whenever it refers to marks granted, if refers to the grace marks which are given to the candidate as a matter of concession. She, therefore, submitted that the benefit of sub-clause (3) of note 2 may be given only to a candidate who has actually obtained in the examination 105 marks in the subjects mathematics and science taken together and not less than 38 marks in the subject of failure. So far as the appellant is concerned, for the purpose of sub-clause (3) of note 2, he should be considered to have obtained marks less than 38 in the subject of failure namely, mathematics since he actually secured only 19 marks. We find considerable force in the submission urged on behalf of the appellant and it must be upheld. Regulation 52 refers to the passing marks which a candidate "must obtain" or "must secure". Clause (3) (a) which deals with grant of automatic condonation uses the words "shall be granted automatic condonation of marks". Similarly under clause (b) of subclause (2) of regulation 3(a) the words used are "shall also be granted". Clause ’d’ to 'f' only extend the grace marks upto 20. Under note 2 sub clause (2) which deals with automatic condonation of marks, reference is to the marks "granted". The scheme of the regulation is therefore quite clear and it clearly makes a distinction between marks "obtained" or "secured" and grace marks "granted". In the light of this, if we consider sub-clause (3) under note 2 it would be apparent that the said sub-clause does not at all deal with grant of grace marks. Regulation 52 is a comprehensive provision and sub-clause (3) under note 2 only deals with the grant of benefit of combined passing in the subjects mathematics and science. It begins with a non- obstante clause and lays down a special rule notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1), (2) and (3)(a) of Regulation 52. It clearly implies that even if a candidate would have otherwise failed having regard to the provisions of clauses (1) and (2), despite grant of grace marks under clause (3)(a), yet under sub-clause (3) of note 2 he is entitled to the benefit of combined passing in the subjects mathematics and science, provided he has obtained not less than 105 marks in the aforesaid two subjects taken together, while obtaining not less than 38 marks in the subject or subjects of failure. We have already held that obtaining of not less than 38 marks refers to the marks actually obtained by a candidate in the examination on the basis of his performance, and without addition of grace marks. So construed subclause (3) of note 2 does not confer any benefit on a candidate like respondent no. 1 who secured only 19 marks in the subject mathematics and therefore, does not fulfill the second condition. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that sub-clause (3) of note 2 confers no benefit on the respondent no. 1 since he is not eligible thereunder for the benefit of combined passing, having secured less than 38 marks in the subject
