JUDGMENT O.H. Mootham, C.J. - This is an appeal by the respondents from an order of Mr. Justice Dhawan dated the 20th Aug., 1958, allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioner was a student of Class X of the Agersen Intermediate College, Allahabad. He appeared at the High School Examination in the year 1955 but was unsuccessful, and he sat again for the same Examination in 1956. The result of his examination was not however published with the result of the other candidates, and after a good deal of delay the petitioner was informed that his examination had been cancelled by the Chairman of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (Which had conducted the Examination) on the ground that he had not attended the prescribed number of classes. The petitioner then filed a petition in this Court in which he contended that as he had been permitted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education to sit for the Examination, it was not within the power of the Board or of the Chairman thereafter to cancel the Examination on the ground of shortage of attendance; and he prayed for the issue, first, of a writ quashing the order of the Chairman cancelling his examination and, secondly for the issue of a writ commanding the Board to declare his result at the Examination in question. The learned Judge granted the reliefs sought and the respondents, namely the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, the Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh, and the Secretary of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, now appeal. 3. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education was established by the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for the purpose of regulating and supervising the system of High School and Intermediate education in the State. Under Sec. 7 of that Act the Board has power to conduct examinations at the end of the High School courses, to admit candidates to the examinations and to publish the results of those examinations; and under Sec. 15 it has power to Take regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. The Board has, in exercise of that power, made a large number of regulations which, for the purpose of convenience, are divided into chapters. Chapter XII deals with examinations, and we are concerned in particular with Reg. The Board has, in exercise of that power, made a large number of regulations which, for the purpose of convenience, are divided into chapters. Chapter XII deals with examinations, and we are concerned in particular with Reg. 4 and clauses (i) , (ii), (v) and (xii) of Regulation 5, which read as follows: "Rules for Admission of Regular Candidates. 4. (1) Every candidate sent up by a recognised institution for admission to an examination held by the Board shall, not later than the first of November each year:- (a) pay the fee prescribed for the examination, and (b) state the subject or subjects which he she offers for the examination. (2) The head of the institution shall furnish the Secretary with the following certificates showing: (i) that his she admission to the institution is in accordance with the rules of the Education Code and the regulations of the Board; (ii) that he she has completed a regular course of study in a recognised institution; (iii) that he she has actually performed the experiments laid down in the syllabus (only for candidates offering Science or Biology at the High School Examination). Attendance and Number of Meetings. 5. (i) A recognised institution shall remain open for "at least 220 working days including examination and extra curricular activities. (ii) No candidate shall be presented for the High School Examination by a recognised institution, unless he she has been present in classes IX and X for at least 75 per cent. of the days the institution was open during two academical years. ...... ...... (v) In the case of failed or detained candidates of the High School or Intermediate Examination of the Board, the percentage shall be calculated for one academical year only. The attendance put in during the academic year at the end of which the candidate wishes to appear shall be calculated. The terms "detained" means detained for any cause either at the High School or the Intermediate Examination. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... (xii) The rule regarding minimum attendance shall be strictly enforced The head of a recognised institution may condone a deficiency in attendance of not more than (a) ten days in the case of a candidate for the High School Examination and (b) ten lectures (including periods of practical work, if any), given in each subject in the case of a candidate for the Intermediate Examination. All cases in which this privilege is exercised shall be reported to the Director of Education as the Chairman of the Board. In the cases of failed candidates whose attendance of one year will be taken into account, the shortage to be condoned shall be reduced to half." 4. Now it is not in dispute that the petitioner's attendance was short by 17 days of which 5 days could be condoned by the Principal of his College under the last two clauses which we have cited. There was therefore a shortage of 12 days which the Principal had no power to condone, and it is common ground that in these circumstances the Principal ought not to have allow the petitioner to sit for the examination. 5. The appellant's case, shortly stated, is that as the petitioner had not attended the prescribed number of classes he was not eligible to appear at the Examination and the Board was entitled, and indeed had no alternative but to cancel his examination. For the petitioner it is contended that as he was permitted by the Board to sit at the Examination the Board was bound to publish the result of his examination, and if he had passed the Examination the Board was bound to issue a certificate to him to that effect. 6. The argument before us has turned mainly on the question of the meaning and effect of Regulation 5 (ii) of Chap. XII of the Regulations. The learned Judge, who had considered the matter with great care and who delivered a very full judgment, was of the opinion that cls. (i) and (ii) of Regulation 5 must be considered together and that as it was admitted before him that cl. (i) of that regulation was merely directory it followed that cl. (ii) was not a mandatory provision. The learned Judge accordingly held that as the Board had permitted the petitioner to sit at the Examination it was not thereafter entitled to cancel his examination on the ground that there had been a contravention of the provisions of this clause. The second question which has been argued before us is whether, assuming the provisions of cl. (ii) to be mandatory, the Chairman of the Board had any power under the Act to cancel the petitioner's examination. The learned Judge held that he had not. 7. The second question which has been argued before us is whether, assuming the provisions of cl. (ii) to be mandatory, the Chairman of the Board had any power under the Act to cancel the petitioner's examination. The learned Judge held that he had not. 7. It is convenient at this stage to make some reference to the circumstances in which the High School Examination is held and to the procedure which is admittedly followed by the Board in connection therewith. The Examination is held annually in the months of March and April. The number of candidates is very large; in. 1956 it exceeded 2 lakhs. In view of the large number of candidates applications for admission to the examination have, under Reg. 4 (1) of Chap. XII, to be made not later than the 1st November of the year preceding that in which the examination is to be held. In his application the candidate is required to state the subject or subjects which he offers for examination and he must at the same time pay the prescribed fee. The head of the institution which the candidate attends must also furnish the Board with a certificate that the candidate (1) has been admitted to the institution in accordance with the rules of the Education Code and the Regulations of the Board, (2) that he has completed a regular course of study, and (3) in the case of candidates offering science or biology at the Examination, that he has actually performed the experiments laid down in the syllabus. Regulation 25 of Chap. XII provides that "The Secretary shall after satisfying himself that a candidate has complied with all the requirements for admission to an examination of the Board, furnish the candidate with a card of admission on presentation of which to the Superintendent of the Examination Centre concerned the candidate shall be permitted to sit for the examination." 8. In view of the number of candidates taking the examination the practice of the Board is for the Secretary, shortly before the examination is to commence, to send to the principal of every institution admission cards for all candidates from that institution whose application forms are in order, who have paid the prescribed fee and in respect of whom the necessary certificates have been furnished. In many cases a candidate will not by the 1st November have attended the institution for the number of days prescribed by Reg. 5 (ii). Such candidates may however have made good the deficiency by the date on which the examination commences, and accordingly principals of institutions are strictly enjoined by the Board not to issue admission cards to such candidates unless, prior to the date upon which the examination commences, the deficiency has been made good. The Board thus places upon the principals of institutions the responsibility of issuing admission cards only to those candidates who have attended the institution for the prescribed number of days. 9. Now the petitioner's shortage of attendance appears to have been due, in part at least, to illness, and on the 17th March, 1956, that is on the day preceding the Commencement of the examination, the petitioner's father had an interview with the principal of the Agarsen Intermediate College at which it appears the father asked the principal to allow the petitioner to sit at the examination notwithstanding his shortage of attendance. The principal acceded to this request, but he gave the petitioner's father a letter which reads as follows:- "You had already been informed that the percentage of attendance of your ward has fallen short. I perused the M. C. produced by you declaring and testifying the illness of your ward and his unfitness to attend College. I hereby permit him to sit at the next ensuing Board's Examination only provisionally. Should he be disallowed by the authorities to sit at this Examination in the course of the Examination or after it, or if his results are withheld on this account, I shall take no responsibility but it will be the responsibility of your ward and yourself." 10. The principal then gave the petitioner his admission card. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner sat at the examination. After the examination had been held, but before the results were declared, the fact that the petitioner had not attended his college for the prescribed number of days became known to the Board. The principal then gave the petitioner his admission card. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner sat at the examination. After the examination had been held, but before the results were declared, the fact that the petitioner had not attended his college for the prescribed number of days became known to the Board. As it was not within the powers of the Examination Committee to cancel the petitioner's examination on the ground of shortage of attendance as held by this Court in Jitendra Kumar Gupta v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, 1956 A.L.J. R. 625 the Chairman of the Board took this action in the exercise of his emergency powers under Sec. 11 (3) of the Act. It was urged in argument before us that the provision in Reg. 5 (ii) of Ch. XIII requiring a candidate to have attended his institution for a prescribed number of days was not a condition of his eligibility to sit for the High School Examination. The learned Judge was of opinion that cls. (i) and (ii) of this Regulation have the same object and are of the same nature and character, and that "Neither of them is mandatory to this extent that it takes away the powers of the Board to admit candidates to sit in the examination in spite of shortage of attendance." The learned Judge then proceeded to consider whether the Board had admitted the petitioner to sit for the examination notwithstanding his shortage of attendance and he stated his conclusion in these words: "The petitioner was suffering from shortage of attendance due to illness. He made an application to the Principal for condonation of this shortage. The Principal condoned the shortage and presented him for examination. The Board might have detained him in spite of presentation by the Principal but it never did. Instead, it presented him with an admission card and permitted him to sit in the examination. The Board, as such, shall be deemed to have condoned the shortage. The petitioner's examination is not a nullity. On the contrary, it gives him the right to have his result declared." 11. Instead, it presented him with an admission card and permitted him to sit in the examination. The Board, as such, shall be deemed to have condoned the shortage. The petitioner's examination is not a nullity. On the contrary, it gives him the right to have his result declared." 11. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the Board is possessed of the power to admit to its examinations a candidate whose attendance is short, for we are unable, with respect, to agree with the learned Judge that the Principal or the Board condoned the petitioner's shortage of attendance. We do not think that either did so. 12. There can be no doubt on the facts of the present case that the petitioner and his father were well aware of the provisions of Reg. 5 and that it was because of the shortage of his son's attendance that the petitioner's father saw the Principal of the Agarsen Intermediate College on the 17th March, 1956. The Principal was clearly reluctant, as well he might be, to give the petitioner his admission card and when ultimately he agreed to do so he made it clear, as is evident from the letter he then gave to the petitioner's father, that the permission to sit was provisional. The Principal in our opinion did not condone or purport to condone the admitted shortage in the petitioner's attendance. He knew that he had no power to do so. What he did was to permit the petitioner to sit for the examination upon the understanding that that permission would not in any way fetter the power of the Board to disallow him to sit or to withhold his result. In effect what the Principal said was "Your sons' attendance is short. This is a hard case and I shall let him sit for the examination and leave it to the Board to decide whether the shortage should be condoned." Had there then been time to refer the matter to the Board there can be no doubt that the latter would have refused to allow the petitioner to sit for the examination; but there was no time as the petitioner's examination started on the following day and the Board did not become aware of the facts until after the examination concluded. When it became aware of the facts the Board did not condone the petitioner's shortage of attendance; it cancelled his examination. This letter of the 17th March, 1956, is important, for it makes clear the conditions under which the petitioner was permitted by his Principal to sit for the examination; and it is a feature of this case which has not been satisfactorily explained that that letter is not mentioned in the petition, nor is there any reference made to it in the affidavit accompanying the petition which was sworn by the petitioner's father. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contends that, even if the Board did not condone the petitioner's shortage of attendance, the petitioner was permitted to sit for the Examination and the Board could not thereafter cancel it on the ground that he had not attended his College for the prescribed number of days. This brings us back to the question of the meaning and effect of cls. (ii) and (v) of Reg. 5 of Ch. XII. The regulations in this chapter have not been well drafted and, as the learned Judge has pointed out, it is frequently hard to distinguish those regulations which are mandatory and those which are merely directory. Now in order to ascertain the effect of cls. (ii) and (v) of - Reg. 5, those clauses must be examined in the background of the other provisions of Ch. XII, and when so examined we think that the answer to the problem becomes reasonably clear. It is first to be observed that the regulations in Ch. XII make provision, inter alia, for the admission to the Board's examination of two classes of candidates, namely regular candidates, that is candidates who have attended a regular course of study in a recognised institution, and private candidates who are "persons seeking admission to an examination without putting in the requisite amount of attendance prescribed for it at an institution recognised by the Board" (Reg. 8). The basic distinction between these two classes of candidates is that the former have, and the latter have not, attended a recognised institution for a particular period. It is prima facie to be expected therefore that the Board must be satisfied in the case of a regular candidate that he has attended a recognised institution for the period prescribed. 8). The basic distinction between these two classes of candidates is that the former have, and the latter have not, attended a recognised institution for a particular period. It is prima facie to be expected therefore that the Board must be satisfied in the case of a regular candidate that he has attended a recognised institution for the period prescribed. Secondly, it is to be observed that whereas private candidates offer themselves for examination (Reg. 8 (i) ) regular candidates do not do so: they are 'sent up' (Reg. 4 (1)) or 'presented' Reg. 5 (ii)) by the institution which they attend. The presentation for the Examination is by the institution, and in our view as. (ii) and (v) of Reg. 5 impose an obligation on every recognised institution to send up for the High School Examination only such candidates who have attended the institution for the prescribed number of days. If, notwithstanding the fact that a candidate has not attended the institution for the prescribed period, the institution sends him up for the Examination then he has not been duly presented, and in our opinion the Board is not under any obligation to examine him or, if it has in ignorance of the fact examined him, to declare the result of that examination. Viewed in this light we consider that cls. (ii) and (v) of Reg. 5 are mandatory provisions inasmuch as they impose an obligation, not on the candidate, but on the institution which he attends. If a candidate is presented by his institution in defiance of the provisions of cl. (ii) or of cl. (v) of Reg. 5 such a candidate in our opinion acquires no right in law to compel the Board to declare the result of his examination unless the Board has condoned the infraction of this Regulation. 14. We hold therefore that the petitioner was not eligible to sit for this Examination. What course was then open to the Board. The petitioner says that notwithstanding the ineligibility the Board must assess his papers, and if he has secured sufficient marks it must declare that he was successful at the examination. We are unable to agree with this submission. We hold therefore that the petitioner was not eligible to sit for this Examination. What course was then open to the Board. The petitioner says that notwithstanding the ineligibility the Board must assess his papers, and if he has secured sufficient marks it must declare that he was successful at the examination. We are unable to agree with this submission. Sec. 7 of the Act enumerates the powers of the Board, and they include a residuary power- "(12) To do all such other acts and things as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the Board as a body constituted for regulating and supervising High School and Intermediate Education." With this section must be read Sec. 14 which enacts that "(14) All matters relating to the exercise by the Board of powers conferred upon it by this Act which have by regulation been delegated by the Board to anyone of its committees shall stand referred to that committee, and the Board, before exercising any such powers, shall receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to the matter in question." 15. Now the Board has delegated to the Examination Committee wide powers in relation to the holding of examinations, but it is common ground that that Committee has not had conferred upon it power to cancel a candidate's examination on the ground that he was not eligible to sit for the examination on account of shortage of attendance. The power possessed by the Board to regulate and supervise High School Education undoubtedly includes the power to regulate and supervise the High School Examination and the power relating to such a matter which has not been delegated to the Examination Committee can accordingly be exercised by the Board without it first having to receive and consider a report by that Committee with regard to the particular matter in question. In our opinion it was within the power of the Board to cancel the examination of the petitioner, and the only question is whether that power was rightly exercised by the Chairman. Sec. 11 of the Act specifies the Chairman's powers and so far as is material it reads thus: "11. (1) It shall be the duty of the Chairman to see that this Act and the Regulations are faithfully observed and that he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose. Sec. 11 of the Act specifies the Chairman's powers and so far as is material it reads thus: "11. (1) It shall be the duty of the Chairman to see that this Act and the Regulations are faithfully observed and that he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose. (3) In any emergency arising out of the administrative business of the Board which in the opinion of the Chairman requires that immediate action should be taken the Chairman should take such action as he deems necessary and shall thereafter report his action to the Board at its next meeting." 16. The Board consists of the Chairman, the Secretary and 37 members and ordinarily it meets in the months of February and November (Ch. II of the Regulations). A decision whether the petitioner's examination should be cancelled or not was obviously one about which there should be no avoidable delay. The examination was held in the months of March and April, and unless a special meeting was convened by the Chairman the Examination committee would not meet until the following November. In such circumstances we are not prepared to hold that the Chairman was not justified in taking the action he did in the exercise of his emergency powers under Sec. 11(3). 17. This appeal must therefore be allowed. The order of the learned Judge is set aside, and the Board is entitled to its costs before the learned Judge and on appeal.