
F. cent of th.e total aggregate marks (including marks for
practical and illtemaf assessment) to his best advantage in
or de: tn be declared to have passed the examination." .,
But in May 1970 an amendment was made by the University
in the form of an exception to Rule 2.1 which corresponds to Rule
G 7.1 which was in force in 1965 iri the following terms~ .

"2.\-,A candidate who appears in all subjects of the
examination and who fails in one or . more subjects (writ-
ten, practical, session al or viva voce and/or aggregate (if
H there is a separate requirement.of passing in the.aggregate)
shall. be. given grace marks upto 1% of the total aggregate
lll.arks (excluiling marks for internal !ISSessment) to !Dake.
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY I'. s. CHANDER (Varadrajan, J.) 825
..
up for·the deficiency if by such addition the candidate can A
pass the examination. While awardilltl grace marks
fraction working to l /2 or more will be rounded to a
whole." ' .

Exception-}n the case of M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. exa-
minations, however, t]je grace marks shall be giv~n up to B
one per cent of the total of each subject and not upto one
percent of aggregate of all the- subjects. In "other words,
each subject will be, for this purpose, a separate unit, an.ct
a ·candidate who fails in a subject \\jl not more than one
per cent of the aggregate marks ·Of that subject may be
given the requited number of marks in order to. pass in
c
that subject."

Su bash Chander, ref pondent I, appeared for the final
M.B.B.S. examination in 1974 and secured the following marks
• and remarks :- D

Medicine-202 out of 400 p.

Surgery--'-225 out of 400 p. •
Eye and ENT-204 out.400 p. · E
Midiwifery : (i) Theory -95 out of 200)
(ii) Practical-106 out of 200) Reappear

According to Regulation 25 read with Rule 7.1 which was in
force when Subash Chander joined the course in 196~ he would be F
eligible for grace marks .at I per cent of th.e aggregate marks of
1600 for all the above four subjects, which will be 16, and he would
have passed in Midwifery also. But he was given only I per cent
of the total marks of 400 for Midwifery _as per the amended· Regu-
lation 25 read with Rule 2.1. of the Punjab. University Calendar, G
1974, namely fo\lr as grace marks and held to have failed in Mid-
wifery as the total of 95 marks which he actually s~cured and the 4
grac~ marks in the theory in that suhjed't fell short of 50 per cent by
1 mark. His contention is that the old Regulation 25 read with
the old Rule 7.J which was in force when he joined the course in H
1965 should be made applicable to him and he should be declared
to h~ve passed the final ex,amination in ft)!! including Midwifery .
..
,_
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.R r ..;;w

A . · Before the High Court, it was contended for the Punjab
University that there is no clement of ~etrospe~tivity in the appli~
cation of the amended regulation and rule to students appearing
for the examinations subsequent to the amendment. and that stu-
dents are bound to secure marks as per the regulation in force at
the time. of commencement of the examination concerned and they
B have no vested right to Claim the benefit of any regulation or rule
which was in force when they were admitted to the course.

'Chief Justice .S.S. -Sandhawalia who spoke for the Full Bench
in the Letters Patent Appeal out 'of which this appeal before us
has arisen noticed certain decisions of the Punjab and Haryana
0 High Court and obsenred that they did not lay down clear guide-
lines for deciding the question at issue, namely whether the Uni-
versity is entitled to changij_ the regulation relating to tile percen-
tage of gaace m~rks to be awarded to students and the basis for
awarding the same i..e. whether it is on the· aggregate or' the marks
D of an the subjects for which the students. appeared in the concerned •
examination or the aggregate of the marks of tlie subject in which
they had failed in that examination. The learned Chief Justice
noticed this Court's observation in Hukum Chand v. Union of
.
•
lndial1) which is this ;- •
E. "The qnderlying principle is .that unlike sovereign
legislature which has power to enact laws with retrospec-
. tive operation authority vested with the power of makin_g
subordinate legislation has to act within the limit oi:: its ·
power and.cannot transgress the same."

- And he proceeded to consider whether s. 31 of the Punjab
University Act under which the regulations in question have been
framed empowers the Senate to frame regulation with retrospec-
tive effect. Sectio'n 31 reads thus :-

"S. 31(1) The Senate,· with the Sanction of the ·
G , Government, may from 'time to time make •regulations
consistent with this Act to provide for all matters relating
to the University.
. .
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the, genera-
H lity of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide
· for.

(I) AIR 1972 SC :!427
•

PUNJAB lJ,'l!VERi!TY v. s: ClH~DlR(Vara.larajan, J.). 821
(a) to (m) x x x x x A
(n)° the courses of "study to be followed and the
conditions to be· comp.lied with by candidates. for any
University ex~mination, and ·for degrees~ diplomas,
licences, titles, niarks of honour . scholarships and

,,,,•
prizes conferred or granted by the University.'' B

,, "
,._~y . . The words ·"other than an examination for matriculation" .
which previously occurred in ·sub-clause (n) ·have. been omitted by ·
the Government of India notification dated 6.12.1969.

The learned <;hief Justice opined that there is not)iing in s.31 . c
of the Punjab University Ac1 which would clothe the Senate, ex-
plicitily or impliedly, with the power to fr~me regulations retros-
,. pectively and held that the regulation, as am~nded in 1970, has
retrospectively altered the condition of Subash Chander, respondent
1, taking the exall}ination to his detriment and could not apply to
him and that fa, is governed only by Regulation 25 read with Rule D
7.1 as it was in force when he joined the course ii). 1965 .. The learn-
ed Chief Justice thus differed from the view taken by a Division
•Bench of the Punjab and Haryana .High Court (D.K. Mahajan and,·
P.C. Jain, JJ.) in Sewa Rain v. Kurukshetra University(') in which it
has been held thus:....:.
E
,, "The University is an autonomous body and has every
. right in the matter of altering the . requisite rules concern-
ing the conduct of examinations and the qualifying marks
• necessary. for a degree provided the xegulation are made
•.
reqmred to take." ' . ··
.
well in·. advance [to the examination which a candidate. is
.
F

The· learned .Chief· Justice, rejected the submission made \ln
behalf of the Punjab University thaf the change· in .in th~ regulation
made in 1970 by the addition or an exception to Rule ·2.1 related to
examinations to be held only in future and there is no question of
.th,e rule having retrospective operation apd.held that when Subash
Chander respondent I, joined the course in 19.65 he Obviously did
so with the intention of obtaining the degree in Medicine and
Surgery ijnd that it \(a single integrated' composite course. The
learned Chief Justice obseryed that the change in the regulation .. by H

(I) LPA 97of1967 decided on 17.7.}!i68. . ,
•

828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R.
.
>-~

A way of addition of the exception to Rule 2.1 is a change in th~
•tourse of that single integrated course an·d is.retospective in nature.
·The other two learned Jridges agreed with' thisvjew of the learned·
Chief Justice and the . Full Bench accordingly dismissed tlie appeal
and directed the Punjab University to declare the result of Su bash
. Chander, rcspond.ent l, afresh \lfter atforaing hini the benefit of .J 6
.B grace marks in accordance with the old Regulatioll' 25 read with
Rule .J. l w4ich was .in force at the time of his adipission to the
·course in 1965 and no(only4 marks as per the amended regulation.

. We are of the opinion that thi{appeal bas to succeed. Section
31(1) ·of the Punjab University Act. extracted above 'enables the. ·
•
c
Senate ·of the Punjab University, with the sanctions .of the Govern-
: men!, to make from time to time, regulations, consistent. with the.
;·provisions of that Act to provide for all matters relating to the '
University. Sectfon 31(2)(n) provides that i!l'particular a!Jd with- .
out prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power rnch regula-
D ti<in may provide for the courses •or study to be followed ·an<) the
conditions to be ·compned with by candidates for any University
examination and for· degrees, diplomas, licen·ces, tit!~, marks 1n
honour, scholftrships ~net prizes conferred or granted by the,
Universiry. Obtaining the requisite percentage of marks in the·
subject of the' examination ·falls under .the cliuse ."~onditions .to be
E. complied by candidates for any University examination" occuring
in sub-clause (n) of s.31 of the. Act. Thyrefore, tlte S.enate had the
power to award some percentage of marks as grace marks to candi•
dates appearing in University exaiµinations in c0nsiderillg whether
they are eiigible to pass the examination in the subject or'subjects
. in which they had appeared. There is no dispute that the 'minimum
. number of marks required for'passing the examination in a paper/
subject is 50 per cent of mar~. ·When Subash Chander, respondent
1, was admitted to the .J\1.B.B.S. cpurse.in' 1965, Rule 7.1 as ii stood
. then and extract;d above provided that the candidate who fails in
G one· or more papers/subjects/oraggregate may'be given grace marks
upto I per cent of the fotal aggregate marks.. excluding for practical
and internal assessment to his best advantage in order to have him
declared to have passed the eJ1amination, Suhash Chander, respon·
dent 1, who appe.ared for the final M.B.B.S, .. examination only.nine
years latter in 1974 had to pass in four subjects, namely, Medicine,·
.· Surgery Eye and ENT and Midwifery for each of which th.e aggre-
. gate was 400 marks. He secured. 202, 225 and 204 marks in
•
Medicine, Surgery, arid Eye and ENT respectively and was 'declare<f
.,
PUNiAB uNfyERSITY v. s. CHANDER (Varqdarajan, J.) 829

A
to have passed the examination jn those subjects. Midwifery .con··
sists of two parts, namely, theory and practical for each of which the
aggregate was 200. marks. Snbash Chander, respondent 1, secured
106 out of200 i.n the practical examination and only 95 out of200
in the theory examination. Since the total aggregate of all the four
subjects fat.which he appeared in 1974 was 1600 m(!rks, under the B
old Regulation 25 ref!d with Rule 7.1 as. it stood at the tiine of his
admission to. the course in 1965. he would be entitled .to Hi grace
. marks and would have been declared to have passed the examination
as the addition of 16 grace marks to the 95 marks actiially secured
by him in the practical examination in Midwifery would satisfy the
required minimum ·of 50 per cent. But long before Subash Chander. . C
, .
appeared for the final M.B.B.S. examination in.1974 the rule relat•·.
ing to award of grace marks toM.B.B.S .. and B.D.S. students was·
changed by the Se~ate of the· University· in.1970 by the. t1ddition of
an exception to R.ule 2.1 as men.tioned above. It is not contended that
· the S&rtction df the Government had not been obtaineded for making
.D
. this change. The exception says that· in the case of M.B.B.S. and
B.D.S. examinations however the grace marks shall be given upto
1 per cent of the total marks of each subject. and not up to 1 per
cent of the aggregate marks of all the subjects ; in other words each
a
subject will be, for this purpose, separate unit and a candidate who
fails in ·a subject by not ~ate. than 1 per cent may be given the
. requir.ed number of marks in order to pass in that subject. Uµder
this rule as amended in 1970 Subash Cltander, respondent 1, ·was.
entitled to only 4 marks as grace marks being 1 per cent of the
aggregate or4oo marks for-Midwifery alone. A,s the addition or' 4
grace marks t~ .9.5 marks actually secured by him in the practical
examination in Midwifery for which the aggregate was 200 out of
that total aggregate of 400_marks for that subjeci marks only 99 out r "
I, .
of 200 it was less than 50 per cerit, and he was declared to have
.1 failed in. Midwifery and.asked.to ~eapper for that subject.

· The minimum prescribed'for passing in each subject is' 50 per
G
cent~ Under the. old rule .as itslaod prior 1970, Subash Chander
could have passed by getting 16 grace inarks being 1 per cent of the
aggregate of all
•. '
the' four
f
subjects,. namely;·
.
Medicine, Surgery, Eye •
and ENT a11d Midwifery even if he had secured only 84 marks out
of 200 ·in the pra'ctical examination in Midwifery which comes to
· ovly 42per cent and he had secured more. than 50. per cent in the H
other subjects/papers. The Senate thought it fit to remedy this
gladbg defect so for as M,B.B.S. andIB.D.S. examinations are con-
•
(1984) 3 S.ll.C•.. , -<-
830 StlPRedB cot/RT RBPORTS

;& cerned by:adding the excepection to Rule 2.1 in 1970 under which
the.· grace marks would be only l per cent of the aggregate marks
in the particular subject.. We do not think that the Senate did not
have the necessary power to effect tha.t ~hange or-had acted
unreasonably in making the change. We thillk that the Senate had
the necessary power under s.. 31(2)(n) of the Act to fix, from time
B to time, the percentage of marks required for passing the ~xaminatio11
and to grant or to· refuse to·grant grace marks or to enhance.or
yeduce the quantum of grace marks.. It has not been contended ..
·before us . that there. was any ma/a fides on the part of the Senate ,
in making :this change .. It could not be contended that .Subash
' '

Chander who app~ared for the final examination ·in 1974 did not ·
:have .sufficient notice of the change brought about iri 1970 in the
rule relating to award of grace marks or that he was preju~iced by
. the change;
'
We do not agree with the learned Judges of the Full Bench . of ~_,
the High Court that there is any element of retrospectivity in the
D chimge b.rought about by the addition of the exception to ~ule :i..1
· of the Calender for the year 1970. ··. "Refrospe_ctive" according to the
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition, in relation to
Statutes etc. means "Operatiye with regard to past .time". The
change brought about by the.addition ofthe exception to Rule 2.1
E
does not say that it shall .be operative with effect from any earlier .r .
date. It is obviously prospective. It.is not possible to hold that it.is '
retrospectivein operation merely because though introduced in 1970
'it was applied to Subash Chander, respondent l, who appeared for
" the final ex~mip.ation in 1974, after he had joined .the course earlier
, . in 1965. N.o promise was made or could be deemed IQ have.· be~n
p. made to him at the time•ofhis admission in 1965 that there will be· ·
no alteration of the rul~ or regulation in regard to the percentage of
marks. required for passing any examination or award of. grace
·marks aild that the rules·relating there to which were in force at the
time bf his admission would continue to be applied to.· him until he
finished his whole course. In the Calendar for 1979 we . find .tl)e
G folfowing at page 1 :
"Notwithstanding the· integrated nature of a c.ourse
spread over mote than one academic· year; the regulations ·
in force at the tiine a'studentjoins a'course shall hold good ·
B . only for the e11aminations held during or -at the end of the
academic. year. Nothing in these regulations shall ~e
<Jeemed to debar . the University from. amending .· ihe
..
PQNJAa ONlvERSiTY v. s. CHANDllR(Varai!arajan, /,) 831

· regulations subsequently and the amended regulations,. if
• any, shall apply to all students whether old or new."
•
This is as it should be, though there was no such provision in
.the Calendar of 196S when Subash Chander was admitted to the
course. · It is admitted that it was introduced only in 1971. The
· absence of such a provision. in the Calendar of 1965 is of. no conse- B
quence. It is necessary to note in this connection what this Court
had said in regard to retrospectivity in such matters in B.N. Mishfa ,
v. State.(1) It is this : · ·
..
"The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that
the rule.is retrospective and that no retrospecti'(e rule can
a
·be made. As we read the rule we do not find any retros-
I pectivity in it. All that. the rule provides is that from the
date it comes into force the age of retirement wbuld he SS
years: It _would therefore apply from that date to all
government servants, even .though they may · have been· D
recruited before May 25, 196\in the same way as the rule
o_f 1957 which incre_ased the age from 55 years to 58 ·years
applied to all government servants. even though they were
rec(uited before 19S7. Btit it.is urged that the proviso shows
that the rule was applied retrospectively. We have already
referred to .the proviso which lays down that government · E
servants who had attained the age of 55 years on or be!ore.
June 17., 1957 and had not attained the age of 58 years on
May. 25, 1961 would be deemed to have been retained in '
service after the dat_e of superannuation, namely 55 years.
This proviso _in our opinion does not m_ake the rule retros-
F
pective; it only provides as to how the period of · servke ·
beyond S5 years should· be treated in view of the, earlier ·
<. rule of 1957 which was .being changed by the ·rule.of 1961.
, I' Further the second order issued on the same day al~o
· clearly shows. that there was no retrospective operation of
the rule, for in· actual effect no government servant 'was G
retired before the date ofnew rule i.e. May 25, 1961 and all
of them were continued in service up to December 31, 1961
and were therefore to retireou reaching the _age of super-
annuation according to the old rule. We ar_e, therefore, of
·opinion that the new ru\e reducing the age of retirement H

~I) [1965] 1 S.C.R, 297.
..S32 " SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [19$4) 3 S.C.R.

from 58 years to 55 years cam~ot be said to be retrospective.
The proviso to new rule and the second notification are
oniy methods to tide over the difficult situation which would
arise i~ the' public service . if the new rule was applied at
once and als.o to meet any financial objectipn arising 0 ut
of the enforcement of the new rule. · The new rule there-
B fore, cannot be struck down <Jn the ground that it is retros-
pective in operation,"

• Therefore, we are clearly of· the' opinion that there is no·
·. qu.estion of the change in · the .rule made in. the year !'970 having
retrospective operation merely because it was applied in 1974 to
c Subash Chander who had· joined the M.B.B.S. cour~e in 1965 when
the rukregardiug award of grace marks was different. ln these ·
circumstances, we affirm the view of D.K. Mahajan and P.C. Jain,
JJ. expressed .in the Division Bench judgment· in Sewa Ram v.
Kurukshetra University (Supra) and; disapprove the view taken. by
D the. learned Judges of the Full Bench in the dec.ision under appeal in
this case and bold that; the •u'nivetsity was right in holding that
·Subash Chander, respondent I, was not entitled to 16 grace marks.
under the old rule but was entitled to only. 4 grace marks under the
ne.w rule and had therefore not passed the examina\ion: in Midwifery.
E · We allow the appeal but without any order as to .costs. However, ·
this decision will not effect the result of the examination of Subash
as
€hander in Midwifery if it had been declared per the ·directfon of
.the learned Judges of the FulfBench in the Letters Pa.tent Appeal;
F

H.S.K. Appeifl allowei