1994 PLP 714 (MLD)

The petitioner appeared in the Ist Annual F.E.L. Examination of 1990 held in November, 1990 and failed in Papers IV, V and VI. Subsequently, he took the IInd Annual F.E.L. Examination of 1990 which was held in July, 1991. This time he failed in Papers IV and VI. He represented to the University of Punjab through a written application that he was entitled to four grace marks in Paper VI under Regulation No.4 relating to LL.B`` Examination appearing at page 193 of the Calendar (Vol. I1), 1968-69, as amended by Notification No.517/G.M. dated 12th March, 1975. This representation remained unanswered which obliged the petitioner to file this petition praying for a direction to the respondents to award him four grace marks in Paper VI and to declare the revised result accordingly.

2. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they have disputed the entitlement of the petitioner to the grace marks on the basis that this concession is available in case of a candidate who had appeared in the examination as a whole and cannot be availed of by those who appeared in a part of the examination.

3. Reliance has been placed by the respondents upon 3rd proviso to Regulation No.4.

4. Before proceeding to examine the respective contentions of the parties Regulation No.4 relating to LL.B. Examination which appears at page 93 of the University (Volume 11) for the year 1968-69 as amended by Notification dated 12th March, 1975, may be reproduced. It reads thus:

"

4. Every candidate shall, in order to be deemed to have passed this examination (whether taken in May or in September), be required to obtain forty per cent of the maximum number of marks allotted to each paper, and forty-five per cent in the aggregate: Provided that a candidate shall be deemed to have passed if he (a) fails in any individual paper by a margin of 5 marks, (b) fails in the aggregate by a margin of 5 marks, (c) fails in more than one paper by a margin which can be made up by distribution of five marks over the papers/aggregate in which he fails: Provided further that higher class shall be awarded to a candidate who misses it by a margin of 5 marks or less: Provided further that the grace marks shall not be awarded to any candidate for the purpose of enabling him to get exemption in any paper and to those who appear in the examination in parts."

5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that according to the said regulation a candidate is entitled to 4 &ace marks if he was failing in any individual paper by margin of 5 marks or in aggregate by 5 marks or even in a case where he fails in more than one paper by the margin which can be made up by distribution of 5 marks over the papers. He has, however, contended that the case of the petitioner is covered by 3rd proviso to the Regulation, according to which the grace marks are not provided to a candidate who takes the examination in parts.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand, maintained that the proviso has no applicability to the petitioner as he cannot be said to have taken the examination in parts and that the proviso in question has reference to those who are permitted by the University to take the examination in parts under Regulation No.7 of Chapter VII of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab Volume I (?990).

7. After a careful consideration of the Regulation in question, I regret that I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although it is correct that under Regulation No.4 of the LL.B, University is under an obligation to grant 5 grace marks or less but this concession cannot be made applicable to the cases which are covered by third proviso to Regulation under which a candidate who has taken the examination in parts is disentitled to award of any grace marks. The expression "those who appear in examination in parts" applies to all cases where a candidate does not take the examination as a whole but appears in a part thereof. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that as proviso was in the nature of exception it has been strictly construed. Even if that be so, the restricted interpretation put upon the proviso by the learned counsel that it applies only to cases covered by Regulation No.7 of Chapter VII of the Calendar of the University of the Punjab for the year 1990-91 cannot be accepted. The proviso in question makes no reference to Regulation No.7 and on its plain language it would apply to all cases in which a candidate has appeared in a part of the examination.

8. There is no dispute that the petitioner took 1st Annual F.E.L. Examination held in November, 1990, as a whole and had failed in Papers IV, V and VI. In the subsequent examination which is now in issue, i.e. IInd Annual Examination held in July, 1991, he had only appeared in Papers IV, V and VI and not in the whole examination. Consequently his case is clearly covered by the proviso under which the petitioner is not entitled to any grace marks. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is without any force. It is accordingly dismissed. AA./M-1313/L Petition dismissed.