JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - The petitioners, numbering fifteen, are students and had passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Secondary School Certificate Examination Board, Poona, Maharashtra State, Bombay. In 1973, they appeared in the Intermediate examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad, from Victoria Intermediate College, Agra, as private candidates. According to the petitioners, they were declared successful and mark sheets were issued to them. After having been declared successful, the petitioners took their admission in B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. classes of the Bombay and Poona Universities. The Registrar, Bombay and Poona Universities, consequently, asked them to submit their migration certificates from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P., Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The petitioners approached the Board for the said migration certificates. The Board now refused to issue the migration certificates to the petitioners on the ground that the results of the petitioners have not been declared, as such, they are not entitled to the issuance of the migration certificates. The petitioners, consequently, filed the present writ petition in this Court on 15th Oct. 1974. The petition was admitted and on 4th Nov. 1974, the following interim order was passed : - "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I direct that the respondents may issue migration certificates to those petitioners who, according to the Board, have passed the Intermediate Examination. The issuance of the migration certificates shall be subject to the final decision of this petition. The migration certificates will be issued within a week from today." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed us that after the passing of the interim order by this Court, migration certificates had been issued by the Board. The petitioners pursued their studies in higher classes and, thereafter, have passed out from the various colleges and, thereafter, have taken their independent vocation in life. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners having been permitted to appear at the Intermediate Examination held by the Board in the year 1973 and mark sheets having been issued to the petitioner, it was not open to the Board to retain the migration certificates. 4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5. The Board has filed a counter affidavit. 4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 5. The Board has filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the case taken up by the Board is that the petitioners' application forms for permission to appear in the examination were found defective by the Board, as the domicile certificates filed by certain petitioners were found defective and some petitioners did not file the domocile certificates at all. The only irregularity pointed out by the Board was the non-compliance of the Board's Regulation 10(4) of Chap. XII. The further case of the Board is that since the applications of the petitioners were found defective, the results of the petitioners have not been declared and that the petitioners were not given permission to appear at the examination. 6. We have examined Annexures 1 to 10' filed with the petition. These annexures are the mark sheets given to the petitioners. In these mark sheets, roll numbers have been allotted to the petitioners and it is not disputed that the petitioners had appeared at the examination. It is, therefore, clear that the defence set up by the Board, that it did not permit the petitioners to appear in the examination, is against the record. Once the petitioners were allotted roll numbers, it is apparent that the petitioners were permitted to appear in the Board's examination. The question as to whether the results were declared or not is a matter in dispute, which, in our opinion, is not relevant for decision in the present controversy. 7. Regn. 10(4) of Chap. XII of the Regulations framed by the Board under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is as follows : - "No candidate, who, being a permanent resident of another State, has not been temporarily residing in Uttar Pradesh for at least two years at the time of submission of his application form, shall be eligible for admission as a private candidate to an examination of the Board. (This condition may be relaxed in favour of those candidates whose guardians have migrated from other States)." 8. Sub-cl. (4), quoted above, provides that no candidate shall be eligible for admission to an examination if he has not been temporarily residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh for at least two years at the time of submission of his application form. This restriction is applicable at the time of admission to an examination. Sub-cl. (4), quoted above, provides that no candidate shall be eligible for admission to an examination if he has not been temporarily residing in the State of Uttar Pradesh for at least two years at the time of submission of his application form. This restriction is applicable at the time of admission to an examination. If once a candidate is permitted to appear at an examination, the rigour of sub-cl. (4) ceases to have any effect on the ultimate result which has to be declared by the Board. The words used in the Regulation permitting relaxation to a candidate to appear in the examination in certain circumstances clearly indicate that the Regulation is only directory and not mandatory. It is open to the Board not to permit a candidate to appear at an examination if he is not residing in the State of U. P. for at least two years, but once the permission has been granted to appear at the examination by virtue of this rule, the result of that examination cannot be withheld. 9. As we have already found above, roll numbers were allotted to the petitioners and they were permitted to appear in the examination. The Board could enforce the provisions of sub-cl. (4) before they took the decision to permit a candidate to appear at an examination. Once permission to appear at the examination was granted, the result could not have been withheld under sub-cl. (4). Since the petitioner's results could not have been withheld by the Board, the action of the Board in refusing to issue the migration certificates is also without authority of law. 10. In the result, we allow the petition, issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Board to declare the results of the petitioners and issue the migration certificates to them. In case the migration certificates have already been issued, as stated by the petitioners, they shall be treated as valid in law. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.