JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - The petitioners are student of Junglee Baba Intermediate College, Garwar, district Ballia, petitioner no. 1 was the student of Intermediate Final year (Agriculture) for the session 1978-79 and the other two petitioners were students of Intermediate First year (Agriculture) for the same session. The Principal of the institution by his order dated 26-2-1979 directed that the petitioners are not permitted to appear at their respective examinations. The legality of that order has been challenged in this petition. 2. The impugned order has been passed in exercise of the powers under Rule 5 (2) of Chapter 12 of the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination Rules which empowers the Principal not to permit the students from appearing at the examinations in certain circumstances. The impugned order which was addressed to the parents/guardians of the petitioners mention that the student was since his admission in the institution and the order was being passed on the basis of his work throughout the year. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioners any opportunity to explain their position. In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Principal it has been stated that a general notice was.issued on 25-1-1979 to the effect that if a student does not appear at the six monthly examination or miserably fails in that examination he would not he allowed to appear to the Boards Examination. It has also been asserted that on 17-2-1979 a notice was sent to the petitioners stating therein that they had either not appeared at their six monthly examination or if they had appeared in one paper they had miserably failed. They were asked to explain within a week why they should not be detained from appearing at the Boards Examination, since no explanation was received from the petitioners, the impugned order was passed, In the rejoinder-affidavit it has been denied hat any notice was sought to be served on the petitioners and they refused to accept it. 4. It is not necessary to enter into the controversy whether the notice dated 17th February, 1979 was sought to be served on the petitioners and they refused to accept the notice. The grounds on which the impugned order has been passed is entirely different from the grounds set forth in the notice dated 17-2-1979. 4. It is not necessary to enter into the controversy whether the notice dated 17th February, 1979 was sought to be served on the petitioners and they refused to accept the notice. The grounds on which the impugned order has been passed is entirely different from the grounds set forth in the notice dated 17-2-1979. In that notice it was nowhere alleged that the petitioners were in disciplined and unruly ever since their admission to the institution. The petitioners had never an opportunity to meet this charge of the principal. The other reason which weighed with the principal in passing the impugned order is not quite clear. The order does not indicate that the petitioners were not allowed to appear at the Boards Examination because they did not appear at the Board six monthly examination or miserably failed in some of the papers in which they did appear. The second ground on which the impugned order is based is extremely vague. It is thus obvious that the petitioners were never afforded any opportunity to meet the charges which formed the basis of the impugned order. The order being penal in nature the principles of natural justice require that it should have been passed after affording an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. 5. The petitioners were permitted to appear at the Intermediate Examination of the Board by an order of the Munsif West, Ballia, passed in suit no. 97 of 1979. Subsequently that suit was withdrawn. While admitting this petition this Court permitted petitioners nos. 2 and 3 to appear at the second year examination in Agriculture on payment of requisite late fee. The petitioners obtained pass marks at the examination. It would be extremely unjust and unfair to direct any fresh proceeding after affording them a suitable opportunity to meet the charges. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26-2-1979 is quashed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner and deliver them the requisite mark sheets and transfer certificates parties shall bear their own costs.