JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, who is pursuing a three years’ LL.B. course in the respondent No.2 College affiliated to the respondent No.1 University, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the result of her final semester examination has been withheld for verification or want of marks. The petitioner in this petition has also alleged that she has passed all the six semesters examination including the final semester examination, but her result has not been declared by the respondent authorities and has been withheld on the ground that the petitioner has obtained 47.66% and 46.33% marks aggregate in the forth and fifth semester respectivelty, which is contrary to the provisions of Ordinance 111 of 2008-09 of the respondent University.

2. It is submitted that according to Clause-XIX, paragraph 4 of Ordinance 111, the aggregate has to be adjudged on yearly basis and in case, the petitioner’s aggregate is adjudged on yearly basis, she would get 51.33% marks in the second year and would therefore, be entitled for declaration of result. It is stated that the respondents instead of determining the aggregate marks on yearly basis, have done so semester-wise contrary to the Ordinance 111 and in such circumstance, may be directed to reassess the aggregate marks of the petitioner and declare her passed.

3. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Ankit Shrivastava Vs. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya & Another [W.P. No.66/2013 decided on 15.01.2013] and Ku. Urmila Maravi Vs. State of M.P. & Others [W.P. No.19232/2011 decided on 10.01.2014] has already held that in view of Clause- XIX Paragraph-4 of the Ordinance 111, aggregate has to be adjudged on yearly basis and not on semester basis and in such circumstance, the act of the respondents is contrary to law and deserves to be quashed.

4. The respondents have filed a return and has stated that subsequent to the orders passed by this Court in the cases of Ankit Shrivastava (supra) and Ku. Urmila Maravi (supra), the respondent authorities found that there was a typographical mistake in Clause-XIX Paragraph-4 of Ordinance 111 and has therefore, issued a clarificatory amendment clearly stating that the word ‘year’ mentioned in Clause-XIX paragraph-4 of Ordinance 111 was a typographical mistake, which is hereby corrected and amended and replaced by the word ‘semester’. The respondents have filed the aforesaid clarificatory amendment as Annexure-R/1/2 along with the return and has stated that in view of the aforesaid clarification, which would come into operation from the date of issuance of the original Ordinance, the petitioner’s aggregate has to be adjudged on semester basis. It is submitted that on adjudging the petitioner’s aggregate on semester basis, the petitioner has obtained less than 48% marks and therefore, her result has been withheld and not been declared as it is mandatory for a student to obtain 48% aggregate marks in each semester for the purposes of passing in the concerned semester.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply submits that the amendment made by the respondents in the Ordinance would apply prospectively and would not come into operation from the year 2008 itself and in such circumstances, the amended Ordinance cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner for the purposes of declaring the petitioner fail. It is stated that it is a settled law that any amendment is presumed to be prospective unless and until it is specifically declared to have retrospective operation.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the orders passed by this Court in the cases of Ankit Shrivastava (supra) and Ku. Urmila Maravi (supra). Apparently, in both the aforesaid Writ Petitions, the clarificatory amendment issued by the respondent University vide Annexure- R/1/2 dated 03.01.2018 was not under consideration mainly because these Writ Petitions were decided prior to coming into existence of the cla