THE MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION versus AMIT AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 106 · Decided: 09-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY AND 
HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION 
v. 
AMIT AND ANR. 
B 
JULY 9, 2002 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board Regulations, 
C 1977-Regulation 52 (3)(a) Note 1 sub-clause 2(d) and Note 2 sub-clause (3) 
-Benefit of grant of grace marks-Benefit of combined passing-Claim of-
Held, candidate not entitled to the benefit of combined passing as it refers to 
marks actually obtained and not the marks gained after grant of grace marks. 
Respondent No.1 having declared failed in Secondary School 
D Certificate Examination, applied to the appellant-Board for grant of 20 
grace marks under sub-clause 2(d) under Note 1 of clause (3)(a) of 
Regulation 52 of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Board 
Reghulations, 1977 on the ground that he had participated in sports at 
State level. 
E 
Appellant-Board rejected the application on the ground that even 
F 
with the addition of 20 grace marks, he could not be declared as passed 
since he failed to secure the minimum pass mark of 52 marks in 
Mathematics even with the addition of grace marks. 
Respondent filed writ petition against the order of the appellant-
Board claiming benefit under sub-clause (2)(d) under Note 1 of clause 
(3)(a) as also under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 of clause (3)(a) of Regulation 
52. His case was that after adding grace marks to the marks actually 
obtained by him in Mathematics i.e. 19, he should be deemed to have 
obtained 39 marks and therefore entitled to the benefit of combined 
G passing in the subjects Mathematics ~nd Science, since he had secured 
more than 105 marks in Science and Mathematics taken together. 
H 
High Court allowed the petition taking the view that under sub-
clause 2(d) under Note 1 of Clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52, respondent was 
entitled to grant of 20 grace marks as a result of which marks obtained 
106 
MAHARASHTRA STATE BO. OF SEC AND HIGHER SEC. EDU 1•. AMIT 
107 
by him in Mathematics would be 39 and consequently having obtained 39 A 
marks he would be entitled to benefit under sub-clause (3) of Note 2 of 
clause (3)(a) of Regulation 52, having secured more than 105 marks in 
Mathematics and Science taken together and hence the Court directed the 
Board to declare the respondent as passed. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that sub-clause (3) of B 
Note 2 which refers to "a candidate obtaining not less than 105 marks" 
refers to the marks actually obtained by the candidate on the basis of his 
performance in the examination and not the marks deemed to have been 
obtained by him after the grant of grace marks. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. There are certain principles which the Court has to keep 
in mind while dealing with a case \vhere grace marks are claimed under 
the relevant Regulations. The award of grace marks is in the nature of a 
concession, and there can be no doubt that it does result in diluting D 
academic standards. The object underlying the grant of grace marks is to 
remove the real hardship to a candidate who has otherwise shown good 
u 
performance in the academic field but is losing one year of his scholastic 
career for the deficiency of a mark or so in one or two subjects, while on 
the basis of his overall performance in other subjects, he deserves to be 
declared successful. The appropriate authorities may also provide for E 
grant of grace marks to a candidate who has taken part in sports events 
etc., considering the fact that such candidates who have obtained a level 
of proficiency in any particular game or event may have devoted 
considerable time in pursuit of excellence in such game or event. However, 
a rule for the award of grace marks must be construed strictly so as to F 
ensure that the minimum standards are not allowed to be diluted beyond 
the limit specifically laid down by the appropriate authority. It is only in 
a case where the language of the statute is absolutely clear that the claim 
for the award of grace marks can be sustained. Normally the court shall 
be slow to extend the concession of grace marks and grant a benefit where 
none is intended to be given by the appropriate authority. 
G 
[110-F, G, H; 111-A, BJ 
Board of School Education. Haryana v. Arun Rathi and Ors .. [1994] 2 
sec 526, referred to. 
2. The Scheme of the Regulation 52 of Maharshtra Secondary and H 
108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A Higher Secondary Board 

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