( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to enable the petitioner to join the 1st MBBS Course at Bangalore Medical College and also has sought for a mandamus to announce his results in the Pre-Professional Course examination held in 1973 and if need be to hold an examination to Pre-Profesional course, subjects. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that he passed the PUC Examination in March, 1972. He received the marks card from the University. He applied for admission to the Medical Course to the Selection Committee constituted by the State Go'vt. He was selected for admission to Pre-Professional Course. He joined the College on 15-9-1972 and completed the Pre-Professional course. In the meanwhile after he joined the Medical College, he received a notice on 19-10-1972 from the Administrative Officer of the Directoraie of Health and Family Planning, wherein it was alleged furnished a false marks card, the marks of which did not tally with the marks register maintained by the University. He replied that notice denying the allegations. Sometime later, by a Memo dt. 16-3-1973 the dean of the Medical College, informed him that his name was struck-off from the Rolls with immediate effect on the ground that he had produced tampered marks card at the time of admission. He challenged the notice issued by the Dean of the Medical College in WP. 885 of 1973 seeking for the quashing of the memo by issue of an appropriate writ. Subsequently on 6-4-1973, the Controller of Examinations issued notice to the petitioner to appear before the Mai Practices Enquiry Committee (to be hereinafter called the 'enquiry Committee') for enquiry and accordingly the petitioner appeared before the Committee and defended his case. In the meanwhile the WP. 885 of 1973 came up for hearing and the same was not pressed in view of the fact that enquiry proceeding was not yet completed. Since no final decision was taken by the Enquiry Committee, the petitioner again approached this Court in WP. 3143 74 to direct the authorities to permit the petitioner to attend the 1st year MBBS. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Syndicate passed a resolution dt. 23-12-1974 to the effect that the petitioner might be permitted to join a College in 1975-76 if eligible. On 10-11-1975 the WP. 3143 74 to direct the authorities to permit the petitioner to attend the 1st year MBBS. During the pendency of that writ petition, the Syndicate passed a resolution dt. 23-12-1974 to the effect that the petitioner might be permitted to join a College in 1975-76 if eligible. On 10-11-1975 the WP. 3143 of 1974 came up for hearing and the same was disposed of with an observation that as per the resolution of the syndicate dt. 23-12-1974 the petitioner was permitted to attend the College in 1975-76 if he was eligible and that the petitioner could take his chance before the appropriate authority. The petitioner approached the concerned authorities, but in vain. Then he filed the present writ petition on 30-12-1975 seeking the remedies as stated above. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent has filed its statement of objections. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have not filed any objections. In the statement of objections by the 1st respondent, the stand taken is that the petitioner secured admission to the Medical College by producing a tampered and inflated marks card. This was detected and his admission to the College was cancelled and that the petitioner ceased to be a student of the Medical college. Further, the 1st respondent has taken, the stand that if the petitioner is eligible he should seek admission in accordance with the Rules for selection of students to Medical College. It is further stated that the petitioner instead of seeking admission to the College in the academic year has based his case on the admission obtained by fraud. Mr. B. G. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, firstly, contended that in view of the resolution dt. 23-12-1974 passed by the Syndicate, the petitioner is eligible to rejoin the 1st year, MBBS Course at bangalore Medical College, since the Mai Practices Enquiry Committee has impliedly taken a decision to exonerate the petitioner on all the, allegations and which has impliedly set aside the Memo. dt. 16-3-73 issued by the Dean to strike off the name of the petitioner from the Rolls. Secondly, he contended that, in case the petitioner has not acquired the minimum eligibility by passing the Pre-Professional Course Examination held in march, 1973 to join the 1st year MBBS Course, the petitioner is entitled to a further chance to acquire qualification by issuing direction to. Secondly, he contended that, in case the petitioner has not acquired the minimum eligibility by passing the Pre-Professional Course Examination held in march, 1973 to join the 1st year MBBS Course, the petitioner is entitled to a further chance to acquire qualification by issuing direction to. the respondents to conduct the Pre-Professional Course Examination under the old Rules. He urged that the Syndicate resolution dt. 16-3-1973 was not implemented by the respondents. In order to, prevent substantial failure o. f justice conduct of such an examination for the petitioner is necessary. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, contended that the admission of the petitioner to the Medical College was cancelled by the Memo dt. 16-3-1973 by the Dean of the Medical College and that his name had been struck off from the Rolls and, therefore, he is not entitled to continue in the Medical College at Bangalore. Secondly, he contended that, the petitioner was found guilty of fraud in tampering with the marks card and, therefore, he was not eligible to join the Pre- professional Course, or, any other course in the Medical College and the petitioner should seek fresh admission in any College other than the medical Colleges, if he is otherwise eligible. ( 4 ) THE learned Govt Pleader appearing for the State has supported the contention advanced on behalf of the 1st respondent. The questions for decision in this writ petition are : (1) Whether the petitioner was found guilty of fraud apd his admission to Pre-Professional Course in Bangalore Medical College was cancelled as contended by the Advocates for the respondents. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to join the Pre-Professional course in Bangalore Medical College, after the Syndicate resolution dated 23-12-1974, or the petitioner was to seek fresh admission to a College other than the Pre-Professional Course in the Medical College. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further chance to take the pre -Professional. Course Examination under the Rules, which were in existence in 1973 in case he has failed in the examination, which was held in March, 1973. Before considering the validity of these contentions, it is necessary to bear-in-mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the legal effect when a candidate is admitted to take the examination rightly or wrongly. Before considering the validity of these contentions, it is necessary to bear-in-mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to the legal effect when a candidate is admitted to take the examination rightly or wrongly. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC. 376 ) while dealing with the question that when once a candidate is allowed to appear for the examination whether his candidature can be withdrawn for any reason, observed thus :" Once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. " ( 6 ) FURTHER the Supreme Court observed thus :" It is well settled that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It was neither a case of suggestio falsi or suppressio veri. . . . . . . . If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I Examination in April 1972, then by force of the University statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. " ( 7 ) THOUGH this decision was rendered by the Supreme Court with reference to a candidate allowed for a La,w Examination, the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court bears on admission to institutions under any university. In the instant case, as already stated, the Dean of the Medical college, struck-off the name of the petitioner from the Rolls in the PPC in the Bangalore Medical College by a Memo dt. 16-3-1973. This was done before the Mai Practices Enquiry Committee of the Bangalore University instituted enquiry proceedings against the petitioner. In the meanwhile wp. 885 of 1973 filed by the petitioner for quashing the Memo dt. 16-3-73 came up for hearing and the writ petition was withdrawn when the enquiry Committee ,was seized of the matter, The said Committee after thorough enquiry passed the following resolution concerning eleven candidates. In the meanwhile wp. 885 of 1973 filed by the petitioner for quashing the Memo dt. 16-3-73 came up for hearing and the writ petition was withdrawn when the enquiry Committee ,was seized of the matter, The said Committee after thorough enquiry passed the following resolution concerning eleven candidates. It reads thus :" The Syndicate also considered the proceedings of the meeting of malpractices Enquiry Committee held on 4-12-1974 at which the Committee investigated into the allegation that the following candidates had produced spurious marks cards: the Syndicate resolved that in view of the fact that the candidate at Sl. No. l viz, V. Ramanna, had rendered all assistance to the committee to enable the latter to investigate into the fraud, he might be permitted to join a College in 1975-76 if eligible. In the case of the other candidates at Sl. No. 2 to 11 above, the Syndicate resolved that they should not be held eligible for admission in any University in the country for the year 1975-76. " ( 8 ) BY implication the above resolution leads one to the conclusion that the petitioner was not held guilty of fraud and that he was exonerated and was permitted to join a College in 1975-76 if eligible without seeking fresh admission. The other candidates, who. had produced spurious marks cards were held to be guilty of fraud and they were held ineligible for admission in any University in the country for the year 1975-76. The words permitted to join a College in 1975-76 if eligible ' would mean that the petitioner was permitted to join a College where PPC was available, since he had already been admitted to that College. From this it merely follows that the University Syndicate permitted him to join the PPC examination in the Medical College at Bangalore, the eligibility to which was a pass in one year PUC Examination, which the petitioner had possessed. But the astounding arguments of the learned Counsel for the 1st Respt are that the admission of the petitioner to the PPC in Bangalore Medical college had been cancelled after he was found guilty of fraud in connection with spurious marks card produced by him and that he was ineligible for admission to the PPC as he had obtained low marks in the one year PUC Examination. These contentions were sought to be supported by the learned Govt Pleader for the 2nd Respt. The arguments advanced on teha;lf of the 1st and the 2nd respondents are without foundation. The university Syndicate resolution quoted above, does not say a whisper of either holding the petitioner guilty of fraud or about the cancellation of his admission to the PPC in Medical College, Bangalore. On the other hand, as already stated there is an implied exoneration by the Syndicate resolution. It is not now open to the learned Counsel for the 1st and the 2nd respondents to raise these contentions referring to the records in their custody. The contention that by the Memo issued by the Dean of the medical College, his admission had been cancelled is also without force. The decision of the University Syndicate impliedly set aside the Memo dt. 16-3-1973 issued by the Dean striking the name of the petitioner from the Rolls. ( 9 ) FURTHER the contention raised by the Counsel for the 1st and the 2nd respondents are contrary to the endorsement at Ext. 'h' communicated by the Govt of Karnataka in No. HMA 126 MSF 74 dt. 25-10-1975 to> the petitioner. It reads thus :" Govt of Karnataka No. HMA 126 MSF 74 karnataka Govt Secretariat, vidhana Soudha, bangalore, dt. 25-10-1976 endorsement sub : Request of Sri V. Ramanna son of Venkatappa, Gopasandra village, Malur Taluk, Kolar Dist, for Admission to Bangalore Medical College. Ref: Representations dt. 31-5-76 and 21-7-76 from Sri V. Ramanna, addressed to the Commissioner for H and MA and Minister for Health, respectively. With reference to the representations cited above Siri V. Ramanna, is hereby informed that the Principal, Bangalore Medical College has reported that Sri Ramanna had been permitted to appear for the PPC examination in 1973 and he has failed in the examination. It is obvious therefore, that he is not eligible to join the 1st MBBS Class, because it is required that he should have passed the PPC examination before being admitted to the 1st MBBS Course. The Bangalore University has resolved that Sri V. Ramanna should be admitted if eligible. Sri ramanna cannot now be admitted as he is not eligible to join the 1st mdbs. The PPG Course has now been abolished. The Bangalore University has resolved that Sri V. Ramanna should be admitted if eligible. Sri ramanna cannot now be admitted as he is not eligible to join the 1st mdbs. The PPG Course has now been abolished. Therefore, he has to acquire eligibility under the existing rules i. e. , he has to pass the two years PUC Course conducted by the Pre-University Board or an equivalent Examination and he has to take his chance along with other candidates similarly placed. Sd/-N. Venkateshiya,, under Secty to Govt Health and Mun Admn Dept. " ( 10 ) NOWHERE in the communication, the Govt of Kar has informed the petitioner that he was guilty of fraud and that his admission has been cancelled. What he was told was that he has failed in the PPC examination in the year 1973 and that he was not eligible to attend the 1st. MBBS course. Since the PPC Examination has been abolished, he was to acquire eligibility by passing the two years PUC Course conducted by the PUC board. Thus the stand taken by the learned Advocates for the 1st and the 2nd respondents is contrary to what is stated by the Govt of Karnataka in the endorsement at Ext. 'h'. Therefore, the conclusion is that the petitioner was not held guilty of fraud and his admission to PPC Examination in the Bangalore Medical College was not cancelled. Therefore, the Dean of the Bangaore Medical College had no power to withdraw the admission given to the petitioner to the PPC Course now the next question for determination is what is the relief the petitioner is entitled to. ( 11 ) AS already stated, he passed the one year PUC Examination and was admitted to the PPC in the Medical College, Bangalore. He took the examination in the year 1973 arid he failed in that examination as disclosed in Ext. H. As per the Syndicate resolution dt. 23-12-1974, he was permitted to join the College in 1975-76 if eligible. The petitioner was eligible to join again to PPC in 1975. The concerned authorities failed to implement the Syndicate resolution. But the contention of the learned Advocates for the respondents is that since PPC is abolished the petitioner must pass the two years PUC Examination conducted by the PUC Board and take his chance for admission to the Medical College with other candidates similarly placed. But Mr. The concerned authorities failed to implement the Syndicate resolution. But the contention of the learned Advocates for the respondents is that since PPC is abolished the petitioner must pass the two years PUC Examination conducted by the PUC Board and take his chance for admission to the Medical College with other candidates similarly placed. But Mr. Sridharan, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that according to the Syndicate resolution the petitioner was entitled to take PPC Examination in the month of March-April 1975 examination and he was denied of the opportunity for no fault of his. Therefore, he urged that a direction may be given to the 1st and the 2nd respondents to conduct PPC Examination and. permit the petitioner to take the examination to qualify himself for admission to 1st year MBBS. The learned Advocate lor the 1st respondent submitted that if the Court should rule that the petitioner is entitled to take the PPC Examination, the 1st respondent cannot have objection to do so. ( 12 ) IT is not disputed that the Syndicate passed the resolution in Decr, 1974. Jn pursuance of that resolution, if the petitioner had been permitted to take the PPC of 1975, it would have avoided the injury and injustice complained of by the petitioner. The authorities of the 1st respondent have failed to take action to implement the resolution. The petitioner was quite helpless to get that resolution implemented. All his efforts were in vain. It is not fair to ask the petitioner again to pass the two years PUC and take his chance for fresh admission to the 1st year MBBS. His eligibility to join PPC cannot be disputed since the Syndicate resolution had not cancelled the admission to PPC. The non-implementatyon of the Syndicate resolution has resulted in injury of a substantial nature and there is also substantial failure of justice as the petitioner will be for ever denied of the opportunity to study MBBS. Therefore the direction sought for by Mr. Sridharan, is just and reasonable. It must be held that the petitioner is entitled to be given a further chance to take PPC Examination without once again seeking admission to II PUC to become eligible for admission to 1st MBBS. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to this effect to respondents 1 and 2. Sridharan, is just and reasonable. It must be held that the petitioner is entitled to be given a further chance to take PPC Examination without once again seeking admission to II PUC to become eligible for admission to 1st MBBS. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to this effect to respondents 1 and 2. ( 13 ) ISSUE a writ of mandamus to the 1st and the ?nd respondents to hold examination in PPC as it existed in 1974 December, within the course of this year and permit the petitioner to take the examination. The petitioner's eligibility to join the 1st MBBS Course will be subject to his passing the Pre-Professional Course Examination specially held for him within the time fixed above. In the result, writ petition is allowed. NO costs. --- *** --- .