JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor cancelling the examination of the petitioner. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the controversy in this case are as under:-The petitioner joined the course of LL. B. Part I in Government College, shivpuri in 1972 as a regular student. She appeared in the year in LL. B. (Part I) examination. Thereafter, she appeared in LL. B. (Part II) examination as a woman candidate, that is to say, she appeared as a private candidate. She again got admission in LL. B. (Part III) for the session 1973-74. According to the petitioner, she studied as a regular student for the full academic year and was allowed to appear in LL. B. (Part III)second semester examination in the year 1974. The petitioner cleared the ll. B. (Part I), second semester in 1973-74. The petitioner appeared in LL. B. (Part III) second semester in July-August 1974 but she had not obtained the passing marks. The marks obtained by her in the second semester were communicated to her. In the year 1975, the petitioner submitted her form for appearing in LL. B. (Part III) first semester examination as an ex-student. She submitted this form, as was required, through the principal, Government College, Shivpuri. The University provisionally permitted her to appear in the LL. B. (Part III) first semester examination, 1974-75. The petitioner appeared in all the papers. Her result was withheld by the University. The petitioner then demanded to know as to why her result was withheld and she was informed that she was not eligible for admission in LL. B. (Part III) and asked her to show cause why her examination should not be cancelled. The University thereafter by the impugned order cancelled the examination of the petitioner. ( 3. ) THE Registrar of the University who has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents and who is in possession of the record has stated the facts of the case more clearly and it would be necessary to state them before we proceed to discuss the controversies arising in this case. The petitioner did not pass in LL. B. (Part I) examination in the first semester, 1972. The petitioner did not pass in LL. B. (Part I) examination in the first semester, 1972. A candidate is declared successful in the part examinations only when he or she passed both the semesters. It may be that the University communicated the marks obtained by the candidate in the semester in which he/she appeared but the University would only declare the candidate as having passed when the candidate successfully passed both the semesters. The petitioner appeared in LL. B. (Part II) examination in 1973. The result of the petitioner was not declared as she had not passed the LL. B. (Part I) examination till then. According to the respondents till the petitioner had passed Part II examination she was not entitled to be admitted to LL. B. (Part III) for 1973-74 session. The petitioner could not appear in LL. B. (Part III) examination in the year 1974 as she had not passed LL. B. (Part I) examination. The petitioner passed the LL. B. (Parti) in 1973-74 on 30-3-1974. After the petitioner cleared LL. B. (Part I) examination in 1974, her result for LL. B. (Part II) examination, both semesters, was declared on 25-11-1975. It is only after the result of LL. B. (Part I) and (Pan II) examinations of the petitioner was declared that the petitioner became eligible for admission to ll. B. (Part III) course. ( 4. ) THE petitioner was provisionally permitted to appear in LL. B. (Part III) first semester in January 1975. Since she had filed in the form as a regular student of the college, the College was asked to certify that she had attended the requisite number of classes. The petitioner was informed that if the necessary certificate of attendance was not produced her examination would be cancelled. A copy of the letter was also sent to the Principal, government College, Shivpuri directing the submission of the necessary attendance certificate The Principal, on 24-2-1975, sent a letter to the university informing that the petitioner was not eligible for admission in ll. B. (Part III), hence no question of the attendance arose. The University then asked the Principal on 3-3-1975 why he forwarded the form of the petitioner. On receiving the reply from the college, the University sent a letter to the petitioner directing her to show cause as to how she claims eligibility to appear at the examination as an ex-student. B. (Part III), hence no question of the attendance arose. The University then asked the Principal on 3-3-1975 why he forwarded the form of the petitioner. On receiving the reply from the college, the University sent a letter to the petitioner directing her to show cause as to how she claims eligibility to appear at the examination as an ex-student. The University also asked the Principal, Government College, Shivpuri giving out the detailed circumstances under which he was persuaded to forward the form of the petitioner for examination in LL. B. (Part III) examination. The petitioner was again given a show cause notice on 3-9-1975 by the University asking her to explain how she claimed to be eligible for appearing at the LL. B. (Part III) examination as an ex-student. The petitioner did not submit any reply and finally, the respondents cancelled the Part III examination and communicated their decision on 16-10-1975. The respondents stressed the fact that the petitioner was provisionally permitted to appear in the first semester as an ex-student so that she may not lose her year in case she satisfied all the conditions of eligibility. ( 5. ) IT would appear from the facts stated above that the petitioner had not cleared Part I examination of LL. B. but she was permitted by the university to appear in LL. B. (Part II) examination. The petitioner cleared the LL. B. (Part I) examination on or about 30-3-1974. After she was declared to have the LL. B. (Part I) examination, her result of the LL. B. (Part II) was declared. This was on 25-11-1974. These facts have an important bearing in the case. ( 6. ) UNDER Jiwaji University, Gwalior, general rules of the courses of studies and Examination of the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (Three Years degree Course), admission to LL. B. First Year Course shall be open only to a graduate of Jiwaji University or such graduate of another University as may be recognised by the Jiwaji University for this purpose. Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules for admission for the courses of LL. B. Second and Third year are reproduced as under :- "2. Admission to the LL. B. Second Year Course shall be open only to a candidate who has passed the LL. B. First Year Course (3 Years degree Course) or LL. B. Previous (2 Years Degree Course) of this university. B. Second and Third year are reproduced as under :- "2. Admission to the LL. B. Second Year Course shall be open only to a candidate who has passed the LL. B. First Year Course (3 Years degree Course) or LL. B. Previous (2 Years Degree Course) of this university. A candidate who has passed the LL. B. First year (3 Years degree Course) or LL. B. Previous (2 Years Degree Course) of another university as may be recognised for this purpose by the University may be admitted to the LL. B. Second Year Course on condition that the candidate shall be required to pass in those papers of LL. B. First Year course of this University which he has not passed in the LL. B. First Year or LL. B. Previous examination of another University. He shall appear in such paper or papers along with the first or second semester examination of LL. B. Second Year. 3. Admission to LL. B. Third Year Course shall be open only to a candidate who has passed LL. B. Second Year of this University. A candidate who has passed LL. B. Second Year from another University as may be recognised for this purpose by the University may be admitted on condition that the candidate shall be required to pass in those papers of LL. B. First Year and Second Year of this University which he has not passed in the qualifying examination. He shall appear in such papers along with the first or second semester examination of LL. B. Third Year. " under the above rules, semester system is observed. There are two semesters in each academic year. In the first semester, a teaching of the first three papers is done while in the second semester, the remaining 3 papers are taken. A candidate is first required to appear in the first 3 papers in the first semester examination and in the remaining 3 papers in the second semester examination. If the candidate of LL. B. Second Year has not passed LL. B First year Examination up to second semester of LL. B. Second Year he/she will not be allowed to keep term in LL. B. Third Year. The failures shall be eligible to appear as ex-students, in papers concerned at the first semester examination and/or at the second semester examination of that year. ( 7. B First year Examination up to second semester of LL. B. Second Year he/she will not be allowed to keep term in LL. B. Third Year. The failures shall be eligible to appear as ex-students, in papers concerned at the first semester examination and/or at the second semester examination of that year. ( 7. ) IT would appear from the above rules that unless the petitioner had passed the LL. B. (Part I) examination she was not entitled to be declared pass in the Part II of the LL. B. Examination. A concession was given to appear in Part II LL. B. Examination even though she had not passed in part I Examination but the result of LL. B. (Part II) could not be declared unless she had passed in the LL. B. (Part I) Examination. It is only after the petitioner had passed the Part II Examination that she became eligible to take admission in Part III LL. B course. Now, since the result of LL. B. (Part II) Examination was declared on 25-11-1974, she could not have been admitted to the Part III course of the LL. B. degree in Shivpuri Law College. She could only be admitted after 26-11-1974. It would be difficult for her to complete the percentage of attendance besides any other obstacle in the way of her admission to the college at the fag end of the year. Be that as it may, the petitioners form was forwarded by the Shivpuri College and the petitioner was permitted to appear in Part III second semester examination in July/august 1974. In this semester, she had not secured the requisite marks. ( 8. ) THEN came the question of her admission to the examination of ll. B. (Part III) first semester examination in January 1975. Since the petitioner had appeared in the second semester, she was provisionally granted permission to appear in LL. B. (Part III) first semester examination. In the meantime, the University demanded the attendance certificate and it is easy to see that the Principal of the College then realising his mistake in admitting the candidate informed the University that the question of percentage did not arise because the petitioner was not eligible for admission in LL. B. (Part III ). ( 9. In the meantime, the University demanded the attendance certificate and it is easy to see that the Principal of the College then realising his mistake in admitting the candidate informed the University that the question of percentage did not arise because the petitioner was not eligible for admission in LL. B. (Part III ). ( 9. ) SHRI R. D. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner first raised a contention that the petitioner having cleared all the examinations and having attended Shivpuri Law College for one year and having been permitted to appear in the second semester of Part III LL. B. degree examination, became entitled to appear in the first semester of Part III of the LL. B. Examination as an ex-student. She had been, in fact, issued the admission card as an ex-student and since she had appeared in all the three papers of the first semester, it was incumbent on the University to declare her result. The University could not legally cancel her examination of the first semester of Part III ll. B. Examination. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner became an ex-student of Part III LL. B. Examination as she had appeared in the examination of the second semester of Part III LL. B. Examination. She acquired the right as an ex-student to appear again in the LL. B. Examination. The petitioner also claims that her result could not be withheld on any defect of shortage of percentage of attendance. ( 10. ) ORDINANCE No. 6 framed under section 37 of Madhya Pradesh vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, dealing with the examinations, defines an ex-student candidate as Under :- "ex-student candidate" means a person who was admitted to an examination as a regular candidate and was not declared successful there at or was not able to appear in the examination though admission card was correctly issued to him by the University and seeks admission again to the said examination. " A regular candidate is defined to mean a person who has prosecuted a regular course of study in a University Teaching Department or College and seeks admission to an examination of the University as such. " A regular candidate is defined to mean a person who has prosecuted a regular course of study in a University Teaching Department or College and seeks admission to an examination of the University as such. It is clear from the definition that an ex-student is in the first place a regular candidate and such a candidate was not declared successful at an examination or was not able to appear in the examination though admission card was correctly issued to him and lastly, he seeks admission to such examination again. The ex-student candidate must have appeared at the examination; must have been declared unsuccessful and must appear at the same examination. He is also an ex-student candidate when after admission card was issued to such person he was prevented from appearing in the examination. ( 11. ) THE LL. B. examination rules adverted to earlier envisages that a candidate will appear first in the first semester examination and thereafter in the second semester examination. The petitioner was provisionally granted permission to appear in the first semester of the Third Year LL. B. examination. The petitioner would have to show that she was a regular candidate, that is to say, that she prosecuted a regular course of study in Shivpuri college and was seeking admission to an examination of the University as a regular candidate. She would then be required to show that she was admitted to the Part III LL. B. Examination and was declared unsuccessful. The petitioner never prosecuted her studies as a regular candidate for the first semester examination at least as it appears from the return of the respondents. The petitioner here was admitted to the second semester examination of part III LL. B. Examination and she failed. ( 12. ) IT would appear from the rules that unless a candidate was a regular candidate she would not be permitted to the second semester examination of Part III LL. B. course. Therefore, there is force in the contention that when she had failed in second semester of Part III LL. B. Examination she became an ex-student of second semester only. We cannot see why a candidate was permitted in the second semester when she had not attempted to appear in the first semester. B. course. Therefore, there is force in the contention that when she had failed in second semester of Part III LL. B. Examination she became an ex-student of second semester only. We cannot see why a candidate was permitted in the second semester when she had not attempted to appear in the first semester. The concession to appear in the second semester may arise when as a regular candidate the courses of both the semesters have been completed but the candidate was prevented from appearing in the first semester. We do not think that by failing in the second semester he would be treated as an ex-student for the purpose of admission to examination in the first semester. Since the examinations are being held semester-wise, the definition of ex-student candidate would also need to be construed as pertaining to the examination of that semester. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be an ex-student of the first semester of Part III LL. B. Examination. ( 13. ) APART from the above considerations, there are greater hurdles in the way of the petitioner. She can only succeed if she can show that she was eligible to appear in the Part III LL. B. Examination. We have already indicated above that she did not become eligible to the first semester of part III LL. B. Examination. She was only provisionally granted the admission as she had made a representation that she was a regular student and was not declared successful in the LL. B. Part III Examination. That may or may not be true with reference to the second semester of Part III LL. B. Examination but certainly it was not true as regards the first semester of ll. B. (Part III) Examination. The rules are mandatory that unless the candidate was declared successful in Part I Examination of the LL. B. course, her result of the Part II LL. B. Examination could not be declared. If she had not been successful in the Part I of the LL. B. Examination when she was appearing in the Part III Examination, it is easy to see that she had not become eligible to seek admission in Part III LL. B. Examination. That impediment being in her way, she could not appear in the second semester of part III LL. B. Examination of August 1974. B. Examination when she was appearing in the Part III Examination, it is easy to see that she had not become eligible to seek admission in Part III LL. B. Examination. That impediment being in her way, she could not appear in the second semester of part III LL. B. Examination of August 1974. She could only be a regular student of Part III LL. B. course after her result was declared on 25-11-1974. Therefore, there was an inherent infirmity in her claim to be an ex-student of part III LL. B. course of Jiwaji University. In our opinion, the University was justified in not treating her as an ex-student of the Part III LL. B. Examination. ( 14. ) IT is then argued that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to cancel the examination. The power rests with the Executive Council under clause 2 (3) (f) (ff) of Ordinance No. 6. The Executive Council could cancel the examination of a candidate if it discovered that the candidate was in any manner guilty of misconduct in connection with the examination. The respondents here rely on clause 21 of Ordinance No. 6. Clause 21 enjoins on the Registrar to issue an admission card in favour of a candidate if the application of the candidate is complete in all particulars in accordance with the provisions applicable to him and in order, the candidate is eligible for admission to examination and the fees as prescribed have been paid by the candidate. The admission card could be withdrawn if it is issued through mistake or the candidate is found not eligible to appear in the examination or it is found that any of the particulars given by the candidate with the application form were false or incorrect. The power to cancel examination is fully provided for when the candidate is guilty of misconduct in connection with his examination. ( 15. ) IT cannot be said that if the petitioner was ineligible to appear at the examination because of the over-sight of the University authorities, the result of such a candidate could not be cancelled as it was not expressly provided for by clause 23. For certain purposes as given in clause 23, the executive Council was given the power to cancel the examination after giving a show cause notice to the person concerned. These pertain to misconduct such as copying or using unfair means. For certain purposes as given in clause 23, the executive Council was given the power to cancel the examination after giving a show cause notice to the person concerned. These pertain to misconduct such as copying or using unfair means. However, the Executive Council or the Vice- Chancellor was not powerless if it was found that a candidate who having been given admission at an examination, was not eligible at all for the same; for example, if some person had been admitted to the examination of the LL. B. course wrongly when he had not even passed the B. A. Examination. The examination of such a person could be cancelled for it would amount to a fraud on the statute and such a person could not be given the advantage which was the result of the fraud practised by him. The misconduct in connection with the examination would have to be construed in a broader sense. It would include such frauds also. ( 16. ) THE next question that arises is whether the Vice-Chancellor could cancel the examination of the petitioner. Under section 15 (4) of the Madhya pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973), if the Kulapati was of the opinion that an emergency has arisen which requires immediate action to be taken, the Kulpati shall take such action as he deems necessary and at the earliest opportunity thereafter report his action to such officer, authority, Committee or other body as would have in the ordinary course dealt with the matter. It is not the case of the petitioner that the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor has not been ratified by the Executive Council. We think that in the absence of proper averments as to these questions of fact, no serious exception could be taken now as to the exercise of the emergency powers of the Vice-Chancellor under the Act. The order of the vice-Chancellor, in our opinion, cannot be assailed on that grounds. ( 17. ) IT is then contended that the University at no stage complained that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts to them and, therefore, they should be precluded from raising such grievance before the High Court. We do not see any substance in this part of the argument as the show cause notices clearly indicate that the petitioner had obtained admission to part III LL. B. Examination by suppressing facts and by mis-representation. We do not see any substance in this part of the argument as the show cause notices clearly indicate that the petitioner had obtained admission to part III LL. B. Examination by suppressing facts and by mis-representation. The return also alleges these facts. We, therefore, see no substance in this argument. ( 18. ) LASTLY, the petitioner has sought support from the principle of promissory estoppel as precluding the University from raising any objection as to the eligibility of the petitioner to appear as an ex-student. The contention of the petitioner is that since she had been permitted to appear in the second semester of Part III LL. B. course and thereafter given the admission in the first semester of Part III LL. B. Examination, the University should be estopped from raising the question of eligibility any more. In Bal Krishna v. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratapsingh University, Rewa1, a Full Bench of this court laid down four categories of cases for considering whether the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked. The four categories of cases were stated thus- " (i) Where the candidate practised fraud on the authorities, or was guilty of mis-statement or suppression of facts in his application form on the basis of which admission to examination was granted; (ii) Where there is some technical defect in the filling of the form or where there was any deficiency, such as shortage in attendance, which defect or deficiency could be condoned by the authorities in exercise of discretion vested in them under the statute, Rules or Regulations; (iii) where the candidate was patently ineligible on the particulars supplied by him, and (iv) where the question of eligibility depends upon interpretation of any provision of law, or rules or regulations having the force of law, and two interpretations are reasonably possible. " The present case falls under category (iii) stated above. As the petitioner here was patently ineligible to appear in Part III LL. B. course, there could be no estoppel against the statute. If under the statute, the petitioner could not appear in Part III examination, no right could enure in her favour by the conduct of the University. Moreover, the permission to appear at the first semester examination of Part III examination was provisional. This clearly indicated that there was some infirmity and the claim could not be absolute. If under the statute, the petitioner could not appear in Part III examination, no right could enure in her favour by the conduct of the University. Moreover, the permission to appear at the first semester examination of Part III examination was provisional. This clearly indicated that there was some infirmity and the claim could not be absolute. The order being provisional, no grievance can be made if the university cancelled the examination on its not being satisfied as to the eligibility of the candidate. The permission itself was conditional. We, therefore, see that this is not a case where the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked to shut out the challenge of the respondents. ( 19. ) IN the result, we dismiss the petition. There shall be no order as to costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The petitioner shall be entitled to the refund of security amount. Petition dismissed.