( 1 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, despite Ordinance 28-A having been framed, the marks secured by a candidate in an examination, which he had repeated continued to be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining his eligibility for the award of Prizes or Medals, provided that the candidate had passed the course within the minimum span period prescribed. It is contended, that it is only in the year 1980-81 that the matter was investigated in detail and legal opinion was obtained. The legal opinion given to the University was that, on a correct interpretation of the said Ordinance, a candidate absenting himself from an exam. in a paper was to be treated on the same footing as the candidate who failed to pass a paper, and if the latter became ineligible for the award on account of his not having passed the exam. in the normal course within the minimum span prescribed, then there was no reason why the disqualification should not apply equally to a candidate who had absented him- self from the exam. in a paper. According to the respondents, similar would be a case where a candidate repeats the paper in a subsequent semester. According to the respondents, in all