Holding

When a candidate reappears to clear a failed subject, only Rule 27(b) applies, limiting grace marks to 1% of the marks of that subject, and Rule 27(a) does not apply.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether grace marks under Punjab University Regulation Rule 27(a) or 27(b) should be granted to candidates who reappeared for failed subjects in their LL.M. examinations. The respondents, having failed certain papers, reappeared but still did not meet the passing criteria even after applying grace marks. The High Court had directed the University to apply Rule 27(a), granting grace marks up to 10% of the total aggregate, but the Supreme Court held that Rule 27(b) governs reappearances, limiting grace marks to 1% of the marks of the specific subject reappeared. Consequently, the respondents were not eligible to pass on the basis of Rule 27(a). However, a prior university declaration that the respondents would be deemed to have passed was left undisturbed. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court orders, and reiterated its disapproval of awarding grace marks for postgraduate degrees.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 27(a) of the Punjab University Regulations applies to candidates reappearing for a failed subject.
Whether Rule 27(b) is the appropriate provision for granting grace marks to reappearing candidates.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the University to apply Rule 27(a).

Subjects

grace marksuniversity regulationsexamination reappearanceRule 27(a)Rule 27(b)post‑graduate degreeacademic standards

Judgment

31 A

THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC.

v.
SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS B

Februa~y 27, 1984

[S. MuRTAZA fAZAL Au, A. VARADARAIAN AND
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] •
Punjab University Calendar Vol. l/, 1976, Chapter III Rule 27./ (a) inter, c
•.
prttation of-Whether the allowance of grace mark under Sub-Rule ·(a) or (b) wi//
apply to candidates reappear)ng in all)' subject-Award of graCe n'1ark at Posl
Graduate lev~l deprecated. ' •

Re.spondents in each of these appea]s could not clear the LLM exami-
nation in accordance with RegulatiOn 7 of the Punjab University Regulations D
either in the first atte'mpt or later while taking on compar.tmcntal basis even
aftet addition'of grace marks as laid down in Rule 27(1)(b) of the University -
Regulations. The respondents filed. separate writ pethions praying for a
d-irection to give the benefit of moderation grace. mark as calculated under
Role 27(1)(a). The High Court. rejected the plea of the Appellant University
holding that it was Rule 27(l)(b) that applied and not Rule 27-l(a). f[ence the
· \ ". appeal by Special Leave. E
Allpwing the appeal, the Court

HELD : A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred !to as the. Regulations
by the High Court) makes it clear that clause(•) is applicable where the fu 1
·examinatioti is taken and clause (b) is attracted where the !candidate reappears
to.clear the compartment or subject and part in which he has been declared p
eligible to re3;ppear. Jn· each of these cases the candidate was reappearing to
clear the paper in which he or she had failed; clause (b) was clearly attracted
and the benefit under clause (a)•was not .available. .The language· of clause (b)
-ris such as would squarely apply to such a .situation. The provision in clause
(b) is clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to grace marks
of up to OI!ll per cent of the total marks of the subjecvsubjecis in which he
reappears. Once clauSe {b) applies no referenee is availabJe··to the performance G
in the regular examination taken earlier and the benefit of grace marks to the·
extent indicated has to be confine_d to the performance at the reappearance.
' Once this is the position each of the candidates was 6ot eligible to pass.
'
. . . (34GH, 35B-C]
[In view of the-declaration dated 19.6:1980 made .before the court that
irrespective of the result of the appeals, thecandidates will be declared to' have u·
passed~ t4e Court as a special ca~~ did n9t want to disturb the result.]
" ' - (35D]
' .
32 .
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS (1984) 3 S.C.R.
A Observation :

The J?OSition obtaining in (be Punjab University· in re.s.pect of Post
Graduate degrees namely grace marks beiag awarded is disapproved. A
Master's degree in any speciality·is con$idered to be ·the highest qualification
in tha· normal ruh. It is very much necessary that such a degree. should be '
. '18 conferred only on th.e deserving students who having studied the subject and
taken the appropriate examination conducted by tho University at the end of
such studies h:1ve d:!served the degree on the basis of their performavce. There·
should be no scope for looking for grace marks at such level and the sooner
the . Punjab U !l'iversity abandons· the practice of awarding grace marks in..
-respeCt of post-graduate examinations the better it· would be in the interest of
higher eduCation in this country.'[35F-H]

•• CIVIL APPELLA'IE JURlSDICTION; Civil· Appeal No. 6009 of
1983.

Appeal by.special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
,the 19th April, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
ID .c.w.P. No. 1484 of 1983. •
WITH
Civil .Appeal Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 1980.
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 30th May, i980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Comif ·in
· Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1759 and 1846 of 1980.

· J.L. Gupta, D.N. Gupta and V.K, Verma for the Appellant in
CA. No. 6009 of 1983.
i . . . ·.
J.L. Gupta and C.M,Nayar for the Appellant in CA. No.· 1207
and 1208 and \980.
Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by •
>>G RANGANi\.TH MiSRA J. Each of these appeals .is' by speaial
leave and is directed against the decision of the High'Courtof
Punjab and Haryana in separate, writ petitions, A common .'\ues-
tion i_s involved in all the three matters and that relat.es to a corre~t
interpretation of Rule 27. l(a) in Chap.ter Ill of the Punjab Univer-
sity Regulations.
i-tH
Responderrts in each . of these appeals was a student of the
· funjab·University for the Master De~ree in Law (LL.M,). Rill~
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY v. SUNDER siNGH (Ranganath Misra, J.) 33
7 of the Punjab University l!.egulations provides :
"7. The minimum marks required to pass Part 1/U
examination, as the case may be, shall be :
· (i) 45 per cent in each paper; and
Iii) 50 per cent in the aggregate."
B
It may be · stated that 'there are eight papers in all each
carrying 100 marks and Part-I covers four papers while Part-II
• covers the remainder. R.ule 27 reads as follows :

"27.l(a). A candidate who appears in all subjects of
an examination and who fails in one or more subject (writ- c
ten, practical, sessional or viva voce) and/or the aggregate
(if there is a separate requirement of passing on the aggre-
gate) shall be given grace marks up tq. maximum of I per
cent of the total aggregate marks (excluding marks .for inter-
nal assessment) to make· up the deficiency if by such addition
the candidate can pass the examination. .While awarding D
grace marks fraction
to a whole;
. .
working to 1/2 or more will be rounded

Provided that grace marks be also awarded to .a can-
didate if by awarding such marks he can earn exemption or
0

comp artment in subject/s and part/s. · E

• (6) A candidate wh'? re-appears to clear the compart-
ment or subject/s and part/s in which he has been declared ·
(eligible) to re-appear shall be .awarded grace marks up to •
I% of the total marks of the subject/s and part/s in which he
re·appears if by such addition the cand.idate can pais in that F
subject/s or part/s." ·
.
Each of the respondents Jailed to satisfy the requirements of Rule
7 and being eligible to .clear the subject in which he failed on
compartmentel basis reappeared in such subject ·in the next
exami.nation. As on the 'pe'rformalice of the subsequent eii:amina- G
tion each of the respoli.dents was not eligible to pass by. complying I
wlth·-~l)e requirements of. Rule 7, the need for invoking Rule 27
-- arose. The University authorities took the view that Rule 27.l(b),
authorised addition of the grace !llarks of up to l per cent al). the
-:' .. -! marks s~cured in the suoject/s in which the Cal)didate reapp~a'r,ed H
and as: with that benefit given the c,andidates di!l not pa~s, f.hey . ·
; w~efouqd qo\ \o haye l?~el! ~11¥cesef,ul, lhat led \o ea~ oJtb~
"! '~
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C:R•
A •
respondents filing a separate writ applicatiqn' before the High
G:!ourt.

lfhe High Court referred to the rule and observed :

B "The only ,Question to be seen is whether Regulation
·: 27. l(a) in Chapter III of . the Punjab University Calendar,
Volume II, 1976, relating to Mo.deration of Question Papers
and results of examinations, is applicable or not. We have
gone through. clauses (a) and (b) of this Regulation very
carefully and we find that clause (b) is not applicable. We
c are unable to agree with the contention of Shri Gupta; the
. learned.copnsel for the University that the case would fall
under clause (b). This contention is without any merit as
it is clear that . this clause will only come into pliiy if tte
candidate is failing in the subject in which he or she re-
.. D appears. ·It is quite clear from ihe facts that the petitioner has
not so far availed advantage as given in clause (b) so that
she could get one per cent mark of the total marks in all the ·
subjects .... ,.

The contention of the learned counsel for the Univer-
.E sity, that cla~se (a) will only apply if a candidate appears in .
all the subjects in the examination, · is without any merit.
The language of this provision does not show what bas been
contended before·us.

For the reasons recorded above, we allow this writ
f. application and direct the University to make available the
benefit of clause (a) of the said Regulation to the petitioner
and declare the· result of the petitioner accordingly."
y
A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred to as the Regulations
by the High Court) makes it clear that ciause (a) is applicable where
G
the full examination is taken and clause {b) is attracted where the ·
candidate reappears to clear the compartment or subject and part
in which be has been declared eligible to -reappear. In each of these
· cases the candidate was reappearing . to clear the paper in which
be or she had failed ; clause (b) was· clearly attracted and the
B benefit nnder clause (a) was not available. The University had·
taken th.at.decision and.took the same stand before the High Court
ill ;1nswer to tl!e r11le pisi, We:ar~ clearly of the opinion that th~
PUNJAB UNiVERSiTY v. SUNDER SINGH (Ranganath Misra, J.) 3,
High Court we.nt w~ong in taking the view that when a candidate
reappear~d to cl~ar a paper or a subject on being found eligible to
do so, clause (a) was attracted. The language of clause (b) is such
as would squarely apply to such a situation. Having taken the
view that clause (a) governed the matter, the High Court had no
occasion to express any' opinion as to if clause (b) applied what B
benefit the candidate would have got. The provision in· clause (b)
is ·clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to
grace marks of up to one per cent of the total marks of the
subject/subjects in which he reappears. Once clause (b} applies
no reference is available to the performance in the regular c
examination taken earlier and the benefit of grace marks to
the extent indicated has to be confined to the performance 'at the
reappearance.

·"' Once this is the position each of the candidates was not
D
eligible to pass. We, however, find that·a direction was giyen in
• this Court.on 19.6.80 on· the concession of the University that the
'<,'
respondents in the ·two· appeals of 1980 would be declared to have
pass_ed irrespective of the result of the appeals. Learned counsel
appearing for the University before us reiterated his consent and
even agreed that the respondent ln the remaining appeal may be · E
given the same advantage as the University did 11ot intend to make
any discrimination. In view of this special feature we do not
disturb the d~claration of the University that each of the respon-
dents has passed the examination taken by him or her.·

We must indicate our disapproval of the position obtaining
1
in the Punjab University that in respect of po:;t-graduate degrees
grace marks are being awarded. A master's degree in any specia- ·
lity is considered to be the highest qualification in the normal run.
It is very much necessary t.hat such a degree should be conferred
only on the deserving students who having studied the subject and G
taken the appropriate examination conducted by the University at

-
the end of such studies have deserved the degree on tQe basis of
;
.... their performance. There should be no scope for looking for
grace marks at such level and.the sooner the Punjab University
of
abandons the ·practice of awarding grace marks in respect post•
graduate examinations the better it would be in the interest of H
higher education in this country.
· ~PRE"'B COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

We allow each of these appeals. and ·set aside the judgments
of the High Court in each of. the writ petitions without any order
for costs. T>i avo.id confusion we reiterate that our vacat:Og the
the judgments .of the High Court do not in any manner affect the
declarations made in favour of the respondents by the appellant-
lJniversity in regard to passing ofthe Master Degree Examinatfons
:S
· in law. ,_
S.R. Appeal a/lowde.

r

•

..
y

'
•

f.