G.K. Misra, C.J.
1. The petitioner appeared in M.A. Examination in English in July, 1969. His roll number was 387. The marks obtained by him are indicated in the mark sheet (Annexrure 8). The mark sheet is extracted hereunder:
Dated Bhubaneshwar, 2-12-1970.
The following marks were awarded to him at the M.A. in English (whole) Examination of July, 1969. Roll No. 387
Subjects Marks awardedMaximum Marks.
EnglishPaper I42100 Paper II42100 Paper III45100 Paper IV37100 Paper V46100 Paper VI45100 Pacer VII0100 Paper VIII32100
In the first six papers he secured 257 marks out of 600. His case is that while answering the 7th and the 8th paper he felt that he would not do well and would not get a second class which is obtained if 48 per cent. marks is secured. Accordingly, he scored all the answers in the 7thand the 8th paper. But the university authorities illegally awarded him 32 marks in the 8th paper as a result of which he was shown to nave secured 289 marks in the aggregate out of 800. He has been allowed to pass and declared to have obtained a 3rd class. This writ application is filed to quash the marks in 7th and 8th papers in the mark list (Annexure 8) and to declare that he has failed in the Examination.
2. Mr. Rath appearing for the University states before us that he himself went through the 7th and 8th papers and found that all the answers in both the papers have been scored through and as such, no marks should have been awarded on the 8th paper. If no marks are awarded on the 8th paper, the petitioner would secure in all 257 marks out of 800.
3. Regulation 4 (1) (a) in Chapter IV of the Utkal University Regulations, Volume II runs thus:
'4 (1) (a). In order to pass in subjects I to XVI a candidate must obtain 36% marks in the aggregate. No minimum pass marks shall be required in any paper; but if in any paper a candidate obtains less than 25 marks, those marks shall not be included in his aggregate. The aggregate will be 400 or 800, according as the candidate is taking the examination part by part or as a whole.'
4. As would appear from the aforesaid Regulation, the candidate would be entitled to pass if he secured 36 per cent, in the aggregate out of 800 which comes to 288 marks. It follows that he has failed in the M.A. examination of July, 1969.
5. In the result, the writ application succeeds. A writ of certiorari be issued quashing 32 marks awarded to the petitioner on the 8th paper and quashing the aggregate as being 289. A writ of mandamus be issued to the Opposite Party No. 1 to declare the candidate to have failed in the M.A. examination in English held in July, 1969. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
6. I agree.