JUDGMENT

VARADARAJAN, J. — This appeal by special leave is by Punjab University against the judgment of it Full Beach of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Letters Patent Appeal 352 of 1975# confirming the judgment of a learned single in W. P. 1017 of 1975.

#Reported in (1976) 76 Pun LR 920 (FB)

2. Subash Chander, respondent 1 in this appeal joined the Daya Nand Medical College, Ludhiana, for the M. B. B. S. course in 1965 when Regulation 25 of the Punjab University was in force. That regulation required a minimum of 50 per cent of marks to pass in each subject. However Rule, 7.1 relating to the M. B. B. S. and certain other courses provided that -

"a candidate who fails in one or more papers / subjects and / or aggregate may be given grace marks up to 1 per cent of the total aggregate marks (including marks for practical and internal assessment) to his best advantage in order to be declared to have passed the examination."

But in May 1970 an amendment was made by the University in the form of an exception to Rule 2.1 which corresponds to R. 7.1 which was in force in 1965 in the following terms :-

"2.1. A candidate who appears, in all subjects of the examination and who fails in one or more subjects (written, practical, sessional or viva voce and / or aggregate (if there is a separate requirement of passing in the aggregate) shall be given grace marks up to 1% of the total aggregate marks, (excluding marks for internal assessment) to make up for the deficiency if by such addition the candidate can pass the examination. While awarding grace marks fraction working to 1/2 or more will be rounded to a whole."

Exception - In the case of M. B. B. S. and B. D. S. examinations, however, the grace marks shall be given up to one per cent of the total of each subject and not up to one per cent of aggregate of all the subjects. In other words, each subject will be, for this purpose, a separate unit, and a candidate who fails in a subject by not more than one per cent of the aggregate marks of that subject may be given the required number of marks in order to pass in that subject.

3. Subash Chander, respondent 1, appeared for the final M. B. B. S. examination in 1974 and secured the following marks and remarks :-

Medicine ---- 202 out of 400 P.

Surgery ---- 225 out of 400 P.

Eye and ENT ---- 204 out of 400 P.

Midwifery : i) Theory -- 95 out of 200 Reappear

ii) Practical-106 out of 260

4. According to Regulation 25 read with Rule 7.1 which was in force when Subash Chander joined the course in 1965, he would be eligible for grace marks at 1 per cent of the aggregate marks of 1600 for all the above four subjects, which will be 16, and he would have passed in Midwifery also. But he was given only 1 per cent of the total marks of 400 for Midwifery, as per the amended Regulation 25 read with R. 2.1 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1974, namely four as grace marks and held to have failed in Midwifery as the total of 95 marks which he actually secured and the 4 grace marks in the theory in that subject fell short of 50 per cent by 1 mark. His contention is that the old Regulation 25 read 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 the final examination in full including Midwifery.

5. Before the High Court, it was contended for the Punjab University that there is no element of retrospectivity in the application of the amended regulation and rule to students appearing for teh examinations subsequent to the amendment and that students are bound to secure marks as per the regulation in force at the time of commencement of the examination concerned and they have no vested right to claim the benefit of any regulation or rule which was in force when they were admitted to the course.

6. Chief Justice S. S. Sandhawalia who spoke for the Full Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal out of which this appeal before us has arisen noticed certain decisions of the