Short Note : 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, by which the petitioner's result of Intermediate Examination was cancelled. 2. The petitioner was a candidate who had taken the correspondence course and was allowed to appear in the Intermediate Examination for year 1976 for examination held in April-May, 1976. He appeared in all the subjects and had failed in History and General English. In the subsequent supplementary examination, he appeared for the subjects in which he had failed, but failed again. In April-May 1977 he again appeared in History and General English but could clear only General English and failed in History. Thereafter he again applied to appear in the April-May examination of 1978 proposing to appear only in History. He was permitted to appear in this examination and since he passed in History, he was declared passed in the Intermediate examination. Subsequently, by an order dated 19-9-1978, the result of the petitioner was cancelled. Held : The general rule is that a candidate is required to appear in all the subject to and has to pass in all the subjects before he could be declared passed in the Intermediate Examination of the Board. A concession, however, is given by means of allowing the candidates to appear in supplementary examination if the candidate has failed only in two subjects. This concession is available for two attempts only which have to be availed of within three years We do not think that it is permissible under Regulation 143 to avail of a third' supplementary examination if the candidate could not clear the examination in the two attempts as provided. The position is that the petitioner having, availed of the concession twice, he could not appear in April-May, 1978 examination in only one subject to entitle him to be declared passed in the Intermediate Examination. The 'Board was, therefore, justified in cancelling the result afterwards when it came to their knowledge that the petitioner had not appeared in all the subjects in 1978 and that he had already availed of the two chances provided by Regulation 143 of the Regulations. The petitioner having not passed the examination as provided under the rules, he could not be declared to have passed. 3. The petitioner having not passed the examination as provided under the rules, he could not be declared to have passed. 3. It is then contended that the Results Committee under the Regulations would have no power to cancel the result which is strictly regulated by Regulation 117 of the Regulations. The regulation is not exhaustive and if a candidate is found to have clearly contravened the Regulation, which disentitles him to appear in any examination, the power could be exercised by the Result Committee to cancel the result. The powers of the Result Committee were not circumscribed by limits under Regulation 117. We think that such a power was inherent in the Committee and non-observance of the rules and regulations could be dealt with by it. 4. Since the petitioner did not furnish the mark sheet along with the admission form, we do not think that he had represented his case fairly to the Board so as to bind them to a promissory estoppel. It may well be that at the time when the application was made, the authorities had no opportunity to scrutinse and it allowed the petitioner to appear tentatively. It would be pertintent to note that the authorities had every time demanded the mark list from the petitioner and he did not furnish the same. If a candidate was found ineligible to appear in the examination, we do not think that the Board, by having declared the result of such candidate, would be bound by an estoppel working against the authorities to cancel the result of the examination. The ineligibility of the candidate to appear in the examination went to the root of the matter and will always in his way and he was not entitled to be declared successful. Revision dismissed.