Judgment The petitioner prays for a mandamus requiring the respondent Bihar, School Examination Board to declare that she has passed the Secondary School Examination 1976 not because she has obtained pass marks in all the subjects but because, according to her, she is entitled to the benefit of certain regulations framed under section 17 of the Bihar School Examination Board Act. 2. The petitioner appeared at the Secondary School Examination and failed in two subjects. They are (i) compulsory English and (ii) Elementary Mathematics, which was one of her optional subjects. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that, on the basis of regulations and 14 of Chapter VIII of the Bihar School Examination Regulation, 1964, she should have been declared to have passed the examination. Alternatively, it is contended that there was an amendment of regulation 14 by a notification dated the 2nd, June, 1976, published in an extraordinary issue of the Bihar Gazette. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this regulation, and, if this regulation applies, she has to be declared as having passed the examination aforesaid. 3. It would be first necessary to consider regulations 9 and 14 which are as follows :- "(9) Interchange :- If a candidate passes in all the subjects except in one of the optional subjects and bas offered an extra subject as the l0th paper and passes in it, he shall be allowed to pass, by substituting the subject III which he has failed with the subject of the10th paper in which he has secured pass mark and shall be placed in the appropriate Division." "(14). A candidate who has obtained pass marks in the aggregate and failed only in English, shall be declared to have passed the Secondary School Examination without English." The argument is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of both these regulations, that is to say, she is entitled to interchange of subjects and, after interchange, to have been declared as having passed without English. In our view the contention cannot be accepted. Regulation 9 is applicable only where a candidate has passed in all the subjects, except in one of the optional subjects. Here, the petitioner has failed in two subjects, namely compulsory English and Elementary Mathematics, and as such this regulation cannot be of any avail to the petitioner. In our view the contention cannot be accepted. Regulation 9 is applicable only where a candidate has passed in all the subjects, except in one of the optional subjects. Here, the petitioner has failed in two subjects, namely compulsory English and Elementary Mathematics, and as such this regulation cannot be of any avail to the petitioner. Regulation 14 applies only to such candidates who have failed only in English. Since the petitioner has not failed only in English, this regulation also cannot be of any assistance to her. 4. So far as the new regulation 14 is concerned, it must be quoted before considering the contention. It is as follows :- "14. (a) A candidate who has not obtained pass marks in English shall be declared to have passed the Secondary School Examination without English, provided that he secured a minimum aggregate of 270 marks in the other papers excluding contribution from the additional 10th paper : Provided further that a candidate passing without English under this Regulation shall not be deprived of the benefits under Regulations 8 and 9 of this Chapter. X X X X X The contention is that since the result of the petitioner was published on the 3rd June, 1976, this regulation applies. It was also contended that, the regulation must have received the approval earlier to the 2nd June, 1976 and that the said date has not been disclosed by the Board. Learned Advocate-General, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, contends that, irrespective of the date of the publication of this regulation, it will not apply to examinations which were held in March, 1976. at which the petitioner had appeared. The process of examination started with the filing of the applications by the candidates and since the changed regulation was not in existence then, it could not be applicable. Alternatively, he contended that, since the examination results were released from 28th May, 1976, the regulation in question had no application. 5. It is not necessary to consider the first contention as in our opinion this regulation cannot apply to the examinations held in March. 1976, the results where of were published from the 28th May, 1976. Alternatively, he contended that, since the examination results were released from 28th May, 1976, the regulation in question had no application. 5. It is not necessary to consider the first contention as in our opinion this regulation cannot apply to the examinations held in March. 1976, the results where of were published from the 28th May, 1976. The supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board states that a decision was taken by the Chairman of the Board to release the results from the 28th May, 1976 and the results were actually released from the 28th May, 1976 to the 4th June, 1976. It is further stated that up to the 31st May, 1976, the result sheets of Chotanagpur and Bhagalpur Divisions had been dispatched. On the 1st and the 2nd. June, 1976, the result sheets were dispatched to the respective schools in Tirhut Division and that the result sheet of the petitioner was received and dispatched on the 3rd June. 1976. Since the process of the release of the results of the examination had started from the 28th May, 1976 and the regulation in question received the approval and was published in the Gazette on the 2nd. June, 1976, we hold that the amended regulation would not be applicable. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as already noticed, contended that the 2nd. June, 1976 should not be the relevant date. Section 17 of the Act, lays down that the Board may, after previous publication and subject to the confirmation by the State Government, make regulations. In the instant case, the Gazette notification as also annexure 'A' to the supplementary counter-affidavit show that the approval was communicated on the 2nd, June, 1976. It is, therefore, not possible to take any date earlier than the 2nd. June, 1976 as the date of the making of the regulation. 7. In the result, this application is dismissed, but without costs. Application dismissed.