JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioner took the second B.A. Examination of the Utkal University in 1977 from the Evening College attached to the Revenshaw College at Cuttack and failed. He sat at the annual B.A. Examination of 1978 but the University did not declare him to have passed the examination though according to the petitioner he was entitled to have such a declaration. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner wants a direction to the University to declare him to have passed the annual B.A. Examination of 1978. 2. Petitioner's subjects were English, Modern Indian Language (Oriya), Economics and Political Science. In English there were two papers carrying two hundred marks. In the Modern Indian Language there was one paper with hundred marks and in Economics and Political Science there were three papers in each with hundred marks. The total marks thus were nine hundred. Under the University Regulations, 20 marks out of each paper are allotted for internal examinations. Petitioner had taken these examinations and had secured 16 out of 40 in English, 11 out of 20 in Modern Indian Language, 28 out of 60 in Economics and 24 out of 60 in Political Science. From the papers placed before us there can be no dispute that the college marks had been duly sent to the University. The petitioner was issued a marks-list showing to have secured the following marks subject-wise :- English Paper-I 09+15 Paper-II 22 College Marks. - M.I.L (O) 42 College Marks. - Economics Paper-I 20 Paper-II 34 Paper-III 23 College Marks. - Political Science. Paper-I 26 Paper-II 44 Paper-III 38 College Marks - Petitioner, therefore, took the stand that if with these marks, the college marks are added he would pass in all the subjects including total and would fall short of a few marks in English but his case would still be governed by the 'hard case rule' and in ordinary course he should have passed by being given grace marks as uniformly done in every case. The University authorities on the other hand have pointed out that the petitioner had actually not received the marks shown in the marks-sheet. After the marks in the written papers had been obtained, the invigilators had converted the marks secured by the petitioner out of 80 in each paper proportionately to represent marks out of one hundred. The University authorities on the other hand have pointed out that the petitioner had actually not received the marks shown in the marks-sheet. After the marks in the written papers had been obtained, the invigilators had converted the marks secured by the petitioner out of 80 in each paper proportionately to represent marks out of one hundred. In support of this stand in the counter affidavit, at the hearing the answer papers, the marks folios and the register containing the marks have been produced 3. There is no dispute before us that under the Regulations a candidate would be entitled to the addition of the college marks and in the case of a regular student who has subjected himself to assessment in the College, there is no scope for escalation of the marks by the process of conversion. The action of the Invigilators in converting the marks by escalating the marks secured by the petitioner in written papers out of 80 marks to represent the proportion out of 100 was without any legal basis, and contrary to the Regulations. 4. From the answer books placed before us, we find that the petitioner had secured the following marks :- English Paper-I 10 Paper-II 16 M.I.L. 31 Economics Paper-I 15 Paper-II 25 Paper-III 17 Political Science Paper-I 19 Paper-II 33 Paper-III 28 In spoken English he had 9 marks. Petitioner was entitled to a credit of the college marks and when those marks are added to it petitioner would not still pass in some of the subjects. Petitioner's contention is that the University authorities were estopped from contending that the marks sheet contained the escalated marks and, therefore, on the admitted position that college marks had not been added, petitioner was entitled to addition of the college marks to the marks disclosed in the marks-sheet. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Naba Kishore Gadapalla v. The Utkal University I.L.R. 1978 Cutt. 78, in support of such a contention. We do not think, to the facts of this case, the doctrine of estoppel can be applied. It may be that the University authorities had not indicated in the marks-sheet that the escalated marks were given therein. Petitioner had not changed his position on the basis of the representation through the marks-sheet. 78, in support of such a contention. We do not think, to the facts of this case, the doctrine of estoppel can be applied. It may be that the University authorities had not indicated in the marks-sheet that the escalated marks were given therein. Petitioner had not changed his position on the basis of the representation through the marks-sheet. In the facts of the case, when the original answer books are available and marks awarded therein are not assailed on any ground, we do not think petitioner's stand can be accepted by invoking the doctrine of estoppel. The writ application has no merit and has to be dismissed. 5. Before we part with this case, we must, however, indicate out serious anxiety and grave dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which this matter has been handled. This is not the first occasion when a mistake of this type has come to light. In the reported decision we have referred to above, a similar mistake had occurred. This exhibits that there is want of coordination in the office of the University and Regulations are not kept in view and some amount of arbitrariness is introduced. The University as the highest institution of learning is expected to exhibit disciplined conduct and an ideal state of affairs must prevail. We may recall what we stated in another case of the University in the matter of Ananta Prasad Nayak v. Utkal University and others I.L.R. 1978 Cuttack 138, and cautioned the University that unless its affairs improve, the confidence of the public in the conduct of the University and its affairs is bound to dwindle and the abode of learning may ultimately fail to play the appropriate role assigned to it. 6. In the facts of the case, the University is to blame in driving the petitioner to litigation and while dismissing the application of the petitioner we would, therefore direct that petitioner would be entitled to costs of this application. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees one hundred and the University authorities are directed to make payment of the costs as certified in the memorandum to be drawn up within two months hence. N.K. Das, J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed