' Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner has prayed that direction be issued to the respondent/B.Z. University for grant of 3 grace marks to the petitioner in Paper 2 of D.T.L.
Examination.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner after passing his LL.B. Examination, appeared in D.T.L.
Examination under Roll No,13 for the Session 1999-2000. The petitioner secured 54/100 in Paper 1, 42/100 in Paper II and 45/100 in Paper III. However, the petitioner has been declared as fail as a whole, in the D.T.L. Examination on the ground that he has secured 42 marks in Paper H while he was required to secure minimum 45 marks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Regulation No,5 of B.Z. University notified on 18-2-1997, B.Z. University awards up to 5 grace marks to LL.B. Student who is failing by 5 marks in any one paper. Thus, the petitioner is also entitled to the same as the D.T.L. Examination is legitimate child of LL.B. Examination, because only a person he has passed LL.B. Examination, he can take D.T.L. Examination after attending the classes.
4. The respondent has filed report and parawise comments. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that in fact for D.T.L. Examination separate Regulations have been notified vide notification dated 20-6-1988. According to the D.T.L. Examination Regulations, there is no provision for award of grace marks to a candidate who takes T.D.L. Examination. Hence, the petitioner has rightly been refused grant of three grace marks.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. No doubt a person who has passed LL.B. Examination, only he can take, D.T.L. Examination but D.T.L. Course is a specialization and the D.T.L. Examination is governed by Regulations of D.T.L.
Examination notified on 20-6-1988, Annexure R-I. There is no, provision of grace marks for D.T.L.
Candidate. Hence the act of respondent refusing to grant three grace marks to the petitioner in D.T.L. Paper II cannot be declared as void and without lawful authority in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court.
7. In the circumstances, as no right vested in the petitioner has been denied, hence, no case for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction has been made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.