ORDER 1. These two writ petitions Nos. 1927 of 1981 and 8733 of 1981 have been filed by Mukul Chand Pandey against the Vice-Chancellor and Chairman of the Academic Council, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Naini Tal (hereinafter referred to as the Agriculture University), for a Writ of Mandamus directing the said respondent and all others concerned to permit the petitioner to continue his studies as a regular student of Bachelor of Science, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. Another relief claimed in Writ-No. 8733 of 1981 is for certiorari quashing the order of the University dated December 31, 1980, annexed as Annexure T to the writ petition. Both the writ petitions, in fact, involve the same controversy, and facts are also common, hence both of them are being decided by means of a single judgment. 2. The petitioner passed the High School Examination in 1975 with 47.2% marks in Group-Khan and, thereafter, he passed the Intermediate Examination in 1978 with 45.6% marks. The petitioner applied for admission in Bachelor of Science, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Course, in the Agriculture University. The admission in the said course was to be made in order of merit on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examinations laid down for each Degree programme. According to the Brochure for Under-Graduate students of 1978-79, in which year the petitioner had applied for admission, the minimum marks for admission required were 55% in aggregate in Intermediate Agriculture/Science with Mathematics. As stated above, the petitioner had applied for admission to the Degree Course in the Agriculture University in the year 1978 for the Academic Session 1978-79, but could not secure admission as his merit rating according to the marks obtained in the Intermediate Examination, which was the qualifying examination, was very low', being 45.6%. According to the Brochure, a candidate who obtained less than 55% marks was not eligible to he admitted to the Degree Course. Thereupon, Sri D. C. Pandey, father of the petitioner, who was an employee of the Agriculture University, made an application to the Vice-Chancellor requesting him to permit the petitioner to study as "Non-degree student'. The request of the petitioner's father was duly considered by the Vice-Chancellor, and vide letter dated 22-11-1978 from the office of the Registrar, the petitioner was allowed to be registered as "Non-degree student" in the First Trimester in the year 1978-79. The request of the petitioner's father was duly considered by the Vice-Chancellor, and vide letter dated 22-11-1978 from the office of the Registrar, the petitioner was allowed to be registered as "Non-degree student" in the First Trimester in the year 1978-79. It was made clear to the petitioner that his admission as non-degree student would not confer any right on him to get regular admission to any Degree Course Programme in the University. 3. In the next year, i.e. 1979-80. no regular student for Degree courses was admitted and in the interest of the students, who were mostly the wards of the University employees, the Academic Council in its meeting held on July 21, decided to carry on the studies of those students who had been permitted to study as non-degree students in the previous year. On this decision being taken, the petitioner was also permitted to continue as non-degree student. The letter by which the petitioner had been permitted to do so is dated July 28, 1979, and is annexed as Annexure 'CA-2' to the counter affidavit in Writ No. 1927 1981. Paragraph 4 of the said letter intimated to the petitioner in clear terms that the ' permission to continue as non-degree student would not give him any preference 1, in admission, if and when it was made. For regular admission, he would have to compete with others and would have to fulfil the prescribed qualifications for that year. 4. In the academic session 1980-81, the petitioner applied for admission in the month of July 1980, but was not found eligible due to poor percentage of marks obtained by him in the Intermediate Examination, hence no admission letter was issued to him. The last admission made in V the year 1978-79 was at 63%, whereas in f 1980-81 the last admission was made of a candidate who had secured 65.55% marks in the qualifying examination, i.e., Intermediate Examination. 5. Like the petitioner, many others had also applied for admission, but as they could not compete on merit, they withdrew from the University. However, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining admission in the said academic year and carried on his studies in the same. Subsequently, when it was revealed to the University that admission had been procured by the petitioner on misrepresentation of facts, that the order dated 31-12-1980 cancelling his admission was issued to him. However, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining admission in the said academic year and carried on his studies in the same. Subsequently, when it was revealed to the University that admission had been procured by the petitioner on misrepresentation of facts, that the order dated 31-12-1980 cancelling his admission was issued to him. Thereupon, the petitioner came to this Court and filed Writ No. 1927 of 1981. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ, the petitioner filed Writ No. 8733 of 1981 for permitting him to continue his studies in the First Trimester of the year 1981-82. In both of these cases the petitioner obtained stay orders and continued his studies on that basis. The petitioner's main assertion is that since he had been admitted in the academic session 1980-81 as a regular candidate, he was entitled to continue and, as such, the order cancelling his admission on 31-12-1980 was illegal. The petitioner's claim further is that since he had been admitted in 1980-81, he was entitled to continue his studies in subsequent years also in the capacity of a regular student. 6. The Agriculture University has filed counter-affidavit in both of these, writ petitions and has denied that the petitioner's admission in 1980-81 was either regular or legal and valid. The application of the petitioner for admission had been rejected on account of his marks being 45.6% whereas the last candidate admitted had 65.5% marks in the qualifying examination. The Agriculture University has asserted that although the petitioner's admission had been refused, but fraudulently and by concealing the correct facts he succeeded in deceiving Dr. T. R. Rathore, who was Assistant Professor in the Department of Soil Science and was entrusted to take care of registration of his Advisee. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and he considered the affidavits exchanged between them. For the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 the petitioner was permitted to study as a non-degree student. Counsel for the petitioner, however. attempted to make out a case in respect of these two years by asserting that the petitioner was entitled to get weight age in determining the merit, being the son of an employee of the University. For the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 the petitioner was permitted to study as a non-degree student. Counsel for the petitioner, however. attempted to make out a case in respect of these two years by asserting that the petitioner was entitled to get weight age in determining the merit, being the son of an employee of the University. It was further alleged that 5% seats had been reserved in the Agriculture University for the year 1978-79 for the sons and daughters of the University employees and the petitioner, therefore, was entitled to be admitted as against the reserved quota of the said year. Similar argument was made with respect to the year 1979-80. We do not find any merit in this submission. 8. The petitioner had all along been permitted to study as a non-degree student and, in fact, his own father had in Nov. 1978 requested the Vice-Chancellor to permit the petitioner to join as a non-degree student which he did in that year. In the next year also, i.e. 1979-80, since no regular admissions had taken place, the Academic Council had permitted to continue all those who were continuing their studies in the previous year as non-degree students. Having continued as a non-degree student, it is not open to the petitioner now to assert that he was entitled to be treated as a regular student in these two years. This was never the case of the petitioner. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the fact of not being taken in the aforesaid two years as a regular student, he should have made a grievance of the same earlier. The fact that he did not do so and applied for admission in the year 1980-81 as a regular student shows that the plea taken by him is an afterthought and has no legs to stand. There was no reason for the petitioner to have applied for admission as a regular student in 1980-81 had he been admitted as such in the previous two years. Since the petitioner studied in these two years as a non-degree student and did not join the course as a regular student, he cannot be given any relief in the present petition on that basis. 9. Coming to the question of 1980-81. Since the petitioner studied in these two years as a non-degree student and did not join the course as a regular student, he cannot be given any relief in the present petition on that basis. 9. Coming to the question of 1980-81. it may be pointed out that the last student admitted on merit had 65.5% marks whereas the petitioner had only 45.6% marks in the qualifying examination. Even if the petitioner was given the weight age claimed by him, he could not get the admission in the said year. From para 35 of the counter- affidavit, it appears that Regulation 55, which provided for weight age, had been amended, and according to the amended Regulation, not more than one weight age was admissible to any candidate. This would show that even if the petitioner's claim of weight age is accepted for this year, he was not entitled to get admission. As a matter of fact, the petitioner's writ petition is based on the assertion that he had been given the admission on his own merits in that year and, as such he was entitled to continue and finish his studies. It has already been pointed out by us above that the petitioner misrepresented the correct facts to Dr. T. R. Rathore and succeeded in getting himself admitted. What appears to be true is that Dr. R. P. Tripathi, Assistant Professor, Soil Science, had been designated as Advisor and he continued to advise the petitioner throughout the academic session 1979-80. He however, proceeded on leave to U.S.A. and in his place Dr. T. R. Rathore was entrusted to take care of the registration of his advisee. Taking advantage of the fact that Dr. T. R. Rathore was not aware of the full facts, the petitioner misrepresented to him on the basis of the result card of the Third Trimester of 1979-80. He concealed the fact that in that year he was permitted to study as a non-degree student. When Dr. R.P. Tripathi returned from U.S.A., true facts were revealed. Thereupon, Dr. R. P. Tripathi submitted a report to the Academic Council stating the fraudulent manner in which the petitioner had obtained the admission from Dr. T. R. Rathore in the academic session 1980-81. The Academic Council considered the report of Dr. R. P. Tripathi. When Dr. R.P. Tripathi returned from U.S.A., true facts were revealed. Thereupon, Dr. R. P. Tripathi submitted a report to the Academic Council stating the fraudulent manner in which the petitioner had obtained the admission from Dr. T. R. Rathore in the academic session 1980-81. The Academic Council considered the report of Dr. R. P. Tripathi. Being of the opinion that the petitioner could not be given any benefit of the fraudulent registration obtained by him by concealing the correct facts, the Academic Council decided to cancel the registration of the petitioner on 30th December, 1980. The order of the Academic council is eminently just and correct. The admission of the petitioner had been made on the fraudulent representation made by him. He intentionally concealed the truth for the purpose of inducing Dr. T. R. Rathore and succeeded in obtaining a wrong order of registration from Dr. T. R. Rathore. Dr. Rathore assumed the facts represented to him by the petitioner to be correct and under a misunderstanding in his mind, he registered the petitioner. The admission of the petitioner since \ it was obtained by deceitful practice, he cannot be given the benefit of the same. t 10. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had not made'any misrepresentation and his admission could not 'be cancelled on that ground. We are unable to accept the submission. It is apparent from the assertion made in the counter-affidavit that the admission of the petitioner was made in ignorance of the correct facts and under a belief of existence of a material fact which did not exist. 11. Some argument was made by the petitioner for permitting him to continue his studies, even if the admission had been procured by him fraudulently and by misrepresentation of facts. Counsel urged that interest of justice required Mandamus to be issued to the Agriculture University for enabling the petitioner to conclude his studies. We do not agree with this submission. To do so would be to put a seal to a fraudulent act of a student and permit him to derive benefit of the same. In Wallersteiner v. Moir (1974 (3) All ER 217 at page 223), Lord Denning remarked : "It was Lord Bacon in his essay on Judicature who said "the principal duty of a Judge is to suppress farce and fraud". In Wallersteiner v. Moir (1974 (3) All ER 217 at page 223), Lord Denning remarked : "It was Lord Bacon in his essay on Judicature who said "the principal duty of a Judge is to suppress farce and fraud". As part of this, it is the duty of a Judge to denounce wrongdoing when it is established befofe him. He speaks for all law abiding citizens. His words uphold the opinion of the good. And shake the confidence of the wicked. By condemning wrongdoing, he enforces the moral sanction on which law and order so much depend". 12. Before concluding, we wish to note that from 1981-82, the system of admission has been changed. Admissions are now made on the basis of entrance examination and not on the marks secured at the qualifying examination like previous years. The petitioner knew in December 1980 that the truth had come to the notice of the University authorities. He should have then appeared at the written test for getting admission in 1981-&2. If the petitioner did not do so, he has to thank himself. 13. For the reasons given above, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. The stay orders in both the petitions are discharged.