JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - The two petitioners are Kumari Sadhana and Satyabir Govind Kao. They were the students of junta Intermediate College, Ramkola. Kumari Sadhan was a student of Class X and had to appear in her High School Examination while Satyabir Govind Rao was a student of -final year in the Intermediate Classes. By an order of the Principal dated 24-12-1979 both the petitioner? were expelled from the college. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Principal, the two students have filed these writ petitions. 3. The case of the respondents is that the two petitioners misbehaved and therefore, the Principal sent a letter dated 21-12-79 addressed to their father asking him to show cause as to why the children should not be expelled from the college, but no reply was received to the notice and, therefore, the Principal passed the impugned order expelling the students. 4. The petitioners averred that the so-called show-cause notice dated 21-12-79 was never served on them. The Principal of the college has not filed a copy of the communication sent by him to the pa.eats of the two students. The averment of the petitioners is that no show-cause notice was ever served. As it would appear from the counter-affidavit, the charges against the two petitioners were not specified being vague. Admittedly, no particular of mis-behaviours were given to the petitioners requiring them to show cause against the proposed order expelling them from the college. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Chaubey v. Principal, Bipin Behari Intermediate College, AIR 1953 All 90 in which the Division Ranch had held that there was no right in a student to continue his education in a particular institution where the Principal did not allow him to continue in the second term. The Bench went on to hold that since there was indiscipline on the part of the student of the college, this Court would not interfere with the action taken by the Head of the Institution in the interests of discipline. 6. The Bench went on to hold that since there was indiscipline on the part of the student of the college, this Court would not interfere with the action taken by the Head of the Institution in the interests of discipline. 6. This decision relied upon by Sri G.P. Bhargava was expressly overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gajadhar Prasad Misra v. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Allahabad, AIR 1966 All 477 where it was held that the Vice-Chancellor while taking a disciplinary action against a student, functioned in a quasi judicial capacity in inflicting punishment upon a student for the breach of the rules. 7. In this case, we find that no proper opportunity was given to both the petitioners by the Principal before expelling them from the college. 8. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2271 of 1980 is allowed and the impugned order of the Principal dated 24-12-1979, is quashed. 9. We are informed that the result of the petitioner no. 2, Satyabir Govind Rao, has been announced and he has passed the Intermediate Class. So no further orders are required in his case. As far as Kumari Sadhana is concerned her High School result was not declared though she was permitted to appear in the High School Examination under the orders of this Court. In view of the fact that her expulsion has been set aside, there would be no difficulty for the respondent no. 2 in declaring the result of Kumari Sadhana. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent no. 2 to declare the result of Kumari Sadhana.