Jiyas A.F., Kannaki L., Archana L. and Gayatri G.J. v. Cochin University of Science and Technology and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/2ND PHALGUNA, 1935 ## **W.P.(C).No.156 of 2014 (T)** ------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- ------------------------ 1. JIYAS A.F., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SALAM FAROOK, ELAVOORKONATHU HOUSE, KUTHIRAKULAM, VEMBAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 655 615. 2. KANNAKI.L., AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.LINGARAJA.C, RAJENDRA SADANAM, KOTTAMPUR, MALAYANKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 571. 3. ARCHANA.L., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.K.P.CHANDRALAL, INDIRA MANDIRAM, KOTTATHALA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 566. 4. GAYATRI.G.J., AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.LATE V.K.JAYAKUMAR, S.R.VIEW, PRA 149, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009. BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.R.HARISHANKAR. RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR, - THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. W.P.(C).NO.156 OF 2014-T **- 2 -** 4. THE EXAMINATION PASS BOARD - 2013, THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., KOCHI - 682 022. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. 6. THE COCHIN MEDICAL COLLEGE, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 683 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. R1 TO R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON 21-02-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).No.156 of 2014 (T) ------------------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- - EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL MBBS PART II EXAMINATION. - EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL MBBS PART II EXAMINATION. - EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 3RD PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL MBBS PART II EXAMINATION. - EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE 4TH PETITIONER FOR THE FINAL MBBS PART II EXAMINATION. - EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REGULATIONS 1997 CONTAINING REGULATION 13. - EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MBBS CURRICULUM AND ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOR THE YEAR 2009-15 DEALS WITH EXAMINATION REGULATIONS. - EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY DATED 20.12.2013. - EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2067 OF 2002 DATED 28.03.2003. - EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.37955 OF 2010 DATED 17.02.2011 DATED 28.03.2003. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:- ---------------------------------------- - ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ACADEMIC CALENDER 2008-2014. - ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PASSING BOARD DATED 9.12.2013. vku/- ( true copy ) ## K. Vinod Chandran, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C).No.156 of 2014 ---------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners undertook the M.B.B.S. course, which commenced in the year 2008-09, and were students of 6[th] respondent-College, which is recognized by the 1[st] respondent-University. The course spreads over 4½ academic years, divided into 9 Semesters, the final examination of which is divided into two parts being Final Professional Examinations Part I and Part II. The grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the Part II examinations held in August 2013, in which they claim grace marks as prescribed by the University, for Clinical and Practical examinations; the rejection of which resulted in their having failed for one subject. The University declined the grace marks on the ground that the 5 marks decided to be granted as grace marks to students who failed in only one subject, is restricted to Theory and not - 2 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I granted to Practicals. Such restriction is assailed as violative of the prescription of the Medical Council of India (for brevity “MCI”), an improper exercise of discretion, illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Part II examination consists of four subjects and on a perusal of the mark list, produced as Exhibits P1 to P4, it is seen that all the four students have failed to qualify in the Clinical and Practical examination in the subject of General Medicine. The evaluation of the students in each of the subjects consists of University Examinations and Internal Assessment. University examinations consists of written Theory paper having a maximum of 120 marks and oral examination, being Viva Voce, of 20 marks. The Clinical and Practical examination conducted by the University carries 100 marks. The Internal assessment is also comprised of Theory and Practicals, each of which carries a maximum of 30 marks. The 4 petitioners have obtained the following marks for the Clinical and Practical examinations, respectively for the External - 3 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I Assessment out of 100 and out of 30 in the Internal Assessment: |1stPetitioner|-|46|+|15|=|61| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |2ndPetitioner|-|49|+|14|=|63| |3rdPetitioner|-|42|+|18|=|60| |4thPetitioner|-|40|+|20|=|60| 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that with the award of 4 grace marks to the 1[st] petitioner, 2 to the 2[nd] petitioner and 5 each to petitioners 3 and 4 they would qualify; having obtained the minimum pass mark of 65 in Clinical and Practical examinations. Admittedly the Passing Board of the University, which has been conferred with the discretion to decide on the award of grace marks, has decided to grant 5 marks for the Part-II examination of 2013. As per the regulation of the MCI, such grace marks can only be granted upto 5 marks and can be granted, at the discretion of the University, to a student who has failed only in one subject, but has passed in all other subjects. The Passing Board, however, when deciding to grant 5 marks in the whole examination of MBBS Part II, 2013 - 4 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I restricted such grant to Theory papers. Hence, the petitioners who failed to obtain the minimum as prescribed by the University in Clinical and Practical were declined such grace marks. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has categorized the denial of grace marks to Practical examination as being violative of Regulation 13(10) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for brevity “the Regulations”) brought out by the MCI; the essence of which has been noticed in the previous paragraph. The MCI having decided to confer discretion on the University to grant grace marks upto 5 and the University having exercised such discretion, the latter cannot then restrict such grant to Theory alone. The restriction so made is not a proper exercise of discretion and visits the petitioners with serious prejudice, argues learned counsel. The learned counsel refers to Annexure R1 (b) produced by the University, being the decision of the Passing Board, and attacks it as being an illegal and - 5 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I whimsical exercise of discretionary power, which grounds of challenge, according to the petitioners, are perfectly sustainable on the blatant absence of reasons in the said order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, however, supports the stand of the Passing Board and draws a distinction in so far as Clinical and Practical examinations are concerned. While the Theory papers, according to the University, is set by the University, it is contended that the Practicals are governed by an Institutional Curriculum Committee. The University too relies on Regulation 13(10) of the MCI and asserts its discretion in awarding such grace marks and seeks to sustain the decision of the Passing Board, by production of Annexure R1(b) Minutes of the Passing Board. 6. Regulation 13(10) has been noticed above and the same calls for no adjudication at all. A discretion exercised by the University within the four corners of that regulation cannot at all be said to be violative of the said - 6 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I regulation. It is trite that the MCI is the regulatory body, which has the sole authority to fix academic standards and the University while obliged by statutory mandate to conform to such regulations, can always provide for higher standards and the restriction would only be in diluting a regulation of the University or in making an inconsistent regulation. Hence, going by Regulation 13(10), if a University has not granted grace marks above 5 or has not extended such award to more than one subject, there could be alleged no dilution of standards. Declining to award grace marks at all or awarding less than 5 marks, again cannot be said to be violative of the regulation. There could also be numerous instances where the University on its own discretion, decides to restrict grant of grace marks which would not amount to dilution of the regulation. Necessarily award of grace marks would depend on an evaluation of various factors, being the nature of the questions, the results obtained in general by the students in the whole examination or in one subject and so on and so forth. - 7 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I 7. Postulating a situation; it would be the prerogative of the University to restrict the award of grace marks to one subject, say, General Medicine alone, and decline it to all other subjects. That could be on an evaluation of the general results of the students and on a finding that in that particular year the General Medicine question papers were tougher than other subjects and the students in general, had failed to come up to an expected standard. On an evaluation of such factors, the University could definitely restrict the grant to General Medicine alone. On such a contingency, a student who failed in another subject, cannot claim discrimination, since the discretion would have been exercised on a proper appreciation of the relevant factors. Likewise, another student who had failed in two subjects, one of which being General Medicine, cannot seek award of such grace marks in the General Medicine paper alone on grounds of discrimination or arbitrariness; since that would go against Regulation 13(10) and would entail a dilution of such regulation. Similar would be a - 8 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I restriction against award of marks to Clinical and Practical examinations. Hence, the challenge, on the ground of violation of the regulation of the MCI, cannot be countenanced. 8. An examination of the Regulations of the University, extract of which is produced by the petitioner and the whole of which is produced by the respondent, gives a better understanding of what the University intended. Annexure R1(a) comprise the Rules and Regulations for the MBBS degree course of the year 2008; applicable to the petitioners herein. As per Annexure R1(a), a student has to secure 35% marks for Internal assessment to qualify for appearance in the University examination. To qualify in the examination as such, the student has to have a 50% in aggregate as also a separate minimum of 50% in Theory, including Viva Voce and a separate minimum of 50% in aggregate for Practicals. The separate minimum prescribed for Theory and Practicals in each of such cases includes the University examination as also Internal - 9 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I assessment [Though the regulation permits the same; the inclusion of Internal Assessment, for the purpose of determining the separate 50% will be dealt with later]. ## 9. The prescription for grace marks is as follows: “Grace marks upto a maximum of 5 in total may be awarded for an examination at the discretion of the passing board for a student to pass one subject (theory/practical/oral) provided the student has passed in all other subjects. Grace marks will not be awarded to change internal assessment marks”. In the teeth of the specific clause conferring discretion on the Passing Board to award grace marks in Theory/Practical/Oral, the University's contention that Practicals are totally excluded from the award of grace marks cannot be sustained. It is to be noticed that such a reasoning does not emanate from the minutes of the Passing Board; but the University seeks to sustain the decision of the Passing Board by that contention, taken in WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I - 10 - the counter affidavit. A reading of the counter affidavit of the University would show that it has proclaimed that decision as a policy, drawing a distinction between Theory and Practicals. Such discretion made as a matter of policy cannot be upheld, since the Regulation itself, framed by the University, speaks of the award of grace marks for Practical examinations. 10. The dispute hence boils down to the discretion exercised by the Passing Board, to which end, the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court. The decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are _**Satish Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others**_ **[1990 (Supp) SCC 1],** _**Maharashtra University of Health Sciences (MUHS) v. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal**_ **[(2007) 10 SCC 201],** Judgment dated 28.03.2003 in W.A.No.2067 of 2002 [produced as Exhibit P8] and _**University of Calicut v. Arum Mozhi Varman**_ **[2011 (2) KLT 307].** - 11 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I 11. _**Satish Kumar**_ ( _supra_ ) was a student of Ayurveda, who failed to pass in two subjects in the 1[st] Year examination. He was permitted to pursue further studies and for clearing the failed subjects, he appeared in the additional examinations. A regulation of the University provided for moderation in the event of a student failing for one single subject. Satish Kumar came within the ambit of such scheme, but was declined the same for the reason that it was not in the regular examination that Satish Kumar appeared. Looking at the policy, being one to favour a candidate who passed in all subjects except one, the Regulation was found to be of general application and having drawn no distinction between a regular examination or an additional examination. Definitely this supports the contention of the petitioner that the Regulation of the University postulates, in a given situation, grant of grace marks even in the case of Practicals. This Court has already found the said ground in favour of the petitioners. - 12 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I 12. _**MUHS**_ ( _supra_ ) was placed to support the contention that any Regulation made by the Universities which are inconsistent with the MCI Regulation or to dilute the criteria laid down by the MCI will not be valid to the extent of inconsistency or dilution. The substantive dispute placed for consideration before the Supreme Court in the said case was whether in computing 50% minimum each for Theory and Practicals, could the Internal Assessment marks also be included. The University therein, on an interpretation of the MCI Regulations, declined such inclusion of Internal Assessment. According to the University, the intention of the regulation making authority was to give dominant and pre-eminent position to the University examination, which the University termed as an “objective assessment” as distinguished from an Internal Assessment wherein the element of “subjectivity” would creep in. It was also argued that the inclusion of Internal Assessment marks would upset the ratio prescribed for University examinations and the Internal Assessment as - 13 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I prescribed by the MCI; resulting in a dilution of standards. The MCI, in the said case, supported the stand of the students and interpreted its own Regulations as permitting Internal Assessment marks to be reckoned for arriving at 50% separate minimum. 13. Despite such interpretation placed by the MCI, the Court upheld the stand of the University. In upholding such stand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law in so far as inconsistency with or dilution of MCI Regulations being invalid, quoting numerous binding precedents of the Supreme Court in paragraph 15. But the said proposition in the instant case does not help the petitioners herein. There is decipherable, no inconsistency or dilution in the Regulation of the University prescribing the grant of grace marks. Nor can any inconsistency or dilution be found in the decision of the Passing Board. The said judgment does not at all aid the petitioners to advance their case, but the dictum laid down works to their detriment, which shall be referred to later. - 14 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I 14. In such circumstances, what assumes significance is, the basis or rationale on which the Passing Board arrived at a decision to restrict the award of grace marks to Theory. It cannot be disputed that the MCI conceded absolute discretion to the University in awarding grace marks, subject to the marks awarded being less than 6 and being confined to one subject alone, that too to enable a pass in all the subjects. The University also has acted in terms of such Regulation and appointed a Passing Board to look into the matter of awarding of grace marks for the particular examination, herein being Final MBBS Part II Examination as indicated in the minutes produced, being Annexure R1(b). 15. As indicated above, in exercising discretion for awarding grace marks a number of factors have to be taken into account. Award of grace marks cannot be termed as a 'largesse' to enable more students to qualify or to confer a mindless benefit to a student who has failed only in one subject. The Passing Board, comprised of academicians and - 15 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I professionals having knowledge in the subjects in which the students are examined for the particular examinations, are to look at a number of factors before deciding upon the award of grace marks. The nature of the questions; whether there were any from outside the syllabus, the general performance of the students being below an expected benchmark, a very low percentage of marks in one particular or all subjects; revealing a tough valuation standard would be some of the relevant factors. Definitely the University cannot have a policy for restricting award of grace marks to Theory or to exclude Practicals. The minutes of the Passing Board also does not reveal any such policy. It is the Passing Board which has confined the award of grace marks to Theory papers alone. The non-disclosure of reasons for arriving at such a decision disturbed this Court and, hence, this Court called for the records of the Passing Board. 16. The disclosure of reasons by an authority which is conferred with some discretion is the litmus test in - 16 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I exercising judicial review of such administrative action. When there are reasons disclosed, this Court steers away from examining the reasonableness of the same, unless it be patently irrational; and would not attempt to super-impose its own predicative reasoning. Discretion unbridled, shakes the foundation of any society built on rule of law and in particular does offence to the constitutional scheme envisaged in this country. It is trite that when such discretion has been conferred on an authority, the order, by which such discretion is exercised, itself should disclose the reason. Neither the authority nor a body constituting such authority can seek to support such discretionary orders by reasons supplied to the Court, which examines a challenge to the order, on the ground of non-disclosure of reasons. 17. _**Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney**_ **[(2009) 4 SCC 240]** held that disclosure of reasons inspires confidence in the decision and the decision making process and minimises chances of arbitrariness. _**Maya Devi v. Raj Kumari Batra**_ **[(2010) 9** - 17 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I **SCC 486]** held such reasons, to be an effective check on arbitrariness;which promotes fairness, induces transparency and aids equity. Instances are there, though rare, when the exercise of discretion without disclosure of reasons have been held to be proper. On point is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Sadhu Ram**_ **[(2008) 16 SCC 405],** wherein absence of reasons in setting aside a contract were held to be proper, since the Regulation itself provided for declining approval without citing any reasons. That proposition may not be apposite herein. 18. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**B.P.Singhal v. Union of India**_ **[(2010) 6 SCC 331]** considered the question of disclosure of reasons in the exercise of doctrine of “pleasure”, therein specifically the removal of a Governor. Drawing a distinction between the post of Governor and that of Minister or an Attorney General, it was held that the reasons for withdrawal of pleasure are wider in the case of the latter. While loss of - 18 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I confidence or not being in sync with the policies of the Union Government may be valid grounds for withdrawal of the latter, it was held to be not so; on an overview of the post of Governor as assigned by the Constitution. The exercise of the power under Article 156(1) was examined to find that it only contemplated that the President, in exercising such power, should not act in a manner arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The act of withdrawal of the pleasure can only be assumed to be in compelling reasons and when the person who challenges it, fails to establish a _prima facie_ case, the Courts would refuse to interfere. However, when a _prima facie_ case of arbitrariness or _mala fides_ is made out, even such exercise of power was held to be open for judicial review. It was also held that though there was no mandate to assign any cause, definitely some valid cause would exist and the same should be discernible in a judicial scrutiny. 19. It is in this context that this Court called for the records of the case and examined the Minutes of the - 19 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I Passing Board. The Minutes disclose no further reasoning than that provided in Annexure R1(b), nor does it reveal any deliberations having been undertaken. 20. The petitioners would urge that this Court has in similar circumstances directed award of grace marks for Practicals when the same was restricted to Theory. Considerable reliance is also placed on Exhibit P8 decision in W.A.No.2067 of 2002. That was also a case in which there was denial of grace marks for Practicals. The discretion not to award grace marks was interfered with by a Division Bench of this Court, in the cited decision, for the reason that in the meeting of the Passing Board the Director of Medical Education and two members of the Passing Board had taken a divergent view. According to them, grace marks could be awarded to Practicals and not limited to Theory alone. It was in this context that the discretion exercised by the Passing Board was interfered with and the Court directed grace marks to be granted for the Practicals as well, in the said case. - 20 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I 21. Another Division Bench in _**Arum Mozhi Varman**_ ( _supra_ ) noticed the decision of the earlier Division Bench and also noticed the context in which the Division Bench directed grant of award of grace marks, being the difference of opinion among Passing Board Committee members. However, the decision by the Passing Board not to grant grace marks for Practical examination was found to be a policy decision taken by the Passing Board in the case of the Calicut University, who was the appellant therein. It was held that then, such a restriction ought to be introduced by the MCI, if it so deems fit. On an examination of the Director of Medical Education's Circular, it was found that the award of grace marks should be considered in the case of each student depending upon the general performance of all students. 22. It is pertinent that no such direction or circular is evident in the said case, nor is there a divergence in opinion. But, however, the so termed policy decision of the Passing Board not to award grace marks in the Practical - 21 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I examination was found to be arbitrary. Also relying upon the practise of the University followed for five years prior to 2010, the Division Bench refused to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing award of grace marks in Practical, on the finding that it will be unjust and unequittable to deny grace marks in Practical examinations. 23. Judicial discipline requires this Court to follow the Division Bench decision of this Court. The policy not to award grace marks for the Practicals as declared by the University, in its counter affidavit, would definitely have weighed with the Passing Board while considering the aspect of award of grace marks for the Final MBBS Part-II Examination. The discretion granted to the University having been delegated validly to a competent body constituted by the University itself, it cannot further fetter such discretion by way of policy or otherwise. 24. Despite the assertion of the University in its counter affidavit that the Passing Board which was - 22 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I constituted is no more in place and that no reconstitution is possible; that can only be a reluctance on the part of the University to reconstitute a Passing Board. There is no practical difficulty, since the examination results which are considered is of the year 2013 and the University would still have the details and documents available with it. The reluctance to reconstitute a Passing Board, in the teeth of the finding of this Court that the discretion has not been properly exercised, cannot prejudice a student and definitely would not fetter the powers of this Court. Hence, there shall be a direction to the University to reconstitute the Passing Board and consider the award of grace marks afresh, i.e., whether it can be awarded to Clinical or Practical examinations of Final Professional MBBS Part II Examinations of 2013. The decision already taken to grant 5 marks and to so grant for Theory papers need not at all be interfered with. 25. However, in issuing such directions; on the strength of the binding precedent in _**MUHS**_ ( _supra_ ), this - 23 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I Court cannot but point out an obvious discrepancy noticed by this Court in the Regulations of the University. As was noticed above, the Regulation of the University permits the Internal Assessment marks to be added to Theory and Practicals for arriving at the separate 50% minimum. This is directly against the decision of the Supreme Court in _**MUHS**_ ( _supra_ ). The Supreme Court in the concluding paragraph held so: - “Consequently, a student has to secure marks as follows to pass in a subject: - (i) 35% in internal assessment (for eligibility to appear for University examination). - (ii) 50% of the total marks for theory with orals (only externals). - (iii) 50% of the marks for practicals/clinicals (only externals). - (iv) 50% of the aggregate (total of externals and internals)”. ## 26. Hence, in directing reconsideration by the Passing Board, there can be no reconsideration in the case of petitioners 3 and 4. Both of them had an aggregate of 60 - 24 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I in the Clinical and Practical examinations, being an aggregate of University marks and Internal assessment. An award of grace marks of 5 definitely would satisfy the aggregate 50% minimum. However, by the declaration of law in the afore-cited decision, each student should have 50% minimum in the Clinical and Practical examination conducted by the University as distinguished from the Internal assessment. Petitioners 3 and 4 scored respectively 42 and 40 marks out of a total of 100 in the University Examinations. An award of 5 marks would not definitely satisfy the aggregate separate minimum of 50%. Hence, there can be no reconsideration in their case. With respect to petitioners 1 and 2, definitely the same could be done, provided the Passing Board exercises discretion in their favour. It is to be noticed that such reconsideration by the Passing Board can only be with respect to the petitioners 1 and 2 herein, going by the binding precedent in _**Arum Mozhi Varman**_ ( _supra_ ). The Passing Board shall be constituted and a decision taken within a period of one - 25 - WP(C).No.156 of 2014-I month from today. It is also made clear that the results already declared need not be revisited on the strength of _**MUHS**_ ( _supra_ ). But in directing reconsideration, this Court cannot perpetrate an obvious illegality. Hence the relief is declined to petitioners 3 and 4 and any revision of results, if at all, made by the Passing Board, would be confined to petitioners 1 and 2. The writ petition is partly allowed, with the above direction. Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge. vku/- ( true copy )