THE PUNJABI UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC. versus SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 27-02-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH ETC. 
v. 
SUNDER SINGH AND OTHERS 
Februa~y 27, 1984 
[S. MuRTAZA fAZAL Au, A. VARADARAIAN AND 
RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] • 
31 
Punjab University Calendar Vol. l/, 1976, Chapter III Rule 27./ (a) inter, 
prttation of-Whether the allowance of grace mark under Sub-Rule ·(a) or (b) wi// 
apply to candidates reappear)ng in all)' subject-Award of graCe n'1ark at Posl 
Graduate lev~l deprecated. 
' 
• 
Re.spondents in each of these appea]s could not clear the LLM exami-
A 
B 
c 
nation in accordance with RegulatiOn 7 of the Punjab University Regulations 
D 
either in the first atte'mpt or later while taking on compar.tmcntal basis even 
aftet addition' of grace marks as laid down in Rule 27(1)(b) of the University -
Regulations. The respondents filed. separate writ pethions praying for a 
d-irection to give the benefit of moderation grace. mark as calculated under 
Role 27(1)(a). The High Court. rejected the plea of the Appellant University 
holding that it was Rule 27(l)(b) that applied and not Rule 27-l(a). f[ence the 
· \ ". 
appeal by Special Leave. 
E 
' ' 
Allpwing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : A bare reading of the Rule 27 (referred !to as the. Regulations 
by the High Court) makes it clear that clause(•) is applicable where the fu 1 
·examinatioti is taken and clause (b) is attracted where the !candidate reappears 
to.clear the compartment or subject and part in which he has been declared 
eligible to re3;ppear. 
Jn· each of these cases the candidate was reappearing to 
clear the paper in which he or she had failed; clause (b) was clearly attracted 
and the benefit under clause (a)•was not .available. .The language· of clause (b) 
-ris such as would squarely apply to such a .situation. The provision in clause 
(b) is clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to grace marks 
of up to OI!ll per cent of the total marks of the subjecvsubjecis in which he 
reappears. Once clauSe {b) applies no referenee is availabJe··to the performance 
in the regular examination taken earlier and the benefit of grace marks to the· 
extent indicated has to be confine_d to the performance at the reappearance. 
Once this is the position each of the candidates was 6ot eligible to pass. 
. (34GH, 35B-C] 
. 
. 
p 
G 
•. 
[In view of the-declaration dated 19.6:1980 made . before the court that 
irrespective of the result of the appeals, the candidates will be declared to' have 
passed~ t4e Court as a special ca~~ did n9t want to disturb the result.] 
u· 
" 
' 
-
(35D] 
' . 
A 
. '18 
•• 
ID 
>>G 
i-tH 
32 
(1984) 3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. 
. 
Observation : 
The J?OSition obtaining in (be Punjab University· in re.s.pect of Post 
Graduate degrees namely grace marks beiag awarded is disapproved. A 
Master's degree in any speciality·is con$idered to be ·the highest qualification 
in tha· normal ruh. It is very much necessary that such a degree. should be 
conferred only on th.e deserving students who having studied the subject and 
taken the appropriate examination conducted by tho University at the end of 
such studies h:1ve d:!served the degree on the basis of their performavce. There· 
should be no scope for looking for grace marks at such level and the sooner 
the . Punjab U !l'iversity abandons· the practice of awarding grace marks in .. 
-respeCt of post-graduate examinations the better it· would be in the interest of 
higher eduCation in this country.'[35F-H] 
CIVIL APPELLA'IE JURlSDICTION; Civil· Appeal No. 6009 of 
1983. 
Appeal by.special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
,the 19th April, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 
.c.w.P. No. 1484 of 1983. 
WITH 
Civil .Appeal Nos. 1207 and 1208 of 1980. 
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 30th May, i980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Comif ·in 
· Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1759 and 1846 of 1980. 
· J.L. Gupta, D.N. Gupta and V.K, Verma for the Appellant in 
CA. No. 6009 of 1983. 
i 
. 
. 
. 
·. 
J.L. Gupta and C.M,Nayar for the Appellant in CA. No.· 1207 
and 1208 and \980. 
Hardev Singh and R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the_ Court was delivered by 
• 
RANGANi\.TH MiSRA J. Each of these appeals .is' by speaial 
leave and is directed against the decision of the High'Courtof 
Punjab and Haryana in separate, writ petitions, A common .'\ues-
tion i_s involved in all the three matters and that relat.es to a corre~t 
interpretation of Rule 27. l(a) in Chap.ter Ill of the Punjab Unive

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