JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners who have claimed that they have been admitted to the Course of Bachelor of Education in Sakaldiha Degree College, Sakaldiha, Varanasi, which is affiliated to the Gorakhpur University have sought mandamus directing the Gorakhpur University to permit them to appear in the practical examination of the said Course, which was then scheduled to be held between 5th and 11th of Feb., 1979. The further prayer made in this petition is for quashing the order of the Gorakhpur University dated 10th Jan., 1979 (Annexure 3') directing the Sakaldiha Degree College not to permit the petitioners to appear at the practical examination for the Degree of Bachelor of Education. 2. The petitioners were admitted in the College in the month of Dec. 1977 to the Course of Bachelor of Education. They appeared at the theory examination of the said Course in the month of Aug. 1978. They were required to appear in the practical examination in the month of Feb. 1979, but due to the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 10th Jan., 1979, they were, since prohibited to do so, hence they filed the present writ petition for the reliefs which have been narrated above. 3. The writ petition has been contested by the Gorakhpur University. The main ground taken in defence was that as the admission of the petitioners to the aforesaid Course was illegal, they had no right to appear at the examination, hence they were not entitled to any relief being given by this Court. 4. For appreciating the points involved, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act and the Rules and Ordinances made thereunder. We have already noted above that the Sakaldiha College was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University. The Gorakhpur University, admittedly, had full control over the Sakaldiha College with regard to the admission and holding of examination, etc. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of S. 28, U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, deals with admission. It provides that admissions to the Courses of Instructions for Degrees in Education, including the number of students to be admitted, shall be regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by notification in the gazette, make in that behalf. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of S. 28, U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, deals with admission. It provides that admissions to the Courses of Instructions for Degrees in Education, including the number of students to be admitted, shall be regulated by such orders as the State Government may, by notification in the gazette, make in that behalf. In exercise of the powers under S. 28(5), the State Government laid down Rules for admission to Courses of Instruction for Degrees in Education in affiliated/associated Colleges of State Universities. These Rules were made in the year 1975 and were subsequently amended in the year 1976. Rule 4 of these Rules, which is relevant, is being quoted below : "The maximum number of students to be admitted in every college shall be such as may be prescribed by the Vice. Chancellor of the University and no person shall be admitted in excess of such number in any case". 5. The next relevant rule, which has a bearing on the controversy involved in the present case, is R. 6. It provides for application for admission to Bachelor of Education class to be made in the prescribed form to be obtained from the University. The selection to the Course has to be made on the basis of marks which have to be counted in accordance with Rr. 7 and 8. Rule 9 requires the College concerned, upon receipt of the application for admission, to prepare two lists, one list for reserved seats and another list for unreserved seats, containing in order of merit qualified candidates together with necessary particulars. These lists are required to be sent to the University within one week from the last date fixed for submission of applications. The applications have to be laid before the Selection Committee, the constitution of which has been provided in R. 10. The Selection Committee, after due consideration of the lists so received and upon due verification, prepares in order of merit a list of candidates for admission. In addition to the above list, the Selection Committee also prepares a waiting-list of such candidates who have to be admitted to the College in the event of failure of a candidate included in the first list to join. Both the lists are then sent by the University to the College concerned. 6. In addition to the above list, the Selection Committee also prepares a waiting-list of such candidates who have to be admitted to the College in the event of failure of a candidate included in the first list to join. Both the lists are then sent by the University to the College concerned. 6. In accordance with R. 4 of the aforesaid Rules, the Vice Chancellor of the Gorakhpur University fixed or prescribed the maximum number of students to be admitted in Bachelor of Education Class (which is one year course) in Sakaldiha Degree College, Sakaldiha, Varanasi, as 196. Thus, in view of the prohibition contained in R. 4, no person beyond the prescribed strength of 196 could be admitted in that College. The number so fixed is on the basis of 1 : 4 teacher-taught ratio. 7. After having considered all the applications made for admission, the Selection Committee prepared two lists, one consisting of 196 names and another containing 141 names. Copies of these two lists have been filed as Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. It may be stated that the petitioner's names did not appear in either of the two lists. 8. In the background of the facts stated above, we may now take up the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners which was that as the petitioners had been permitted to appear at the theory examination held in the month of August 1978, they were as of right entitled to appear at the practical examination. Neither the Gorakhpur University nor the affiliated college had any right under the U. P. State Universities Act or the Rules and Ordinances framed thereunder to debar the petitioners from appearing at the same. The submission would be acceptable if the admission of the petitioners to the Bachelor of Education Course was legal and valid. If we find that the admission was illegal, the necessary and irresistible result would be that the petitioners could not be permitted to appear at the theory examination. With regard to the appearance of the petitioners at the theory examination, the facts are that some complaints were made to the University about the irregularities and illegalities in respect of admission in Bachelor of Education Class in the month of July 1978. With regard to the appearance of the petitioners at the theory examination, the facts are that some complaints were made to the University about the irregularities and illegalities in respect of admission in Bachelor of Education Class in the month of July 1978. A copy of this letter dated 4-7- 1978 had also been sent to the State Government whereupon the State Government forwarded the said letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University requiring him to make an enquiry with regard to the irregularities made by the College in admission of the students in Bachelor of Education Class. True copies of these two letters have been filed as Annexures CA-3 and CA-4 to the counter-affidavit. 9. Immediately thereafter, the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University sent a telegram to the College intimating that admission cards of only bona fide students had been sent, and that the principal and the Centre Superintendent (Examinations) were to be held responsible in case unauthorised students were allowed to appear. Thus, it appears that the Gorakhpur University had taken steps whatever could be done in the circumstances by sending the telegram. But. if the petitioners were still permitted to appear in the teeth of the direction of the Gorakhpur University by the Principal of the Sakaldiha College, no rights could accrue to them. What appears from the counter-affidavit is that some of the petitioners also filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the orders of the University Authorities by which the College concerned had been asked not to permit the petitioners and others admitted beyond the sanctioned strength to appear at the theory. This writ petition was numbered as writ petition No. 8568 of 1978. However, it was subsequently withdrawn. Be that as it may, the fact which we find from the affidavits exchanged between the parties, that the University had sent only 196 admission cards to the College for admitting the students. The College concerned unauthorisedly and illegally admitted the petitioners who were not even to be found in the waiting list. Their admission had not been made by the Selection Committee. These students were not recognised by the Gorakhpur University for any purpose. They were, however, permitted by the College to appear at the theory examination. The College concerned unauthorisedly and illegally admitted the petitioners who were not even to be found in the waiting list. Their admission had not been made by the Selection Committee. These students were not recognised by the Gorakhpur University for any purpose. They were, however, permitted by the College to appear at the theory examination. The College appears to us to have crossed all limits by getting the question papers cyclostyled and permitting the students beyond 196 to appear at the examination. The University had sent only a limited number of question papers for the use of 196 students. It further appears from the counter-affidavit that the University had allotted only 196 roll numbers to the students who had been admitted to the Course of Bachelor of Education, but the College Authorities illegally allotted roll numbers of its own and permitted the students beyond the limit of 196 to appear. The University did not allot roll numbers against the names of the petitioners. 10. In pursuance of the letter of the State Government dated 10th Aug. 1978, the Vice Chancellor also appointed a Sub-Committee consisting of S. D. Singh and P. K. Dubey to make enquiry in the irregularities. The Committee looked into the matter and found that the Principal had got the question papers cyclostyled and had issued forged admission cards to the petitioners and other students unauthorisedly admitting them to the course of Bachelor of Education. 11. From the facts stated above, it is demonstrated that the admission of the petitioners was in contravention of S. 28(5), U. P. State Universities Act, and the Rules made by the State Government. Their admission since was invalid they could not acquire any right by appearing at the theory examination. Section 28(5), U. P. State Universities Act, confers right on the State Government to fix the number of students to be admitted to the Course of Instructions for Degree in Education, etc. This section is mandatory and no College has a right to override the direction issued by the State Government by increasing the number of students fixed for the said Course. The number is fixed in accordance with the ratio of teachers and taught. Neither the University nor the affiliated College can increase the strength of students by admitting Students in larger number than fixed by the State Government. 12. The number is fixed in accordance with the ratio of teachers and taught. Neither the University nor the affiliated College can increase the strength of students by admitting Students in larger number than fixed by the State Government. 12. In Mahesh Pandey v. Vice Chancellor of Gorakhpur University (1981 Education Cases, 20) : (1981 UPLBEC 137), a similar controversy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The Court held that admission of any student beyond the sanctioned strength is illegal being against S. 28(5) and such a petitioner cannot claim himself to be a regular student on the basis of payment of fees and other dues. This decision of the Division Bench squarely covers the controversy involved before us in this petition. 13. The next argument advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that of estoppel. Counsel urged that as the petitioners were admitted by the Sakaldiha Degree College, which was the agent of the Gorakhpur University and had further been allowed by the University to appear at the theory examination, the respondent Gorakhpur University was estopped from contending that the petitioners' admission was illegal. The act of permitting the petitioners to appear amounted to representation which caused the petitioners to change their position by acting on the faith of it. In support of this submission, counsel further relied on the fact of payment of fee by them and the issuance of admission cards and roll numbers by the University. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Gorakhpur University it has been alleged in para 11 that collection of fees was the job of the College and it only sent consolidated fee in respect of all the classes in instalments to the University. The fact further stated is that till the date of the examination and even thereafter the University had not received any amount of fee of Bachelor of Education class students for 1978 examination from the Sakaldiha College. In respect of the admission cards and roll numbers, the stand of the University was that the admission cards had been issued only to 196 students who had been approved by the University. The University also did not give roll numbers to the petitioners. These roll numbers had been fictitiously assigned by the Sakaldiha College to the students. In respect of the admission cards and roll numbers, the stand of the University was that the admission cards had been issued only to 196 students who had been approved by the University. The University also did not give roll numbers to the petitioners. These roll numbers had been fictitiously assigned by the Sakaldiha College to the students. In view of these facts, the claim that the Gorakhpur University had made a representation to the petitioners on which they acted does not stand established. 14. So far as the Sakaldiha College is concerned, counsel for the petitioners submitted that its position was that of an agent of the University and even if the representation had not been made by the University directly or indirectly, the petitioners had definitely acted on the representation of the Sakaldiha College, hence the University was estopped from changing its position on account of the representation made by its agent. We do not find any merit in this submission as well. Agency of the Sakaldiha College was in respect of only some of the matters which were governed by the Act, Rules and Ordinances. The College had no authority to act on its own against the directions and orders of the Gorakhpur University. Any representation, therefore, if was made by the Sakaldiha College against the directions of the Gorakhpur University or in contravention of law, the same would not be binding on the University and would thus not confer any right on the petitioners. The question of the authority of an agent at the very core of the agency is of relationship. For being an agent, a person must have authority, express or implied to act on behalf of another person (the principal) and to bind that other person by his acts or defaults. A person who has no authority, therefore, of the principal cannot be considered to be an agent. Such an authority cannot be exclusively expressed beyond the limits of the operation of law. 15. It is settled and needs no elaboration that there can be no estoppel against law. If, therefore, the Sakaldiha College acted illegally and against the directions of the Gorakhpur University, which has been demonstrated above, the Gorakhpur University cannot be compelled by us by a direction to declare the results of the petitioners by treating their admission as lawful. 16. It is settled and needs no elaboration that there can be no estoppel against law. If, therefore, the Sakaldiha College acted illegally and against the directions of the Gorakhpur University, which has been demonstrated above, the Gorakhpur University cannot be compelled by us by a direction to declare the results of the petitioners by treating their admission as lawful. 16. In this regard, we may also point out that there can be no estoppel, if the party to whom the representation is made, is found not to have believed to be true, for in such a case the resulting conduct is in no sense the effect of the preceding declaration. Unless the representation of the party to be estopped has been really acted upon, no estoppel arises. The person deceived must not have only believed the things to be true, but he must have also acted on such belief so as to alter his own previous position. In the instant case, from the affidavits exchanged between the parties, we find that the petitioners knew that their admission was not legal, having not been made by the Gorakhpur University. They some how succeeded in getting themselves admitted in collusion with the College Authorities. They cannot, therefore, take advantage of estoppel. 17. Estoppel is a rule of . equity. That who wants to estop the other side from changing its position must come to the Court with clean hands. That who himself is changing its position must come to the Court with clean hands. That who himself is a party to a transaction of fraud, cannot get any advantage of the same and apply successfully rule of estoppel against him. It has been said by the Supreme Court in C.I.T. v. B. N. Bhattacharjee (1979 U.P.T.C 1244) : ( AIR 1979 SC 1725 ) that : "The soul of estoppel is equity, not facility for inequity. Nor is estoppel against statute permissible because public policy animating a statutory' provision may then become the casualty. Halsbury has noted this sensible nicety (Halsbury's Laws of England, para. 1515) : "Where a statute, enacted for the benefit of a section of the public imposes a duty of a positive kind, the person charged with the performance of the duty cannot by estoppel be prevented from exercising his statutory powers." (Maritime Electric Co. Ltd. v. General Dairies Ltd. 1937 AC 610). 1515) : "Where a statute, enacted for the benefit of a section of the public imposes a duty of a positive kind, the person charged with the performance of the duty cannot by estoppel be prevented from exercising his statutory powers." (Maritime Electric Co. Ltd. v. General Dairies Ltd. 1937 AC 610). "A petitioner in a divorce suit cannot obtain relief simply because the respondent is estopped from denying the charges, as the court has a statutory duty to inquire into the truth of a petition." (Hudson v. Hudson (1948) P. 292 : Halsbury's Laws of England para 1515). "This rule probably also applies where the statute bestows a discretion rather than imposing a duty." (Halsbury's Laws of England. 4th Edn. P. 109)." In this very case, the further observations which may be quoted with advantage are to be found in paras 62 and 63. These are : "We cannot, therefore, accept the plea that the Commissioner of Income tax by conduct and "understanding", has "irredeemably mortgaged" his statutory duty to object, if the case deserves such objection. Estoppel then is both odious and ominous and discretion the door to corruption." "Even otherwise, there must be an active representation proceeding from the functionary sought to be muzzled by estoppel and the pleading party must have acted to his detriment on the faith of the said representation or futuristic promise". 18. In Satish Kumar Rao v. Gorakhpur University (1981 Education Cases 324) : ( AIR 1981 All 377 ), a Division Bench of which one of us was a member, held that estoppel can be resorted to only as a preventive justice and should not be permitted to defeat administration of justice or to secure an undue advantage or accomplish a wrong. We are in respectful agreement. 19. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, counsel for the petitioners, cited before us Krishna v. Kurkshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ), and relying on para 7 of the judgment, urged that when the admission forms had been submitted by the petitioners, it was the duty of the University to have perused the same. Since the forms had been scrutinised by the University authorities and the petitioners had thereafter been permitted to appear the ratio of the above case applied as a result of which the University would now be estopped from changing its stand. Since the forms had been scrutinised by the University authorities and the petitioners had thereafter been permitted to appear the ratio of the above case applied as a result of which the University would now be estopped from changing its stand. The facts of the case of Krishna v. Kurkshetra University (supra) were different. In that case, the admission form of the appellant of that case had been forwarded before the examination and remained pending with the University for four months. Taking this fact into account, the Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the University to scrutinise the form in order to find out whether it was in order. Neither the Head of the Department nor the University Authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, the question of the appellant committing a fraud did not arise. In that case, therefore, it was obvious that the fraud could be discovered by due diligence. In our case, the facts are altogether different. The forms had never been forwarded to the Gorakhpur University. The Gorakhpur University had allowed only 196 students to appear and assigned roll numbers to them. Hence, the ratio of this case would not be applicable. 20. The aforesaid decision Krishna v. Kurkshetra University ( AIR 1976 SC 376 ) (supra) was considered in Kedar Lal Varma v. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education (AIR 1980 All 32) and the same was distinguished. For the reasons given in that case also, we find the same to be distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. It was emphasised in Kedar Lal case that courts of equity would not permit a statute to be made an instrument of fraud. 21. The last case referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel was Kothari Oil Products Company v. Govt, of Gujrat ( AIR 1982 Guj 107 . In this case, the view taken by the Bench was that if on a representation made by the Government or any authority on its behalf, some one has altered its position, then it is not open to the Government to resile from that stand. The decision of this case turned on its own case. There is nothing in this judgment which helps the petitioner in advancing the argument made before us. Estoppel is applied to the facts of a particular case. The decision of this case turned on its own case. There is nothing in this judgment which helps the petitioner in advancing the argument made before us. Estoppel is applied to the facts of a particular case. In the instant case, the facts being altogether different, the above decision is not applicable. 22. For the reasons given above, we find that the petitioners are not entitled to be given the relief of mandamus which has been broadly defined as writ issued from a Court commanding the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office or trust. Its primary purpose is to enforce a right and compel the performance of corresponding legal duty. It is designed to promote justice and for the furtherance of justice. It is subject to certain well defined qualifications. Taking these principles into account and the findings arrived at, we find that to compel the Gorakhpur University to admit the petitioners and to declare their results would be, in fact, calling upon it to do something illegal, whereas the purpose of mandamus is to prevent a person from doing illegal acts. 23. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The stay order is discharged.