GUPTA, J. - (1.) IN the Summer Schools-cum-Correspondence Course Scheme, 1968 of the University of Rajasthan Ramkumar Sharma appellant appeared for his Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) Examination. He was declared unsuccessful and feeling aggrieved he presented a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of INdia to this Court praying that the interpretation of the relevant regulation No. 43, B-6 given by the University was erroneous and he deserved to be declared successful. The University of Rajasthan joined issue by filing an answer in support of the interpretation it had taken of the regulations which were applicable to the appellant. The learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated January 23, 1970 examined the scheme of the examination and observed that it was capable of two interpretations but in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Principal, Patna College, Patna vs. Kalyan Sriniwas Raman (l) preferring the view taken by the University, he dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that decision Ramkumar Sharma has come up in appeal.
(2.) MR. Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, urged that the correct interpretation of Note (4) of Regulation No. 43 B-6 is that the minimum number of marks which a candidate was required to obtain in order to pass the examination in every subject in the external was 35% and in the internal assessment it was to be 40% and 45% in the aggregate. The University is in error when it insists that a candidate must secure 35% marks in each paper, on account of which interpretation the appellant was declared unsuccessful. He brought to our notice Ordinances Nos. 329. L 2, 329. L-50 and 329 L-23 for the purpose of showing that the University has been consistently keeping a marked distinction between the word "subject" and the word "paper". In note 4, urged the learned counsel, each subject meant the totality of papers, if there were more than one, under the subject, and in the instant case, he said that in the subject "philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education", although the papers were two in number, the subject is one. He endeavoured to explain the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Principal, Patna College (l ). Mr. S. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the University, submitted that the words "subject" and "paper" were loosely employed by the University in its Hand-Book and sometimes they have been treated as interchangeable. To illustrate his point, he urged that in Regulation No. 43, B-6 itself in item No. 5 though the paper is one, it mentions two subjects. By way of reference, he invited our attention to the scheme of examination contained in regulation 43. B-l which is the regular scheme for B. Ed. and urged that the intention was that a candidate must attain a level of pass efficiency by obtaining 35% marks in each paper. Mr. Agarwal urges and it is not disputed by Mr. Mehta that this scheme under Regulation No. 43. B-6 lasted for only one year and has since been abolished and there are only two candidates who are affected by the out come of this interpretation. We are required to consider in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, whether the interpretation put by the University is a possible interpretation. The relevant regulation 43. B-6, which we are called upon to interpret, reads as under: S. No. Paper Marks Internal External 1. Philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education (Paper I) 125 25 100 2. Philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education (Paper II) 125 25 100 Note (4) - The minimum number of marks required to pass the examination shall be 35% in the external except in supervised teaching and field experience in which it will be 40 per cent and 45 per cent in the internal assessment in each subject and 45 per sent in the aggregate of the marks obtained in the internal assessment and external examination in all the papers combined. As is apparent, the scheme of examination shows that there are seven papers out of which the first two papers have been referred to as "philosophical & Sociological Foundation of Education (Paper I) and (Paper II)" respectively. The petitioner appellant obtained 28 marks in the first paper and 46 marks in the second paper in external examination out of 100 marks each. In both these papers together he thus obtained 74 marks out of 200. Now the question is that if these two papers are considered as separate subjects then the candidate was required to obtain 35 per cent marks in each of them separately, but if both the aforesaid papers are collectively considered as one subject, then the candidate was required to obtain 70 marks out of 200 in both the papers together in the external examination. While the counsel for the University canvasses the interpretation that they are two subjects and the candidate was required to obtain 35 per cent minimum marks in each of them separately in the external examination, the appellant's counsel submits that although there are two papers, yet they together constitute one subject and that the appellant has fulfilled the requirement laid down by the University, as he obtained more than 35 per cent marks in both the papers collectively.
(3.) THE subject matter of the controversy between the parties centres round note (4) appended to the aforesaid regulation 43, B-6, in respect of minimum pass marks relating to external examination. Bereft of superfluities, note (4), so far as is material for the present case, provides that "the minimum number of marks required to pass the examination shall be 35 per cent in the external and 40 per cent in the internal assessment in each subject (emphasis is ours ). While in clause (2) of the regulation prescribing the scheme of examination the word "paper" has been used, but in note (4), while prescribing the minimum number of pass marks in respect of external examination and internal assessment the word "subject" has been employed. It appears that a a marked distinction has been maintained by the University bodies between a "subject" and a "paper". A consideration of other related Ordinances and Regulations also go to above that whenever the intention was that the minimum pass marks should be obtained by a candidate in each paper separately It has been specifically mentioned as such by the University authorities. For instance, in regulations 43. B-l and 43 B-1a which relate to the regular scheme for B. Ed. examination, it has been provided that the minimum pass marks required were " (1) 35 per cent and 40 per cent marks at the External and Internal Assessment respectively, in each paper under Part I and (ii) 50 per cent marks in each of the subject (a) Practice teaching (b) Content and (c) Physical Education-Health, Recreation and Hygiene under Part II". Thus in these regulations also when the University prescribed the minimum pass marks in respect of papers under Part I the words "each paper" have been used, but when the minimum pass marks were prescribed in respect of subject under Part-II the words "each of the subject" were employed. In ordinance 329 L-2 'philosophical and Social Foundations of Education' has been described as a "subject" for One year Teacher Education Course, for the degree of Bachelor of Education, while in the corresponding Regulation 43 B-l it has been provided that the examination in that subject shall be conducted by means of two papers described as 'paper I' and 'paper II'. Similar is the case in the One year Teacher Education Course in Languages for the degree of Bachelor of Education (Languages) inasmuch as Ordinance 329 L-50 describes "philosophical and Social Foundations of Education" as a "subject", while the related Regulation 43, B 1-4 provides that the examination in the aforesaid subject shall be conducted by means of two papers. In Ordinance 329 L-23 relating to the degree of Bachelor of Education (Craft), although "social and Philosophical Foundations" have been described as a "subject" the corresponding Regulation 43 B-3 clearly provides that the number of papers in the said subject shall be two. Thus in the schemes of related examinations leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Education itself, the University authorities have consistently employed the word "subject" and "paper" to connote different concepts and further "philosophical and Social Foundations of Education" has been consistently treated as one subject in respect of which there are two papers in all the examinations referred to above. THEre does not appear to be any reason to think that the University intended to depart from the aforesaid pattern when it laid down the scheme of examinations relating to the Summer School-cum-Correspondence Course", for the very same degree of Bachelor of Education. In our opinion the University has employed the word "subject" to denote one composite whole while word "paper" has been used to describe the unit of examination. This distinction permeates throughout the scheme of examinations relating the Faculty of Education. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in note (4) appended to Regulation 43. B-6, the minimum pass marks are required in "each subject" and not in "each paper. " Further the subject "philosophical & Sociological Foundation of Education" (Simmer School-cum-correspondence Course) has got two papers and as such there is no doubt that the requirement of the aforesaid note (4) would be fulfilled if a candidate obtains minimum 35 per cent marks in external examination in the said subject as a whole and there is no requirement that a candidate should obtain 35 per cent marks in each one of the two papers in that subject separately. So far as the submission of Mr. Mehta that in paper "supervised Teaching & Field Experience" described at S. No 5 in Regulation 43, B-6 two subjects have been mentioned it is enough to observe that the "two subjects" refer to two school subjects which have been described in Ordinance 322 and in respect of which supervised teaching is to be conducted. The learned single Judge did not enter into the controversy whether 'philosophical & Sociological Foundations of Education, paper I and paper II constituted two different subjects or was only one subject. But on the basis that each paper was assigned separate marks, he came to the conclusion that a candidate should secure minimum percentage of 35 per cent paper wise and not subjectwise. With respect, we are unable to agree inasmuch as a plain reading of note (4) shows that the minimum number of marks required to pass the examination, so far as external examination and internal assessment are concerned, is subjectwise. As a matter of fact, it was not even the stand taken by the University that the minimum pass marks were required paper-wise, as would appear from the letter of the Registrar of the University dated 22nd April, 1969 (Ex. 2) wherein the interpretation given was that the "philosophical & Sociological Foundation of Education Paper I and Paper II" are two different subjects. Thus the whole basis of interpretation by the University appears to be that these two papers constitute two different subjects and not one subject. Merely because separate marks have been assigned to each one of the papers, in external as well as internal assessment, does not lead to the inference that the minimum pass marks are required to be obtained in respect of each paper separately. For ought we know the ambit of the subject of Philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education may be so wide that in one paper of 3 hours or so it may not be possible to cover its scope and in the interest of comprehensiveness and convenience the subject has been divided into two papers. However we have said above that from the plain reading of note (4) as also from a consideration of the schemes of examinations of B. Ed. (Regular Course) and other related examinations, it is absolutely clear that 'philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education' or 'philosophical and Social Foundations of Education' has throughout been treated by the University as one subject having two papers. An examination of the original mark-sheet Ex. 1 furnished by the University to the petitioner-appellant also shows that "philosophical and Sociological Foundation of Education" has been mentioned as a major head under which two minor heads have been mentioned as paper I and paper II. Thus there is no doubt in our minds that 'philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Education' constitutes one subject having two papers. ;