JUDGMENT : D.A. Desai, J. - The appellant, Baldev Raj Kaushal, was admitted as B.Ed. Trainee to the D.M. Training College at Moga in July, 1966. It appears that he contested the General Election from Ferozepur Assembly Constituency and in the process absented himself from the lectures with the result that he did not attend the required minimum number of lectures. There was a shortfall in attendance. Subsequently, on February 25, 1967 the appellant applied for readmission to the College which application-was accepted by the Principal and consequent upon the admission he issued the circular in the following terms on August 1, 1967. It reads as under : "Baldev Raj (appellant here) is a regular student of B.Ed. Class and all the professors are requested to mask his presence in the respective registers." 2. The professors taking various lectures marked his presence and the appellant asserts that the professors in charge of the lectures certified that the appellant attended the required minimum number of lectures. This averment is borne out by a statement of attendance which is to be found at page 79 of the additional documents placed on record. The appellant has also produced a letter dated November 21, 1967 (p. 78 of the additional documents) addressed by the Principal of the College to the Officer-Superintendent General, Punjab University wherein he stated that the University should permit the present appellant to appear in B.Ed. Examination as a special case as he had already completed his lectures. The appellant was required to fill in an admission form for entering the examination hall and it appears that 2 at the back of this form the Principal made an endorsement that the appellant attended the college from July 1966 to December 1966 and provisionally in August-September 1967. This runs counter to the specific statement in the letter dated November 21, 1967. As a result of this endorsement, though the appellant appeared in the examination, 3 his result had been withheld on the ground that the internal assessment of the appellant had not been forwarded by the Principal and also on the ground that the Principal had recorded a certificate on the back of the admission form of the appellant, that the appellant had attended the College from July 1966-December 1966 and provisionally in August- 3 September 1967. The petitioner has also produced an endorsement forwarded to the University which reads as under : "The petitioner has completed deficiency in the lectures and that his admission form may be accepted B.Ed. (April) 1968 Examination." 3. Inspite of this the result of the appellant had been withheld. The appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 2417/69 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh impleading thereto the Punjab University, Mr. R.P. Garg, Principal of the D.M. Training College of Education, Mr. Iqbal Singh, Assistant Registrar, Punjab University and the 4.' Registrar of the Punjab University as respondents 1-4 respectively. The only prayer in the Writ Petition of which note must be taken is that the respondent be directed to declare the result of the petitioner if necessary, after obtaining the internal assessment from the Principal. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed 50 the Writ Petition of the appellant in limine. Thereupon the appellant moved this Court under Article 136 seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court. This Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why the delay should not be condoned and special leave granted. It appears that the respondents are utterly indifferent to the case and have presumably lost all interest in the matter. Even though an opportunity was given by this Court they did not appear. Consequently this Court by its order dated February 15, 1971 granted special leave to appeal and condoned the delay. Hence this appeal by special leave. 4. Even after the writ of lodgment of appeal was served upon the respondents, none of them appeared and the appeal is accordingly required to be heard exparte. 5. The facts of the case have been set out and we need not repeat the allegations of the petitioner. The only ground on which his result is withheld is that he had not completed the required number of lectures and his internal assessment has not been forwarded to the University. The first ground is utterly untenable in view of the letter dated November 21, 1967 in which the Principal informed the University to permit the appellant to appear in B.Ed. examination in April, 1968 because he had already completed his lectures. The first ground is utterly untenable in view of the letter dated November 21, 1967 in which the Principal informed the University to permit the appellant to appear in B.Ed. examination in April, 1968 because he had already completed his lectures. The endorsement extracted above buttresses the conclusion that the appellant had attended required number of lectures and therefore the Principal recommended to the University to accept his admission form. This is clearly borne out by the endorsement of the Principal. Therefore, the appellant had to be admitted to the examination on the basis that he had completed all the requisite pre-conditions for admission to the examination. That having been done unless a case is made out to the contrary, the result has to he declared. 6. Though the respondents did not appear the appellant informed us that the result had been withheld on the ground that he was not eligible to appear at the examination as he was short of lectures and his internal assessment had not been forwarded by the Principal. There is no substance in the assertion that the appellant has not fulfilled the required number of lectures, a fact admitted by the Principal himself. On the question of internal assessment, ten years have rolled by and if the internal assessment has not been forwarded no importance could be attached to it. Therefore, we find no impediment in the way of the University declaring the result of the appellant, 7. We accordingly allow this appeal and issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Punjab University to declare the result of the appellant in respect of the B.Ed. Examination, 1968 in which he had appeared as early as possible and not later than four 'weeks from today. Respondent No. 1 shall pay the costs of the appellant quantified at Rs. 500/-. Security deposit made by the appellant towards cost be refunded to him by the Registry.