PUNJAB UNIVERSITY versus SUBASH CHANDER AND ANR.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 17-05-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
o· 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY 
v. 
SUBASH CHANDER AND.ANR. 
May -17, }984 
• 
[A.P. SEN, A. VARADA\lAJAN AND V. BALAKRIS!lNA BRAD!, JJ.) 
Punfab University Calendar, 1965·Rule 7.1 re'tating to M.8.B.S. course read -
with Regu!dti(Jn 25 of Punjab University Regulations framed under P,iinjah. Univer-
sity Act'-Rule 7.1 a'"'!nded by Univmlty in May 1970 by way of addition of 
excep"tif;n to-Rule 2.J .of Punjab Univefsity.CalenUar, 1970 co_iresponding_ to ]J.ule 
7.1of1965-Incorporated in Punjab University Calendar 1974-Whether amendtd 
rule had retrospective o'peration-Whether candidate joining ~M."B.B.S. course in 
1965 and appearing for final exarnination in 1974 governed by old rule in force in 
1965-or new rule in force in 1974-Whether ~ student has ~ested right to claim 
benefit ofdny regulation·ot ru1e which was in 'force when he was admitted to th'e 
' 
. 
c-ourse. 
Words and Phrases-'~etros.p~ctive"-Meaning of. 
The first respondent joined M.B.B.S. course of the appellant· Punjab 
University in 1965. At that ti1ne Regulation 25. of the Punjab University framed 
under s.31 of the Punjab Universit\)"-Act required a minimum of 50 pe~ cent of 
lnarks to pass in each subject and Rule 7.1 relating, inter alia, to M.B.B.S. 
"course IJfOvided that a candid<ite who fails in one or more papetsfsubjects /or 
aggregate may be given grace m1rks up.to 1 p~r cent of the .total aggregate 
·marks excluding-for _practical and internal assessment to h
0
is best advantage in 
· order to have ~im declared to- have passed. the examination. In 1970, Rule 7.1 
Was amended by the addition of an exception to Rule 2.1-which provided that 
in the case of M.J;i.B,S. examitlation however the grac;e marks shall be given 
upto 1 per cent of the total ms.rks of each subject and not upto t per cent of 
the aggregate marks of all the subjects. The first. respondent who appeared for 
the final M.B.B.S. examination in 1974 Was declared to have failed in one 
SUbjeCt b,:CaUS~ he COU]d fl Qt s'ecure. 50 petA cent in that Sl,lbject even after being 
· award'ed the grace ~ar~s according to the new rule. This was cha1lenged before. 
the Hii:;h Court by the first respondent ort the grouud that the old R.egula~ion 25 
r,e~d with the old Rule 7.1 which was in force when he joined the course in 1965 
should be made applicable to him and he should be declared to.have Passed in 
that subj_ect. The Punjab University~ wntended that there was no element of 
retrospectivity in the application of the . amended rule and that students were 
bound to se~ure 1narks as per the regulation in force at the time of Commence-
ment of the exaa1ination concerned and they had no !vested right to claim. the 
benefit of any regulation or rule.Which was in force when they ,were admitted to 
the course. Confirming the judgment of a single Judge, a Fun Bench _of the 
· High Court in a Letters Patent ilppeal·opined that there was nothing ill s.31 of 
the Punjab University Act ~bich would' clothe the Senat~, explicitly or iffipliedly 
• 
.• 
, 
' 
' 
'f 
A • 
,. . 
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY v. S. Clli\NDER 
823 
With the power to frame-regulations retrospectively and held that the regulation, 
as amended 
in 1970, ha4. fetrospectively altered tJ?.e condition_ of the 
firsf respondent taking the examination to his detriment and could not be 
applied to him and that he was governed only by Regulation 25 read with Rule. 
·1.1 as it wa"' in force whl!n he joined the course in 1965. The 1-ligh CoU!t 
observed that M.B.B.S. was a siOgle integrated composite cour~e and the change 
in the regulations was· a change in the C!?urse of that single Integrated course and 
was retrospective in natqre. Hence this iippeal. 
Allowing the appeal,. 
B 
HELD : The Senate of the Punjab University had the necessary power 
unde·r s.3J of the Act to fix, trom time to tin1e, the percentage of marks required 
for passing the examination and to grant or to refuse to grant grace marks o~ 
G 
to enhance .or reduce the quantum of grace marks. [8308] 
The"re is rio element of retrospectivity in the change brought about by the 
addition of the excepti.on to Rtile 2.1 of the ·Ca la lid er for the year 1970. ''Retros-
pective" according to the Shorter Oxford English !Dictinoary, Third Edition. in 
relatiori·to StatUtes etC. means ''Operath,·:;: \Vith regafd to past tirne
0
• The" change 
brought about by the addition of the exception to Rule 2.1 does not say tha'.t ;t 
sbaJl be oP'erative with effect from any earlie

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.