The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Medical Council of India Regulations prevail over the University Regulations, and the grant of grace marks is at the discretion of the University and not a matter of right.

The sum and substance of the case on hand is as to whether there was more than one Regulation of the year 2009-2010 with regard to the award of grace marks and whether the students, as a matter of right, can demand the grace/incentive marks.

2. The Medical Council of India Regulations, 1997 (amended upto 10th March 2017) and the Examination Regulations of Pondicherry University, 2009-10 onwards, deal with the grace marks, which are extracted below :

"Pondicherry University Regulations :

Grace Mark: Grace Mark in case of failure in ONE out of all subjects for the particular semester :

A passing board is constituted for finalizing the results of each phase. The Heads of the Departments or the members, the board allots grace marks maximum 5 for one subject. The grace mark of 5 will be added for one subject only after the marks obtained in the University examination are scaled down to 100% in the particular subject - Theory. The grace mark of 5 is applicable to all the University examinations of MBBS conducted semester-wise. No Grace marks will be added for practicals.

Grace Mark will not be applicable when the candidate takes up the University Examination in a compartmental manner.

Grace Mark will not be applicable when the candidate takes up a single subject in the University Examination"

Medical Council of India Regulations :

The grace marks up to a maximum of five marks may be awarded at the discretion of the University to a student who has failed only in one subject but has passed in all other subjects.

3. According to the petitioners, nowhere in the MCI Regulations, it has been mentioned that the students who take up the examination in the compartmental system of examination, will not be entitled to grace marks.

4. In the present batch of cases, some of the students have failed in theory for more than once and some of them have failed in Practicals. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in CDJ 2011 MHC 5744 = 2011 (6) CTC 801 = 2012 (1) MLJ 865 = 2011 Writ LR 1086 (The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University, Rep. by its Registrar and another Vs. P.Anand and others). The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.869 of 2018, dated 28.04.2018 and in that decision, this Court's order in W.P.No.4497 of 2018, dated 09.04.2018, has been taken up on appeal and that the Division Bench has held that the grace marks could be granted, taking note of the Circular of the year 2016 and 2017, i.e. dated 29.06.2016 and 17.10.2017 of the University.

5. The respondent-University contended that there are no two Regulations and only one Regulation is applicable and that the Regulation produced before this Court is manipulated and that the petitioners would not be entitled to the grace marks. It is further submitted that when the Regulation is in force, the petitioner would not be entitled to grace marks. It is further contended by Mrs. A.V. Bharathi and Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, learned counsel appearing for Pondicherry University that the petitioners are trying to mislead the Court, as the order passed by this Court on 10.04.2018 in W.P. No. 4565 of 2018 has become final and Writ Appeal has not been filed against the same.

6. That apart, the issue with reference to the judgment of the Division Bench (cited supra) in Writ Appeal No.869 of 2018, dated 28.04.2018 is with regard to the grant of marks for the improved internal assessment. The decision in W.A.No.869 of 2018 is distinguishable on facts and that said judgment will not support the case of the petitioners. They have not drawn the attention of this Court to the review order passed by this Court and in the Review Applications in Rev.A.Nos.67 to 75 of 2018, by order dated 10.04.2018, it has been categorically held that there can be no grace marks for practicals.

7. Mr. V.P. Raman, learned counsel appearing for MCI submitted that the issue with regard to the U