2004 PLP 822 (CLC)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared in LL.B. Part‑I 1st Annual Examination 2000 in all the subjects and he was declared fail as a whole. The petitioner again appeared in second annual examination 2000. As a result, he was directed to re appear in paper‑I and in any one out of the papers III, IV and VI. Consequently, the petitioner appeared in first annual examination 2001 in papers I and VI. He secured 43 marks each in both the subjects. The result is that he is short of four marks in his aggregate to qualify LL.B. Part‑I.

3. The grievance being made is that under regulation 5 of, the Statutes and Regulations for degree of Bachelor of Law 3 years course, the petitioner is entitled to five grace marks, which are being denied to the petitioner. For ready reference the said regulation is being re‑produced as follows:‑‑‑ "Every candidate of any part of LL.B. Class in order to be deemed to have passed the first or second annual examination, be required to obtain forty percent 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) fail 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 the distribution of five marks over the papers/aggregate in which he fails. Provided further that a higher division shall be awarded to a candidate who missed 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner appeared as a whole in first Annual Examination 2000, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner appeared "in parts", therefore, the bar contained in the said regulation for the candidates, who appear in the examination "in parts", is not available.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that although the petitioner appeared as a whole in 1st Annual Examination 2000 but since he was declared fail and subsequently also he failed in one paper and also could not qualify his aggregate and still in third attempt he is short of aggregate, therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of "in parts". He relies on 1998 CLC 5.

6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties

7. The interpretation being placed by the learned counsel for the: petitioner on the words "in parts" is not supported by any provision of law. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if a candidate appears in an examination as a whole but is declared fail as a whole or secure compartment in some subjects cannot be termed that he has been appearing "in parts" because he had originally appeared as a whole in all six subjects. I am afraid that the language of the regulation is absolutely clear. If a candidate appears in an examination, may be in all the subjects but if he fails to qualify in any one of the subjects and he had to re‑appear in those subjects, his case would fall "in parts" and he would not be entitled to any grace marks. However, if a candidate appears in all the subjects for the first time and he is short of five marks either in any one or more subject or he is short of five marks in his aggregate, then he is entitled to secure five grace marks.

8. For the above reasons, the petitioners is not entitled to any grace marks. This petition being devoid of force is accordingly dismissed. M.H./J‑10/L Petition dismissed.