JUDGMENT Yashoda Nandan, J. - By means of this petition the petitioner challenges the legality of an order passed by opposite-party no. 1, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the Parshad) in substance declaring that the petitioner had not passed the intermediate Examination conducted by the Parishad in the year 1975. 2. The allegations on which the petition is founded are that the petitioner obtained admission as a student of the Intermediate class in Government Inter College, Meerut and filled in his examination form from that College as a regular student. After having applied for the examination the petitioner left the Government Inter College, Meerut and after obtaining the requisite transfer-certificate from that Institution joined Intermediate 2nd year class from Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut. While the petitioner was a student of the Government Inter College be was admitted to the Intermediate Examination and was allotted N.A.S. Inter College, Meerut as therefor his examination. After obtaining admission in the Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut he intimated the same to the opposite party no. 1 and obtained approval to the change of his examination centre from Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut to G.V.I.C., Khekra, Meernt which was the examination centre for regular students of the Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut. When the results of the other candidates who had appeared at the Intermediate Examination of the year 1975 were declared the petitioners result could not be declared since some confusions had been created because of the change of his institution as well as his centre for the examination. The petitioner asserts that he was informed by opposite party no. 3 the Principal of the Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut that his result was incomplete and therefore it did not appear in the newspapers. He further claims that he was informed by opposite party no. 3 that he shall be intimated his result when the opposite party no. 1 sends the same to him. The petitioner took provisional admission in B.A. Part 1 in Mahamana Malviya Degree College and continued his studies there. According to the petitioner in the month of January, 1976 he was informed by opposite patty no. 3 that he had passed the Intermediate Science Examination of 1975 and the opposite party no. 3 also issued a mark sheet of the said examination to him on 24th January, 1976. According to the petitioner in the month of January, 1976 he was informed by opposite patty no. 3 that he had passed the Intermediate Science Examination of 1975 and the opposite party no. 3 also issued a mark sheet of the said examination to him on 24th January, 1976. According to this marks sheet a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to this writ petition the petitioner had secured 231 marks out of 500 marks and was entitled to be placed in the II Division. It is claimed that opposite party no. 3 also gave to the petitioner a transfer-certificate on the 23rd January, 1976 certifying his conduct and work as good and that he had passed Intermediate Science Examination in the II Division. After the issue of the said marks-sheet and the transfer-certificate provided by opposite party no. 3 the provisional admission of the petitioner was changed to a regular one. Subsequently the father of the petitioner received a letter dated 17th September, 1977 from opposite party no. 3 along with a copy of a registered letter dated 2nd September, 1977 under the signature of Sri Shyam Kishore Pal, Sahayak Sachiv of opposite party no. 1 The letter dated 2nd September, 1977 issued on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 contained the intimation that the Intermediate result of the petitioner had never been amended by the Office of the opposite party no. 1. A copy of the above mentioned letter has been filed as Annexure 4 to this petition. A perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 2nd September, 1977 discloses that it was sent in reply to some communication dated 13th July, 1975 from the Principal of the Government Inter College, Meerut in connection with the petitioner s examination of the year 1975. By means of the same letter opposite party no. 1 directed the Principal of G.V.I.C., Khekra Meerut, to send to the Sahayak Sachiv the forged document along with the cover on the basis of which the petitioner had obtained mark-sheet disclosing that he had been successful at the Intermediate Science Examination conducted by the opposite party no. 1 in the year 1975. On these allegations the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing opposite party no 1 to issue a certificate of Intermediate Examination of 1975 held by the opposite party no. 1. 1 in the year 1975. On these allegations the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing opposite party no 1 to issue a certificate of Intermediate Examination of 1975 held by the opposite party no. 1. There is a further prayer for issue of a writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature of mandmus, directing the opposite party no. 1 not to cancel the result of the petitioner of 1975 Intermediate Examination held by it and to treat the petitioner as having passed the said Examination in accordance with the marks sheet issued to him. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Principal of the Government Inter College, opposite party no. 2 as well as are on behalf of the opposite party no. 1. The affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 has been verified by the Deputy Secretary of the Parishad. In the counter-affidavit of Sri Banshi Dhar Pandey it has been asserted in para 4 that the result of the petitioner Rahul who had been allotted Roll no. 35539 could not be initially declared since it was incomplete due to the change of the centre of his examination. Afterwards the result was completed it was sent through a registered letter dated 18th September, 1975 to the Principal of Rajkiya Inter College, Meerut. According to this result the petitioner had failed in Mathematics and was entitled to appear at the supplementary examination to be held in the year 1975 in that subject. It has been positively asserted in the counter affidavit that no amendment was ever made in the marks-sheet of the petitioner by the officer of he Parishad and no marks sheet had in fact been issued by the opposite party no. 1 to the petitioner. It has been stated that if an" marks-sheet was obtained by the petitioner it was on the basis of a forged document. In para 9 of this counter-affidavit it has been stated that no such letter-dated 29th November, 1975 was ever sent by opposite party no. 1 intimating to the other opposite parties that the petitioners result had been altered as a consequence of re scrutiny of the petitioners answer-script. 4. In para 9 of this counter-affidavit it has been stated that no such letter-dated 29th November, 1975 was ever sent by opposite party no. 1 intimating to the other opposite parties that the petitioners result had been altered as a consequence of re scrutiny of the petitioners answer-script. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as standing counsel who represented the Parishad The standing counsel has also placed before us all the relevant documents relating to the petitioners case, the basic contention on behalf of the petitioner is that since the Principal of Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut acted as an agent of opposite party no. 1 assuming that the marks-sheet issued to the petitioner was inaccurate the petitioner having acted upon it and having passed the B.A. Previous Examination the Principle of promissory estoppel applied and it was no-longer open to opposite party no. 1 not to treat the petitioner as having been successful at the Intermediate Examination held in the year 1975. From the material that has been placed before us in original it appears that in the transfer certificate obtained by the petitioner when he was delivered his marks-sheet by the Principal of Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra Meerut it was noted that the petitioner had passed the Intermediate Examination in the II division on the basis of a letter issued by opposite party no. 1 dated 29th November, 1975. The register sent by opposite party no. 1 containing the marks of various candidates who had appeared at the examination was produced by the standing counsel before us. According to the register of marks the petitioner had secured 26 marks in total in three Mathematics papers. Subsequently a letter dated 29th November, 1975 was received by the Principal of Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra Meerut purporting to have been issued by opposite party no. 1 intimating to him that as a consequence of the rescrutiny of the petitioners answer script he had secured 49 marks and had passed in 11 division. A mere perusal of the letter dated 29th November, 1975 discloses that it is a forged document. Whatever was written in the letter in original was erased out with a ball pen and it was written out that the petitioner had secured 49 marks in total as a consequence of the rescrutiny of his answer script. A mere perusal of the letter dated 29th November, 1975 discloses that it is a forged document. Whatever was written in the letter in original was erased out with a ball pen and it was written out that the petitioner had secured 49 marks in total as a consequence of the rescrutiny of his answer script. Even the original date of the letter has been scored at and has been interpolated. The entire claim of the petitioner is founded on this letter of 29th November, 1975. As is clear on the basis of this forged document the Principal of Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Meerut issued marks-sheet to the petitioner and in such circumstances in our view the principle of promissory estoppel can have no application. Though the petitioner asserts that the genuine marks as intimated by the Parishad were never intimated to him it is difficult to believe that this was so. It is significant that apart from the petitioner no one food to gain anything on the basis of the forged document dated 29th November, 1978. There Is thus no equity operating in favour of the petitioner also. The agency of the Principal of the Mahamana Malviya Inter College, Khekra, Meerut extended in issuing a marks-sheet on the basis of the marks intimated by the Parishad to the Principal. Since the letter dated 29th November, 1975 was never sent On behalf of the Parishad the Principal of the College cannot be said to have acted as an agent of the opposite party no. while issuing the marks-sheet on the basis of an alleged rescrutiny of the petitioners answer script who had not even applied for a scrutiny. He is in our judgment not entitled to any relief. 5. In the result this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It will be open to the petitioner to apply to the Parishad to permit him to appear at a supplementary examination if the rules of the Parishad so permits. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.