ORDER
1. The respondent 1, a student of First year M.B.B.S. appeared for I year M.B.B.S. Part-I Examination in the subjects of Anatomy, Physiology and Biochemistry and failed in all the subjects. Feeling herself entitled to the grant of grace marks she made a representation Annexure-B and application for a revaluation, Annexure-D, but without any result. Ultimately, she filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed by the order impugned directing the appellant to award grace marks to the petitioner/respondent 1 in the subject of Anatomy (a) and (b) subjects and declare her as having passed in the said subject.
2. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been assailed on the ground that the directions issued were contrary to the proviso to Regulation 6 of Gracing Regulations. The learned Single Judge is stated to have not taken notice of the fact that the said proviso prescribed that “no candidate shall have the benefit of gracing for the paper/s and the aggregate at the same examination”. It is submitted that the respondent 1 at the most was entitled to 7 grace marks, the award of which was controlled and regulated by subsequent regulations. Regulation 4 provided that a candidate would not be entitled to more than 2% of the maximum marks of the paper to be graced. It is submitted that the paper to be graced in the instant case was Anatomy-I, where the respondent 1 secured 31 marks as against 32 marks, minimum marks required. It is contended that even if she is given one grace mark in Anatomy-I(a), her total marks would be 32 resultantly making her total marks in Anatomy-I(b) as 73. As the minimum number of marks required to pass the paper were 75, the respondent 1 was not entitled to the relief granted to her.
3. In exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 12(5) of the Bangalore University Act, 1964, the Vice-Chancellor issued a notification dated 12-11-1974 repealing the then existing gracing regulation of the University and formulating the new regulations as given in the Schedule annexed thereto. Regulations 2, 3 and 4 of the Schedule read as under:
“2. In these Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, Taper’ means and includes:
(i) Paper or papers which have a separate minima for a pass. or (ii) Practicals, clinicals and viva voce which have a separate minima for a pass. Explanation.--Paper includes theory, practicals, clinicals and viva voce. 3. One per cent of the maximum marks of the paper or papers of the examination taken by the candidate shall be available for gracing. 4. Subject to Regulation No. 3, gracing in any paper/s shall not exceed 2 per cent of the maximum marks of that paper/s".
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent 1 was entitled to the grant of only one grace mark in subject of Anatomy-1(a) and that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the grant of 3 marks. The argument of the learned Counsel is without substance in view of the regulations referred to hereinabove. “Paper” within the meaning of the regulations included paper or papers which have a separate minimum for a pass. Paper of anatomy was with respect to one subject having maximum of 150 marks in which minimum 75 marks were required for passing the subject. Giving the grace of 2% of the total maximum of marks, the respondent 1 was entitled to 3 marks. Adding 3 grace marks to the marks obtained (72) by her she was entitled to be declared pass. Otherwise also if one mark is added to the paper Anatomy-I(a) her total marks in theory become 32, thus, raising the marks in Anatomy-I(b) to 73. Adding 1% of the marks to the total would again result in declaring the respondent 1 to have passed.
5. We are satisfied the papers Anatoray-I(a) and (b) was with respect to one subject in which the respondent 1 had obtained 72 marks and was entitled to 3 grace marks under Regulation 4. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in allowing the writ petition and issuing the directions to the appellant as noted hereinabove.
6. Our attention was drawn to a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Mubarak Ali v Controller of Examinations, Bangalore University and Another, wherein it was held:
“Paper is defined in Regulation 2 to mean and include a paper or papers which have a separate minima for a pass or practicals, clinicals and viva voce which have a separate minima for a pass. Though normally a paper may not include practicals, clinicals, or viva voce the meaning of word ‘paper’ is enlarged to take in the above 3 examinations as well provided a separate minima marks is fixed for a pass in that examination. On a combined reading of clauses (i) to (ii) of Regulation 2, I have no hesitation to hold that the Theory, Practicals, Clinicals and viva voce examinations have to be treated as separate papers so long as a separate minima pass mark is fixed for the above examinations. The Explanation to Regulation 2 can apply only in cases where there is no separate minimum pass mark fixed for any of the 4 examinations mentioned therein. In cases where separate minima pass mark is fixed for all the four examinations it is the main part of the definition that shall apply and the Explanation can have no application”.
7. After considering various aspects of the matter, taking note of the facts of this case and the position of law including notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Mubarak All’s case, supra.
8. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.