S.S.Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE larger issue that looms before the Full Bench in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters patent is -whether the Punjab University can so trame or alter its Regulations as to prejudicially affect its students in the raid -stream of their course of studies.
(2.) SUBHASH Chander Petitioner -Respondent, joined the Daya Nand Medical College, Ludhiana, in the years 1965, to study for the degree of M.B.B.S. in the Faculty of Medical Sciences. At that time he was governed by the reverent Regulation 25 of the Punjab University Calender Vol. II D. 383 which provided that the minimum number of marks required to pass in the examination would be 50% in each subject separately. However, the relevant and the particular provision of this Regulation at that time stood in the following terms: - Candidate who fails in one or more pursers/subjects and/or aggregate by not more than 1 per cent of the total aggregate marks shall be given the marks required to pass the examination in accordance with the rules approved by the Syndicate from time to time. However, latter in May, 1970, amendment of the aforesaid provision was made by the University which was in the form of an exception to Regulation 2.1 in the 1970 Punjab University Calender Vol. I page 116 - 2.1 A candidate who appears in all subjects of an examination and who fails in one or more subjects (written, practical, sectional or viva voce and/or the aggregate (if there is a separate requirement of passing in the aggregate) shall be given grace marks upto maximum of 1% of the total aggregate marks excluding marks for internal assessment) to make up 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 BDS. examinations, however, the grace marks shall be given up to one per cent of the total marks of each subject, and not up to one percent of the 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 percent of the aggregate marks of that subject may be given the required number of marks in order to pass in that subject. The Petitioner -Respondent having duly qualified and passed in the earlier professional examinations appeared in the M.B.B.S. Final professional examination in the year 1974 and obtained the following marks: - JUDGEMENT_24_LAWS(P&H)9_1976.htm 4. As is evident according to Regulation 25 in force in the year 1965, read with Rule 7(1) of P.U. Calendar 1966 (Vol. 14 page 142) the Petitioner -Respondent was entitled for grant of grace marks to the extent of 1% of the total aggregate marks which in effect would mean that he was entitled to 16 grace marks in all which benefit be could claim in respect of any one or more of the different subjects It is the Respondent's claim that this concession was continued to be allowed in the cases of Shri Anil Kumar, Miss Chand Rani and Sarvshri Pawan Kumar Garg and Marian Mohan even in the year 1973 However, in the Petitioner -Respondent's case the University refused to apply the earlier Regulation 25 and insisted upon governing his case under the new Regulations whereby he could get grace marks only to the extent of one per cent of the total marks of each subject and not of the aggregate. The result consequently was that the Petitioner -Respondent was directed to reappear in the subject of midwifery
(4.) THE Petitioner Respondent challenged the declaration of his result primarily on the ground that the new Regulations could not be made with retrospective effect to adversely effect his rights and he would, therefore, continue to be governed by the old Regulation 25 as existing in the year 19(sic)4 The learned Single Judge accepted this plea and held that the Petitioner was governed by the old Regulation and not by the new amended one and consequently allowed the writ petition with a direction to the University to declare the result of the Petitioner afresh after affording him the benefit of grace marks in accordance with the old Regulation 25. The Panjab University appeals. Mr. J.L. Gupta on behalf of the Appellant has first forthrightly contended that the University has the power to frame its regulations with retrospective effect even though they may prejudicially affect the students during the course of studies which they may be pursuing. It is his case that a student is entitled to secure his degree or diploma in accordance with the Regulations existing on the date of the holding of a particular examination and that no student has any vested right flowing from the regulations which might have been in force when he joined his course of studies In the alternative counsel has contended that in the present case there is no element of retrospectively in the amended regulations and every annual examination is a separate and distinct entity. Consequently, it was argued that each such examination has to be governed by the regulations then in force and the concept of a of a course of a studies in not well -founded.;