JUDGMENT
Chandurkar, C.J.
1. The facts which have been brought to light in this appeal indicate how a Master’s Degree in Laws has been utterly devalued by the authorities of the University by making a rule that Master’s degree could be obtained by passing the examination in unlimited number of installments. Normally, the holder of a Master’s degree from a University of the status and reputation of the Madras University Would immediately invoke high regard and respect but if the manner indicated by Regulation 3(A) is the manner in which that degree is to be conferred on the holder of the degree, it will cease to be a symbol of scholarship and erudition which at least some years back a Master’s degree in laws was always looked upon.
2. The appellant sat f or the M. L. Examination of the Madras University in July 1978 for the first time. Unfortunately for him he failed in all the subjects. In 1979, a new Regulation seems to have been made, by the University possibly as a part of its efforts to make University degree available to those, who sought them with ease and comfort. We shall rel5roduce this regulation namely, Regulation 3(A) later; but the overall effect of that regulation was that if a person had failed in any of the papers at the Master’s degree examination, he was entitled to appear indefinitely in the papers in which he had failed and all that was required was to obtain not less than 40% of the marks in each paper to qualify for a pass in the papers’. In the Syllabus for the Master’s degree examination of Law, there are six branches. The appellant opted out for branch-VI which related to Property Law. In this branch, the candidate would have to appear for five papers as follows :-
1. Transfer of Property in England and India including trusts, settlements and. conveyancing.
2. Transfer of Property in England and India sales, mortgages, and leases.
3. Succession, testamentary and intestate.
4. Public Trusts and Charities.
5. Customary and Statute Law relating to Land Tenures in India.
3. In the examination held in 1979, the appellant, secured 48% of marks in the first paper, namely ‘Transfer of Property in England and India including trusts, settlements – and conveyancing. In the same year, he also obtained 50 marks in the fourth paper-namely, ‘Public Trusts and Charities’. He does not seem to have appeared for any of the three subjects in which he had failed in, the year 1980. He sat for the three papers in 1981 and got .41, marks in the fifth paper namely ‘Customary and statute law’ relating to Land Tenures in India. He, however’ failed in the other two papers. In July 1982 he once again sat for two subjects but he passed only in the third paper having secured just 40, marks. In July 1983, the appellant sat only for the-second paper but obtained only 34 marks. According to the appellant he is qualified for the Master’s degree in, law having obtained more than the requisite marks for a pass and he was, therefore, entitled to be declared as having passed the, Master of Law degree examination. When the, appellant made his claim for being declared as having passed the Master of Law Examination to the University’ the University referred him to Regulation 3 (A) under which according to the University, candidates while reappearing for the papers in which they failed at subsequent appearances shall obtain not less than 40 per cent of the marks in each paper or qualifying for a pass in the papers’. The appellant claimed that this regulation came into force subsequent to 1978, when he first registered for the Master of Law degree and it was, therefore, irrelevant in his case. The appellant- petitioner has separately challenged the validity of Regulation 3(A) in a writ petition which is pending, but according to the appellant, notwithstanding Regulation 3(A) his case must be decided in the light of only Regulation-3. This claim has been rejected by the learned Judge, who dismissed his writ petition and that order is challenged in this appeal.
4. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant Regulations made by the University with regard to the degree of Master of Law. These are to be found in Chapter LXXIV of the, Calendar of the University of Madras, Volume-111. (Part 1) 1971 Edition. Regulation-1 reads as follows: –
“No candidate shall be eligible for the degree of Master of Laws unless he has taken the degree of Bachelor of Laws of this University or a degree in some other University accepted by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto and has also passed the. M.L. degree examination :
Another part of the same regulation reads as follows :-
“No candidate shall be admitted to the examination for the degree of Master of laws unless he has passed not less than two years previously the examination for the degree of Bachelor of Laws in the University or a degree examination in some other University accepted by the Syndicate as equivalent thereto …. ”
Regulation-2:
Candidates for the degree of Master of Laws shall be examined in one of the following branches …..
Regulation-3 :-
Candidates who obtain not less than one-third of the marks in each paper of the Branch and not less than forty per cent on the whole, shall be declared to have passed the examination. All the other candidates shall be deemed to have failed in the examination ……
The latter part of this Regulation which deals with classification of successful candidates is not relevant for our present purpose. Regulation 3(A) which came to be made in 11) 79 and of which the appellant disclaims all knowledge and pleads complete ignorance reads as follows :-
“Candidates while reappearing for papers in which they failed at subsequent appearances shall obtain not less than 40 per cent of the marks in each paper to qualify for a pass in the papers.”
5. The argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant which really suffers from oversimplification is that the appellant has secured one-third of the marks in each paper of the branch and the total of these marks is also not less than forty per cent on .the whole, and, therefore, his case falls within the four corners of Regulation-3 and in terms of Regulation-3.he was 6ititled to be declared as having passed the M.L. examination notwithstanding the fact that he has obtained -these marks by appearing for different papers at different times spread over five years.
6. The case of the University in the counter-affidavit is that Regulation-3 deals with only those candidates who passed in the first attempt and Regulation 3(A) deals only with candidates who have failed to pass under Regulation-3. According to the University, Regulation 3 (A) prescribes marks for a pass in the paper or the papers as the case may be but these are not marks prescribed for a pass in the full course. The stand of the University is that Regulation 3(A) deals with papers taken compartmentally while Regulation 3 deals with papers taken at one examination and there is no inconsistency between Regulation 3 and Regulation 3(A). The stand which is taken by the appellant before us is that Regulation 3 does not refer to the requirement of obtaining not less than one- third of the marks in each paper of the Branch and not less than forty per cent on the whole a t the first attempt. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that over a period of almost five years the appellant has succeeded in getting one-third of the marks in each paper and forty percent on the aggregate, he was still entitled to the benefit of Regulation-. 3. In bur view, this contention is totally misconceived and must be rejected. Regulation-1 which has, been reproduced above contains the basic requirement for qualifying to obtain a degree of Master of Laws. Apart from the requirement that a candidate who wants to obtain a degree of Master of Laws must have taken a degree of Bachelor of Laws of the Madras University or an equivalent degree of some other University accepted by the Syndicate, the further requirement is that candidate ‘has also passed the M.L. degree examination.
7. Ever since the system of examinations has become a part of the educational system in India, passing an examination has always been understood as obtaining a certain minimum number of marks in each of the papers for which a candidate appears unless of course there is a specific provision further that in addition to securing the minimum number of marks in-each paper, the candidate must also obtain a certain number of marks in the aggregate. This has been the pattern of the University examinations throughout the country. It is in that light that we must read these regulations and when regulation- I refers to passing M.L. degree examination, what is required for passing that examination has to be ascertained with reference to the relevant Regulation. The relevant Regulation namely Regulation 3 clearly lays down that candidates who obtain not less than one-third of the marks in each paper of the Branch and not less than forty per cent on the whole, shall be declared to have passed the examination. Regulation 3, therefore, makes it abundantly clear that if a person is to be declared to have passed the Examination, he must obtain not less than one-third of the marks in each paper and not less than forty per cent on the whole. What is implicit in Regulation 3 is that these marks have to be obtained at the examination at which he had appeared and as a result of passing which he claims to have passed and qualified for the M.L. degree.
8. If Regulation-3 had stood by itself, it is difficult for us to see as to where was the sanction for any candidate who has failed in any paper or more than one paper to appear merely for those papers in the subsequent examinations. As a matter of fact, if a candidate does not secure the marks as prescribed in any one paper or subject and he claims that he will app5ar only in the papers in which he has become unsuccessful, that cannot be done unless Regulations permit this to be done. A person who has failed- in one or two papers will naturally be a person who has failed in the examination and he must necessarily take the entire examination once again if Regulation 3 stood by itself. Fortunately for the unsuccessful candidate and unfortunately for those who are interested in maintaining a higher standard of education, the educational authorities with a view to make University degrees easily available, introduced a concept of obtaining degrees by installments or compartments. Regulation 3(A) is intended to achieve this object and this case illustrates how grossly it is capable of being abused. Regulation 3(A) properly does not refer to passing an examination at all, because the concept of examination is that all the papers are to be taken simultaneously at the same attempt and as a part of one examination. It contemplates that the candidate has failed at the examination refer-red to in Regulation 3 and is being given an additional opportunity to obtain a degree ‘by being permitted to appear for the papers in which he has failed. In other words having regard to the normal concept of examination and the normal concept of passing an examination, strictly speaking a person who qualified for a degree by taking papers in compartments or installments cannot be said to have passed an examination. That is why Regulation 3(A) refers to passing in a paper. Passing in several papers at different points of time cannot be clubbed together as amounting to passing an examination though having regard to the specific provisions in the Regulations, it may qualify a candidate for obtaining a degree. It is apparent that a candidate who passed in all the papers in one examination must always be considered as superior in knowledge and intelligence to one who qualifies for a degree only by installments. The appellant falls in the latter class. It is, therefore, no argument to say that Regulation 3(A) is not attracted in the case-of the appellant. If Regulation 3(A) was not there, there was no regulation which would enable the appellant to appear for only those papers in which he had failed at the examination in 1979. Consequently it is not open to the appellant to say that he will ignore Regulation 3(A) and his case must be decided only with reference to Regulation 3. If his case is to be decided with reference to Regulation 3 he cannot be said to have passed the examination at all. Having taken the benefit of Regulation 3(A) he cannot say that Regulation 3(A) is not attracted in his case. In our view, the whole case of the appellant that he must be declared to have passed under Regulation-3 is misconceived.
9. We are, however, perturbed by the fact that Regulation-3 (A), provides for an unlimited number of attempts to be made by a candidate and a candidate can get Master’s degree in Law by appearing in different subjects at different points of time without any restriction on the number of attempts. This appears to be a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Persons holding Master’s degree in Law many times become teachers in law and that is why we are concerned with the manner in which the Master’s degree is being dealt with by the University. There is a possibility that a person who has obtained a Master’s degree by installments may also become a teacher in law. How such a person will fare as a teacher and how much respect he will command from the students can well be imagined. It is, therefore, high time that the University considers the question of putting restrictions on the number of chances as it has done in the case of Master’s degree in Commerce where there is an outer limit of three occasions and in Master’s degree in Technology where also the number of occasions on which the candidate can write his papers is restricted to three. It is difficult to find any rational reason why the University has not found it necessary to put such restrictions with regard to the degree of Master of Laws which is clearly a professional course when it had put such restrictions in the case of other educational courses.
10. In our view, the appeal is wholly without any substance. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
11. A copy of this judgment should be sent to the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor of the Madras University.
12. Appeal dismissed.