Holding

The combined passing provision under Note 2(3) of Regulation 52 applies only to marks actually obtained in the examination, not to marks after the grant of grace marks, and therefore the respondent was not eligible for combined passing.

Summary

The respondent, a student who failed Mathematics with 19 marks, applied to the Maharashtra State Board for 20 grace marks under Regulation 52(3)(a) sub‑clause (d) on the ground of participation in state‑level sports. The Board rejected the application, stating that even with the grace marks the student would not reach the 52‑mark pass threshold. The High Court allowed the petition, treating the grace‑augmented marks as "obtained" and granting the benefit of combined passing under Note 2(3) of Regulation 52. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the combined passing provision requires marks actually obtained in the examination, not marks after grace marks are added, and that the respondent therefore did not satisfy the "not less than 38 marks" condition in Mathematics. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed. The Court emphasized a strict construction of grace‑mark provisions to preserve academic standards.

Issues considered

The interpretation of the phrase ‘not less than 38 marks’ in Note 2(3) of Regulation 52 – whether it refers to marks actually obtained or marks after granting grace marks.
Whether grace marks granted under sub‑clause (d) of Regulation 52(3)(a) can be used to satisfy the combined passing criteria in Note 2(3).
The correct construction of Regulation 52 with respect to the distinction between ‘marks obtained’ and ‘grace marks granted’.
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition by treating grace‑augmented marks as ‘obtained’.
The permissible extent of granting grace marks without diluting academic standards.

Subjects

grace markscombined passingsecondary school certificateRegulation 52academic standardssports participationMaharashtra Board

Judgment

A THE MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
v.
AMIT AND ANR.

JULY 9, 2002
B
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.]

Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Regulations,
C 1977-Regulation 52 (3)(a) Note 1 sub-clause 2(d) and Note 2 sub-clause (3)
-Benefit of grant of grace marks-Benefit of combined passing-Claim of-
Held, candidate not entitled to the benefit of combined passing as it refers to
marks actually obtained and not the marks gained after grant of grace marks.

Respondent No.1 having declared failed in Secondary School
D Certificate Examination, applied to the appellant-Board for grant of 20
grace marks under sub-clause 2(d) under Note 1 of clause (3)(a) of
Regulation 52 of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board
Reghulations, 1977 on the ground that he had participated in sports at
State level.

E Appellant-Board rejected the application on the ground that even
with the addition of 20 grace marks, he could not be declared as passed
since he failed to secure the minimum pass mark of 52 marks in
Mathematics even with the addition of grace marks.

Respondent filed writ petition against the order of the appellant-
F Board claiming benefit under sub-clause (2)(d) under Note 1 of clause
(3)(a) as also under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 of clause (3)(a) of Regulation
52. His case was that after adding grace marks to the marks actually
obtained by him in Mathematics i.e. 19, he should be deemed to have
obtained 39 marks and therefore entitled to the benefit of combined
G passing in the subjects Mathematics ~nd Science, since he had secured
more than 105 marks in Science and Mathematics taken together.

High Court allowed the petition taking the view that under sub-
clause 2(d) under Note 1 of Clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52, respondent was
entitled to grant of 20 grace marks as a result of which marks obtained
H 106
MAHARASHTRA STATE BO. OF SEC AND HIGHER SEC. EDU 1•. AMIT 107

by him in Mathematics would be 39 and consequently having obtained 39 A
marks he would be entitled to benefit under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 of
clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52, having secured more than 105 marks in
Mathematics and Science taken together and hence the Court directed the
Board to declare the respondent as passed.

In appeal to this Court appellant contended that sub-clause (3) of B
Note 2 which refers to "a candidate obtaining not less than 105 marks"
refers to the marks actually obtained by the candidate on the basis of his
performance in the examination and not the marks deemed to have been
obtained by him after the grant of grace marks.

Allowing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1. There are certain principles which the Court has to keep
in mind while dealing with a case \vhere grace marks are claimed under
the relevant Regulations. The award of grace marks is in the nature of a
concession, and there can be no doubt that it does result in diluting D
academic standards. The object underlying the grant of grace marks is to
remove the real hardship to a candidate who has otherwiseu shown good
performance in the academic field but is 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 his overall performance in other subjects, he deserves to be
declared successful. The appropriate authorities may also provide for E
grant of grace marks to a candidate who has taken part in sports events
etc., considering the fact that such candidates who have obtained a level
of proficiency in any particular game or event may have devoted
considerable time in pursuit of excellence in such game or event. However,
a rule for the award of grace marks must be construed strictly so as to F
ensure that the minimum standards are not allowed to be diluted beyond
the limit specifically laid down by the appropriate authority. It is only in
a case where the language 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 marks and grant a benefit where
none is intended to be given by the appropriate authority. G
[110-F, G, H; 111-A, BJ

Board of School Education. Haryana v. Arun Rathi and Ors.. [1994] 2
sec 526, referred to.
2. The Scheme of the Regulation 52 of Maharshtra Secondary and H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Higher Secondary Board Regulations, 1977 clearly makes a distinction
between marks "obtained" or "secured" and grace marks "granted". In
the light of this , if sub-clause (3) under Note 2 is considered it would be
apparent that the said sub-clause does not at all deal with grant of grace
marks. Regulation 52 is a comprehensive provision and sub-clause (3)
under Note 2 only deals with the grant of benefit of combined passing in
B the subjects Mathematics and Science. It begins with a non-obstante clause
and lays down a special rule notwithstanding anything contained in
Clauses (1),(2) and (3)(a) of Regulation 52. It clearly implies that even if
a candidate would have otherwise fail~d having regard to the provisions
of Clauses (1) and (2), despite grant of grace marks under Clause (3)(a),
C yet under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 he is entitled to the benefit of combined
passing in the subjects Mathematics and Science, provided he has obtained
not less than 105 marks in the aforesaid two subjects taken together, while
obtaining not less than 38 marks in the subject or subjects of failure.
Obtaining of not less than 38 marks refers to the marks actually obtained
by a candidate in the examination on the basis of his performance, and
D without addition of grace marks. So construed sub-clause (3) of Note 2
does not confer any benefit on a candidate like respondent No. 1 who
secured only 19 marks in the subject Mathematics, and therefore, does
not fulfil the second condition. Sub-clause (3) of Note 2 confers no benefit
on the respondent No. 1 since he is not eligible thereunder for the benefit
E of combined passing, having secured less than 38 marks in the subject
Mathematics. The High Court was clearly in error in extending to the
respondent No. 1, the benefit under the aforesaid provision.
(115-G, H; 116-A-D]

F
(The court observed that the grant of grace marks being a matter
of concession and which tends to dilute academic standards,
Regulations dealing with grant of grace marks should not be
generously and liberally construed; several concessions are given
to candidates by way of grace marks; a candidate may qualify
G under different Clauses of the Regulation for the grant of grace
marks and if benefit under all the clauses is extended to a failing
candidate, it would really reduce the examination conducted by
the Board to a mockery.] (116-F-G; 117-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3961 of
H 2002.
MAHARASHTRA ST ATE SD. OF SEC. ANO HIGHER SEC EDU v. AMIT [BlSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J.] 109

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2001 of the Bombay High A
Court in W.P. No. 3131 of2001.

Ms. Deepa Chawan, Sarad Abhyankar, Santosh Paul and M.J. Paul,
for the Appellants.

Arun Pednekar, V.N. Raghupathy, S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande, B
for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J. Special Leave granted.

The appellant, the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education is
c
a Board constituted under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary
Boards Act, 1965. In this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment
and order of the High court of Judicature at Bombay, (Aurangabad Bench)
dated September 3, 2001 in Writ Petition No.3131 of 2001, whereby the
High Court allowed the Writ Petition preferred by respondent No. I herein D
and directed the Board to declare the petitioner as having passed the
examination.The High Court took the view that under sub-clause 2(d) under
Note l of Clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52, the respondent No. l was entitled
to the grant of 20 grace marks with the result that the marks obtained by him
in the subject Mathematics would be 39, he having secured 19 marks in the E
examination. Consequently, the respondent No. I having obtained 39 marks
in the subject Mathematics with the addition of grace marks; would be entitled
to the further benefit under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 of Clause (3)(a) of
Regulation 52, having secured more than I 05 marks in the subjects
Mathematics and Science taken together and therefore entitled to the benefit
of combined passing in the subjects Mathematics and Science under the said F
provision.

We may first notice the facts which are not in dispute. Respondent
No. I, who was a student of Saraswati Bhuvan School took the Secondary
School Certificate Examination conducted by the Aurangabad Divisional Board
in March, 2001. On June 2, 2001 the results were declared but respondent G
No. l was declared to have failed, since he had obtained only l 9 marks in the
subject Mathematics as against a minimum of 52 marks which a candidate is
required to obtain under the Regulation for passing in that subject. Respondent
No. I, then applied to the Board for the grant of 20 grace marks under sub-
clause 2(d) under Note l of Clause (3 )(a) of Regulation 52 on the ground that H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A he had participated in sports at the State level. It appears that the respondent
No. I had participated in the "Kho Kho" competition at the State level.

The application of respondent No. I was rejected and the decision was
conveyed by the Divisional Secretary of the Aurangabad Division Board to
the Head of the school stating that even with the addition of 20 grace marks,
B respondent No. I could not be declared to have passed, since he failed to
secure 52 marks in the subject Mathematics, even with the addition of grace
marks.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Board the respondent No. I preferred
a Writ Petition before the High Court, wherein he claimed benefit under sub-
C clause 2(d) under Note I of Clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52 as also the benefit
under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 of Clause (3)(a) of the said Regulation. In
substance, his case was that after adding 20 grace marks to the marks actually
obtained by him in Mathematics i.e. 19, he should be deemed to have obtain, i
39 marks in the subject Mathematics and therefore entitled to the benefit o.
D combined passing in the subjects Mathematics and Science, since he had
secured more than I 05 marks in the subjects Science and Mathematics taken
together. The High Court upheld the contention of respondent No. I which is
challenged before us by the Board.

The Board has framed Regulations, and Regulation 52 lays down the
E standard for passing in a subject. A close scrutiny of Regulation 52 discloses
that it lays down comprehensively the rules relating to the minimum marks
to be secured by' a candidate for passing the examination, the grace marks
which may be granted to a candidate in given circumstances, and the manner
of calculation of such marks. However, before adverting to the provisions of
the aforesaid Regulation, we consider it appropriate to notice the principles
F which the Court has to keep in mind while dealing with a case of this nature
where grace marks are claimed under the relevant Regulations. It cannot be
disputed that the academic standards are laid down by the appropriate
authorities which postulate the minimum marks that a candidate has to secure
before the candidate can be declared to have passed the examination. The
G award of grace marks is in the nature of a concession, and there can be no
doubt that it does result in diluting academic standards. 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 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 his overall performance in other subjects,
H he deserves to be declared successful. The appropriate authorities may also
MAHARASHTRA STATE BD OF SEC AND HIGHER SEC. EDU v. AMIT (BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH. J] 111

provide for grant of grace marks to a candidate who has taken part in sp 0rts A
events etc., considering the fact that such candidates who have obtained a
level of proficiency in any particular game or event may have devoted
considerable time in pursuit of excellence in such game or event. However,
a rule for the award of grace marks must be construed strictly so as to ensure
that the minimum standards are not allowed to be diluted beyond the limit B
specifically laid down by the appropriate authority. It is only in a case where
the language 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 marks and grant a benefit where none is intended to be
given by the appropriate authority. (See Board of School Education, Haryana
v. Arun Rathi and Ors., [1994] 2 SCC 526. C
We shall now proceed to consider Regulation 52 on which both parties
have placed reliance. Regulation 52 in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:-

"52. Standard for passing in a subject To pass the Secondary School
Certificate Examination, a candidate must secure at least 'C' Grade D
in each of the optional and School Certificate subject offered by the
candidate.

In the case of the Optional Technical subjects (Branch 2) wherein
the examination is taken by the Board, candidate must obtain minimum
35% marks. In the case of three language heads and Social Sciences E
which have been allotted the maximum of I 00 marks each, a candidate
must obtain at least 35 marks in each of them and in the case of
Mathematics and Science, which have been allotted the maximum of
150 marks each, a candidate must obtain at least 52 marks in each.

(2) In a subject for which there are more than one papers or practicals, F
the marks will be added together for a 'pass' in the subject.

(3) (a) Candidates appearing without claiming exemption or
exemptions shall be granted automatic condonation of marks if their
deficiency for the purpose of passing in a subject or subjects is upto
2 or 3 marks as detailed below: G
Subject Automatic Condonation of Marks admissible upto--

(i) First Language 2

(ii) Second Language 2
H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A (iii) Third Language 2
(iv) Social Sciences 2
(v) Mathematics 3

(vi) Science 3
B (vii) Mathematics and 6
Science (while
applying combined
passing provision)
(viii) Two subjects offered 2 in each
c by Deaf and Dumb
candidates in lieu of
subject

two languages
Note: (I) If more marks are required than the limit of marks indic, 'd
above for the purpose of passing in a subject or subjects automatic
condonation of marks shall not be granted in the subject or subjects.
D
(2) (a) Subject of the condition prescribed in sub-clause (a) of clause
(3 ), candidates may get the benefit of automatic condo nation of marks
in one or more compulsory subject or subjects.

(b) The candidates shall also be granted for the purpose of passing in
E the remaining compulsory subjects of failure (wherein the deficiency
is more !han the limit of2 or 3 marks indicated in clause (3)(a) above
upto the maximum of 20 grace marks limited to three subjects only
subject to the condition that in any one subject not more than ten
percent (of the maximum marks for that subject) grace marks shall be
granted.
F
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause (b)(above), in
the case of blind or deaf and dumb or physically handicapped or
spastic candidates, the limit of maximum I 0 per cent grace marks
shall be extended upto 20 grace marks.
G (d) Notwithstanding anything, contained in sub-clause (b) (above), a
candidate who has actually participated in any sports or games held
in India or abroad or State, National, International level in the same
academic year, the limit of maximum 10 per cent grace marks shall
be extended upto 20 grace marks, provided such request is made by
H the candidate concerned through the respective head of the secondary
MAHARASHTRA ST ATE BO. OF SEC. AND HIGHER SEC. EDU "· AMIT {BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J.] ) } 3

school, so as to reach to the Divisional Secretary of the Divisional A
Board concerned upto one month from the date of the declaration of
results. ·All such applications shall invariably be submitted in a
prescribed form along with a certificate of the District Sports Officers,
to that .effect, to the Divisional Secretary of the Divisional Board
concerned".
B
Clauses (e) and (f) are in substantially the same terms as Clause (d)
and grant similar benefit of grace marks to candidates who have actually
participated in the Republic Day Parade, President's Rally etc.

Then follows Note 2 which reads as under:-
c
"Note 2: (I) Candidate may get the benefit of both the provisions
made under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Note I, sub-clause (2) of
clause (3) but not in one and the same subject.

(2) No automatic condonation of marks or the grace marks shall be
granted to a candidate who does not pass the examination even after D
applying the provisions made in sub-clause (a) and (b) of Note I,
sub-clause (2) or both these provisions of clause (3).

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (!), (2) and (3)
(a), a candidate obtaining not less than 105 marks in the subjects
Mathematics and Science taken together at one and the same Secondary E
School Certificate examination, and obtaining not less than 38 marks
in the subject or subjects of failure shall be entitled to the benefit of
combined passing in the subjects Mathematics and Science.

(b) Candidates appearing with exemption shall be granted automatic
condonation of the marks for the purpose of passing as detailed below: F
The automatic condonation of 13 marks shall be granted to a candidate
at the Secondary School Certificate examination in proportion to the
number of subjects of failure but not exceeding 3 marks in any one
of the subject as per the following schedule:-
G
No. of subjects Condonation marks
Admissible
3
2 5
3 8 H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A 4 IO
5 13
Note 3: A candidate appearing with exemption in either Mathematics
or Science shall not be entitled to the benefit of combined passing in
Science and Mathematics.
B Note 4: A candidate appearing with exemption in other subject or
subjects, and appearing in Mathematics and Science at one and the
same examination shall be entitled to the benefit of automatic
condonation marks to the extent of 5 marks for the purpose of
Secondary School Certificate while applying rule of combined passing.
c (4) No condonation marks or grace marks shall be given in technical
or other optional subjects of failure".

A close scrutiny of the scheme of Regulation 52 discloses that under
Clauses (l) and (2) of Regulation 52 the minimum passing marks in each
D subject has been prescribed. The Regulation in clear terms provides that in
the subjects Mathematics and Science (which have been allotted maximum
150 marks each) a candidate must obtain at least 52 marks in each subject.

Clause 3(a) provides for grant of automatic condonation of marks. The
extent to which such automatic condonation may be granted for the purpose
E of passing the subject is laid down therein. In the subjects Mathematics and
Science (while applying combined passing provision) automatic condonation
of six marks is admissible. The automatic condonation of three marks in each
subject separately is admissible. So far as the case of the appellant is concerned,
there is no dispute that he secured only 19 marks in Mathematics and 112
marks in Science. Under the provision for grant of automatic condonation, he
F would be entitled to three marks in the subject Mathematics which would not
enable him to secure the passing marks. Sub-clause 2(b) of Clause (3)(a)
gives an additional benefit to the candidates for the purpose of passing in the
remaining compulsory subjects of failure, wherein the deficiency is more
than the limit of2 or 3 marks as indicated in Clause 3 (a) upto the maximum
G of 20 grace marks, but subject to the condition that it shall be limited to three
subjects only, and that in any one subject not more than 10% of the marks
for that subject shall be granted.Under sub clause (d) the maximum 10%
grace marks has been extended upto 20 grace marks for a candidate who has
actually participated in any sports or games held in India or abroad at State,
National or International level in the same academic year. The respondent
H No. I claimed the benefit under Sub-clause ( d), and it is not in dispute that
MAHARASHTRA ST ATE BO. OF SEC. ANO HIGHER SEC EDU v. AMIT [BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, J.] 115

he is entitled to that benefit. Even so the respondent No. I would have secured A
only 39 marks after grant of 20 grace marks in the subject Mathematics as
against 52 which is the prescribed minimum passing marks.

The case of the respondent No. I, however, is that once 20 grace marks
are added to the marks obtained by him in the subject Mathematics, it should
be held that he has actually secured 39 marks in that subject. He then relies B
on Note 2 sub clause (3) and submits that since the marks obtained by him
in Mathematics added to the marks obtained by him in Science is more than
I 05, he is entitled to the benefit of combined passing in the subjects
Mathematics and Science.

Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that sub C
clause (3) of Note 2 which refers to "a candidate obtaining not less than 105
marks" refers to the marks actually obtained by the candidate on the basis of
his performance in the examination and not the marks deemed to have been
obtained by him after granting grace marks. She submitted, and in our view
rightly, that sub-clause (3) of Note 2 is unambiguous, and permits of no D
confusion or controversy. The Regulation clearly makes a distinction between
marks "granted' and marks "obtained". Whenever the Regulation refers to
the marks obtained by a candidate, it refers to the marks awarded to him on
the basis of his performance in the examination. But whenever it refers to
marks granted, it refers to the grace marks which are given to the candidate
as a matter of concession. She, therefore, submitted that the benefit of sub E
clause (3) of Note 2 may be given only to a candidate who has actually
obtained in the examination I 05 marks in the subjects Mathematics and
Science taken together and not less than 38 marks in the subject of failure.
So far as the respondent is concerned, for the purpose of sub clause (3) of
Note 2, he should be considered to have obtained marks less than 38 in the p
subject of failure namely, Mathematics since he actually secured only 19
marks. We find considerable force in the submission urged on behalf of the
appellant and it must be upheld. Regulation 52 refers to the passing marks
which a candidate "must obtain" or "must secure". Clause (3)(a) which deals
with grant of automatic condonation uses the words "shall be granted automatic
condonation of marks". Similarly under Clause (b) of sub-clause (2) of G
Regulation 3(a) the words used are "shall also be granted" Clauses 'c' to 'f
only extend the grace marks upto 20. Under Note 2 sub clause (2) which
deals with automatic condonation of marks, reference is to the marks "granted".
The scheme of the Regulation is therefore quite clear and it clearly makes a
distinction between marks "obtained" or "secured" <ind grace marks "granted". H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A In the light of this, if we consider sub-clause (3) under Note 2 it would be
apparent that the said Sub-clause does not at all deal with grant of grace
marks. Regulation 52 is a comprehensive provision and sub-clause (3) under
Note 2 only deals with the grant of benefit of combined passing in the
subjects Mathematics and Science. It begi!ls with a non-obstante clause and
B lays down a special rule notwithstanding anything contained in Clauses (1 ),
(2) and (3)(a) of Regulation 52. It clearly implies that even if a candidate
would have otherwise failed having regard to the provisions of Clauses (l)
and (2), despite grant of grace marks under Clause (3)(a), yet under sub-
clause (3) of Note 2 he is entitled to the benefit of combined passing in the
subjects Mathematics and Science, provided he has obtained not less than
C 105 marks in the aforesaid two subjects taken together, while obtaining not
. less than 38 marks in the subject or subjects of failure. We have already held
that obtaining of not less than 38 marks refers to the marks actually obtained
by a candidate in the examination on the basis of his performance, and
without addition of grace marks. So construed sub-clause (3) of Note 2 does
not confer any benefit on a candidate like respondent No. I who secured only
D 19 marks in the subject Mathematics, and therefore, does not fulfil the second
condition. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that sub clause (3) of
Note 2 confers no benefit on the respondent No. I since he is not eligible
thereunder for the benefit of combined passing, having secured less than 38
marks in the subject Mathematics. The High Court was clearly in· error in
E extending to the respondent No. I, the benefit under the aforesaid provision.
We, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in allowing the
writ petition of Respondent No. I. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set
aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and disiniss the
Writ Petition filed by respondent No. I. We are informed that the respondent
F later re-appeared in the examination and has been declared to have passed the
examination.

Before parting with the judgment we may observe that the grant of
grace marks being a matter of concession and which tends to dilute academic
standards, Regulations dealing with grant of grace marks should not be
G generously and liberally construed. We have noticed that several concessions
are given to candidates by way of grace marks. A candidate may qualify
under different Clauses of the Regulation for the grant of grace marks. It is
doubtful if a candidate can claim grace marks under more than one Clause
even if he may be eligible for the concession under several Clauses. It has
H been contended before us with considerable force that a candidate may be
MAHARASHTRA STATE BO. OF SEC AND HIGHER SEC. EDU_ v. AMIT[BISHESHWARPRASADS!NGH, J.J ) }7

granted grace marks under only one of the Clauses under the relevant A
Regulation, and that in no case shall he be entitled to the award of grace
marks under more than one Clause even if under the Regulation he may be
eligible for grant of grace marks under more than one Clause. It is quite
possible that a candidate may have taken part in games at the State level and
may have also participated in the Republic Day Parade and in the President's B
Rally, which are covered by sub-clause (d) (e) and (f) of; Clause (2) under
Note I. If the benefit under all the three clauses is extended to a failing
candidate, it would really reduce the examination conducted by the Board to
a mockery.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.