JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This is a petition for mandamus directing the respondents to take supplementary examination of petitioner in Chemistry in the ensuing examination of B.Sc. final batch which was to commence in October 1980. 2. Petitioner alleged that he passed Intermediate in Science in II Division in 1977 and obtained admission in B.Sc. in Shibli National College, Azamgarh affiliated to Gorakhpur University. Petitioner appeared in B.Sc. Part I examination in September, 1978. On 7th Sept., 1978, he had Botany III Paper. While the examination was going on, he was suspected of adopting unfair means and his copy was taken away by the Principal and he was given a fresh copy to complete the answers. 3. It was after about a month that he was served with a show cause notice requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be penalised for using unfair means while answering question No. 1 in Botony paper. The petitioner denied this allegation. Subsequently, he was declared as having passed B.Sc. Part 1 and mark-sheet dated 14-2-1979 was also supplied to him in which he was shown as absent in paper No. Ill (Botany). Despite that absence, he secured 216 marks out of 450 and in Botany out of 150 he got 66 marks and thus he secured II Division Marks vide mark-sheet annexure 1. 4. Petitioner joined B.Sc. final and attended his classes normally and his form and fees for B.Sc. final examination was also accepted and he was permitted to appear in B.Sc. final examination held in Sept. 1979. He appeared in that final examination the result of which was declared in the first week of Jan. 1980. However, when the petitioner went to obtain his mark-sheet, he was informed by the Principal that his result had been withheld by the University. He had obtained 218 out of 450 marks but in theory paper of Chemistry, he failed, so he was entitled to appear in supplementary examination which was held in Feb. 1980. Petitioner was not permitted to appear in the aforesaid supplementary examination as the Principal refused to forward his form alleging that his result had been withheld. Petitioner rushed to Gorakhpur University and met the Assistant Registrar but in vain. Thus his full year of B.Sc. final was wasted. The order refusing him not to appear in B.Sc. supplementary examination was arbitrary and unjust : 5. Petitioner rushed to Gorakhpur University and met the Assistant Registrar but in vain. Thus his full year of B.Sc. final was wasted. The order refusing him not to appear in B.Sc. supplementary examination was arbitrary and unjust : 5. A counter-affidavit dated 25th Nov. 1980 by Sri Adbhut Prasad was filed on behalf of the University to controvert these allegations. 6. It was given out that while appearing in Botany III paper of B.Sc. Part I examination on 6th Sept. 1978, the petitioner was caught using unfair means and so his copy was taken away. He was found in possession of a hand-written and sketched piece of paper. That piece of paper was found underneath his answer-book and he was copying a diagram from the said piece of paper. 7. He was served with a charge sheet dated 20th Jan. 1979 with two charges. The first charge related to the copying while the second charge was about the refusal to offer explanation when the Invigilator required the petitioner to give his explanation and statement in Form Pa. 3. He was again required to submit his explanation by 4th Feb., 1979 and it was also made clear that in case the petitioner required to appear before the sub-committee, he may specifically say so in his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation. On 3rd Feb., 1979 and denied the charges. He did not seek personal hearing. 8. The roll number of the petitioner in B.Sc. part I for the year 1978 was 20100. His result was declared on 12th Feb., 1979. In the list of candidates whose results were withheld for using unfair means in the examination, the petitioner's roll number was also there. His result was not declared. Mark-sheet dated 14th Feb. 1979 relied upon by the petitioner was a manipulated one which was never issued to the petitioner by the University. 9. It was further maintained that petitioner manipulated to obtain admission in B.Sc. Part II. The University was not at all concerned with such admission. He submitted his examination form for appearing in B.Sc. Part II with incorrect entries showing that he had passed B.Sc. Part I examination in 1978 with roll No. 20100. The form was forwarded by the Principal of Shibli National College, Azamgarh permitting the petitioner to appear in B.Sc. final examination on account of such misrepresentation made by him in his examination form. Part II with incorrect entries showing that he had passed B.Sc. Part I examination in 1978 with roll No. 20100. The form was forwarded by the Principal of Shibli National College, Azamgarh permitting the petitioner to appear in B.Sc. final examination on account of such misrepresentation made by him in his examination form. His result of B.Sc. Part II had been withheld as the petitioner's B.Sc. Part I marks had not been verified till then. 10. The sub-committee decided the matter of the petitioner about using unfair means on 21-6-1979. Under that verdict, his result for B.Sc. Part I of 1978 had been cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in 1979 examination. This decision was duly communicated to the petitioner by letter No. 3714 dated 28th June, 1979. It was incorrect that petitioner was entitled to appear in the supplementary examination. 11. By an amendment application dated 23rd Dec., 1980, it was alleged by the petitioner that the order of University authorities cancelling his B.Sc. Part I examination 1978 and debarring him from appearing in 1979 examinations was to be set aside and the opposite parties be directed to declare the result of the petitioner. 12. A Supplementary counter-affidavit was filed by Sri R. S. Gupta by which the aforesaid allegations of the petitioner were traversed - Petitioner filed another affidavit on 14-4-1982. 13. The University also laid the entire file of the case of the petitioner before us at the time of arguments and a copy of Dainik Jagran Gorakhpur dated 18th Feb., 1979 showing withholding the result of the petitioner and the list of candidates whose examinations were cancelled and which was sent to the Principal concerned for notification was also filed. This list was affixed on the notice board. The name of the petitioner along with his roll No. 20100 was shown as examinee of B.Sc. Part I and his result had been cancelled. This information was sent by the Registrar, Gorakhpur University through letter No. 264-414/EC/78-79 dated 11-8-1979. 14. We have heard Mrs. R. D. Gupta, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Ratnakar Bharti advocate for respondents at length. 15. Mrs. R. D. Gupta laid much stress on the copy of the marks sheet which is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner from the Gorakhpur University through the Principal Shibli National College, Azamgarh. 14. We have heard Mrs. R. D. Gupta, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Ratnakar Bharti advocate for respondents at length. 15. Mrs. R. D. Gupta laid much stress on the copy of the marks sheet which is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner from the Gorakhpur University through the Principal Shibli National College, Azamgarh. It is reproduced as below : vuqdzekad 20100 vH;FkhZ dk uke f'kOyh us'kuy dkyst] vktex<+A fo"k; + vf/kdre vad + U;wure vad + izkIrkad ;ksx fl)kUr + iz;ksxkRed + lEiw.kZ ;ksx + ijh{kkQy th 2 + izFke iz'u i= f}rh; iz'u i= r`rh; iz'u i= Lkk0 fgUnh 100 25 + + + + + + mRrh.kZ Lkk0 vaxzsth 100 33 + + + + + + + 1&HkkSfrd fo0 izk.kh fo0 150 50 14 11 13 38 26 64 2&jlku 'kkL= 150 50 16 16 12 44 42 86 3&xf.kr 150 50 + + + + + + + 4&ouLifr 150 50 16 15 , 31 35 66 + 5&lsU foKku 150 50 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 216 450 16. Her contention was that the petitioner had duly passed his B.Sc. Part I examination as shown in the marks sheet. He was simply marked absent in Botany III paper. It was not pointed out there that his result has been withheld. 17. The contention of University is that this marks sheet was a forgery. It was never issued by the University who had already published in the Dainik Jagran Gorakhpur dated 18th Feb. 1979 showing that result of the petitioner Roll No. 20100 for B.Sc. Part I examination had been withheld. The Principal of the College was also duly informed about it. Petitioner was well aware about the circumstances under which his result had been withheld. Our attention was further invited to the Ordinances, Regulations, Text books and Syllabi of the University of Gorakhpur. Faculty of Science page 4 which was worded as below : "There shall be two examinations; one at the end of each year, the first being B.Sc. Part I examination and the second B.Sc. II Examination, Part I and Part II examinations shall be by means of papers and practical tests except in the case of Mathematics which shall be entirely by means of papers. Part I examination and the second B.Sc. II Examination, Part I and Part II examinations shall be by means of papers and practical tests except in the case of Mathematics which shall be entirely by means of papers. Candidates will be required to pass in theory and practical examinations separately in Part I as well as in Part II examination. The marks of the two examinations will be counted together for a place on the pass list of the Part II examination. No division will be assigned on the result of the Part I examination. A candidate for the B.Sc. Part II examination will be assigned division on the following basis All the rest in the Third Division if they obtain the minimum pass marks in each subject. No division shall be assigned to a candidate passing the Part II examination as a result of Supplementary Examination." 18. It was further pointed that the petitioner himself was liable to be punished for procuring such forged document without passing his B.Sc. Part I examination. He had no right to seek admission in B.Sc. part II examination. He was never permitted by the University. The alleged admission was given by the College on the basis of misrepresentation made by the petitioner in his own form. As there is nothing on record to show the genuineness of the marks sheet paper No. 8 or to show that it had been issued by the University, it is not possible to hold that this marks sheet is a genuine document which had been issued by the University of Gorakhpur and which justified the admission of petitioner in B.Sc. part II. 19. Mrs. R. D. Gupta relied upon Satish Kumar v. Secretary Board of High School and Intennediate Education, U. P. Allahabad reported in 1981 U. P. L.B.E.C. 491 in which the petitioner submitted his form to appear at the High School Examination as a private candidate on 19-11-1979. The form was accepted and the petitioner was allotted roll No. 644847. He thereafter appeared at the Examination. When he did not find his result, the petitioner approached the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and was told that as the last date for submission of form for the private candidates had expired on 31st Aug. 1979, the petitioner was not eligible to appear at the examination. Thus the Board withheld the result. When he did not find his result, the petitioner approached the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and was told that as the last date for submission of form for the private candidates had expired on 31st Aug. 1979, the petitioner was not eligible to appear at the examination. Thus the Board withheld the result. It was held in that case that such action of the Board in not declaring his result on the ground that he submitted his form after expiry of last date was not justified when his form had been accepted by the Board and he was allotted roll number and permitted to appear in the examination. The facts of that case are totally different. In the instant case, the University never permitted the petitioner to appear in the supplementary' examination of B.Sc. final, nor the form of admission of the petitioner for B.Sc. part II could have been accepted by the University but for misrepresentation by the petitioner himself who wrongly gave out in the form as having passed in B.Sc. part I, even though he was well aware about his result being withheld on account of using unfair means in Botany III paper. 20. No affidavit on behalf of any college authority was filed by the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the alleged marks sheet paper No. 8 which was alleged to be a forged document by the University. 21. Mrs. R. D. Gupta further relied upon the doctrine of estoppel against the University. Her contention was that in view of the aforesaid marks sheet and the acceptance of the form of petitioner for B.Sc. final examination and the fees deposited by the petitioner, the stand of the University was unjustified. 22. In the affidavit filed by the University, it has been explained as to how the petitioner made misrepresentation and misled the college authority. 23. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 wherein it was laid down that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. It appears that in that case the appellant was a teacher in the Government High School, Dumarkha in district Jind. The University of Kurukshetra was running law classes for three years Course and had extended the facility to persons who were in service to attend the evening classes and complete the three years course in that manner. The appellant decided to take the benefit of the facility given by the Kurukshetra University, joined the LL.B. Part I classes sometime in the year 1971. According to the University statute, a student of the Faculty of law was given the option to clear certain subjects in which he may have failed at one of the examinations before completing the three years course. The students were to appear in six papers each year. In April 1972 the petitioner appeared in the annual examination of part I but failed in three subjects, namely, legal Theory, Comparative Law and Constitutional Law of India. Subsequently he was promoted to part II which he joined in the year 1972. Under the University Statute the appellant was to appear in part II examination in Apr. 1973. On Apr. 26, 1973 the appellant applied for his Roll Number to the University in order to reappear in the subjects in which he had failed and to clear them but he was refused permission and according to the appellant without any reason. Under such circumstances. It was held that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity. 24. In the instant case, the petitioner was never permitted by the University to appear in the examination of B.Sc. Part II. The Principal of the College wan not the agent of the University nor it has been shown that he had issued the marks sheet on the basis of the marks intimated by the University to him. Obviously the petitioner himself was interested in procuring such marks sheet clearing his way for admission in B.Sc. Part II despite withholding of his result of B.Sc. Part I by the University. Under such circumstances, the equitable principle of promissory estoppel was not available to the petitioner, vide Rahul v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. Allahabad reported in 1980 U.P.L.B.E.C. 262. Part II despite withholding of his result of B.Sc. Part I by the University. Under such circumstances, the equitable principle of promissory estoppel was not available to the petitioner, vide Rahul v. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. Allahabad reported in 1980 U.P.L.B.E.C. 262. In that case also, the petitioner relied upon a forged marks sheet and it was held that without passing Intermediate Examination, he was not entitled for a certificate as his result of 1975 of Intermediate Examination had been cancelled by the Board. In the marks sheet issued to him, he was wrongly shown as having passed in the examination. 25. Mrs. R. D. Gupta further argued before us that as the petitioner was not aware of the fact and was misled by the aforesaid marks sheet, so he was entitled to the relief sought. This contention also is not acceptable to us. Petitioner himself was well aware of the correct position. The counter affidavit filed by Sri R. S. Gupta and the two annexures filed along with it on 5-4-1982 show that the petitioner was caught red handed while copying. His signature had also been obtained by the Centre Superintendent. He was also aware about withholding of his result and its cancellation and debarment from the examination 1979. There is nothing wrong in the conduct of the University which might have misled Israr Ahmad. Under such circumstances, doctrine of estoppel will not come into play as was pointed out in Kedar Lal Varma v. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education reported in AIR 1980 All 32. In that case the petitioner appeared for the High School Examination and the marks sheet granted to him showed that the marks got by him were less than that required for a pass, but in another column, he was by clerical mistake, mentioned as having passed the examination, and in such circumstances, it was held that the Board of High School Intermediate Examination was not estopped from declaring the candidate as "failed" in the examination, as the candidate must have known from the marks in the marks sheet that his marks were less than pass marks. In the instant case, the petitioner knew fully well that he has not passed Botany III paper but has been caught for using unfair means. In the instant case, the petitioner knew fully well that he has not passed Botany III paper but has been caught for using unfair means. Under such circumstances, it is not open to him to plead fraud to get over a statute which makes obligatory for him to pass B.Sc. part examination before having the relief sought by him. 26. The next contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner was that the address at which letter No. 3214 dated 28th June, 1979 could have been sent to him by the University or the College did not give full address of the petitioner. The address of the addressee is given below : "Sri Israr Ahmad, Village Nizamabad, Azamgarh." 27. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that that was the address as given by the petitioner himself on his admission form. Moreover, he submitted his explanation dated 3-2-1979 in which he denied the said charges and after the consideration of the same, he was intimated about the penalty through the Principal of the college according to the prescribed procedure. So this contention also is t repelled. 28. The last contention put forward by Mrs. R. D. Gupta was that the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. 29. The petitioner was already punished by marking him absent in Botany III paper and no mark was given to him in that paper and his result was cancelled without hearing him. This argument has no force. In his affidavit filed on 5-4-1982, Sri R. D. Gupta in para 5 enumerated the circumstances in which the petitioner was caught red handed while copying from a slip which wail recovered underneath the answer book. His case was also reported to the examiner. He was duly served with both the charges and submitted his own explanation rebutting them. We have perused that explanation of the petitioner which did not impress the sub-1 committee at all and it awarded punishment as provided by S. 29 of the U. P. State Universities Act (U. P. Act No. X of 1973 1 a supervisory body, we see no ground to interfere as the order of the sub-committee is recorded on good evidence. It did not contravene any statutory provisions of law nor it is violative of principles of natural no animus has been suggested nor mala fides have been pleaded. It did not contravene any statutory provisions of law nor it is violative of principles of natural no animus has been suggested nor mala fides have been pleaded. The enquiry has been fair and the petitioner has had an opportunity of making his defence. 30. On a perusal of the relevant answer book we have found that there is evidence to sustain the finding recorded by the Examination committee of the Board. Under these circumstances there is absolutely no occasion for us to interfere as was held in Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad reported in AIR 1966 SC 875 and Ghazanfar Rashid v. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education reported in AIR 1979 All 209 : (1979 All L J 676) (FB). 31. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed as devoid of force. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.