NARESH CHANDER JAIN, J. :- - (1.) The necessary facts in order to appreciate the questions of law lie in a narrrow compass and may thus be noticed.
(2.) The petitioners sought admission in 1st year of Pharmacy Diploma Course in the year 1988 and the academic year of theirs commenced from July, 1988. They appeared in the annual examination conducted by the Board of Diploma in Pharmacy in the year 1989 and the result was declared by the State Board of Technical Education, which is Annexure P-1 to this petition. Since the petitioners could not succeed in the examination of the 1st year, having got reappear in more than two subjects, they have approached this Court for the grant of grace marks at one per cent, that is, in all 11 marks, the total marks being 1100. The case of the petitioners is that they should be given 11 grace marks on all the papers i.e., theoratical as well as practical even if the grant of such grace marks may not push them into higher class. In other words, it is the precise case of the petitioners that they should be held entitled to the grant of grace marks whether such a concession entitles them to earn compartment or earn them promotion to get into the second year. It is on these facts as averred in the petition or as stated during the course of arguments that the following questions of law are involved in the present writ petition : (i) Whether the students who have appeared in the 1st year of Pharmacy Diploma Course are entitled to get grace marks only when they are going to pass in all the papers or they are entitled to the grant of grace marks even when they are not passing out in all the papers but such a grant would only entitle them to get compartment in some papers. In other words, the provisions pertaining to the grace marks are to be applied to all the students whether or not such a concession entitles the students to pass out the first year or to get compartment? (ii) Whether the rules so far as they are silent for the grant of concession of grace marks to the students earning compartment are liable to be struck down as being discriminatory and arbitrary?
(3.) Mr. Sarwan Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the concession of grace marks should be given to all the students irrespective of the fact whether grant of grace marks makes a student pass out the examination or get compartment. It is further the argument of the learned counsel that non-existence of provisions in the Pharmacy rules for the students of first year regarding concession of grace marks for earning compartment is discriminatory vis a vis the students regarding whom provisions have been made about the grant of grace marks for passing out the examinations. The precise argument of the learned counsel is that the rules extending grace marks only for passing out the examination should be struck down as being discriminatory and arbitrary because no provision has been made in the rules for the grant of grace marks to the students who are likely to get compartment. It has been argued, in short, that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to frame rules for enabling the candidates of the 1st year to get grace marks even for getting compartment in order to avoid any hardship on the same pattern on which Rule 21 has been framed. In support of the argument, the learned counsel has relied upon a solitary decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9760 of 1989 (Naresh Shori v. The Punjab School Education Board) on 15/09/1989.;