JUDGMENT :-This is a defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to declare the result of the plaintiffs examination in B.Sc. Part II held by the Bundhelkhand University. 2. Shortly stated, the plaint case was that the plaintiff was a regular student of B.Sc. part II (M) Section in the Bipin Behari Degree College Jhansi in the year 1978-79. He appeared at the Special Final Examination of B.Sc. Part II in the year 1979. The said college is affiliated to Bundhelkhand University, Jhansi and it is the examining body. According to the information received by the plaintiff he had duly passed the aforesaid Special Final Examination of B.Sc. Part II but his result had been withheld allegedly on the ground that the petitioner had procured his admission to the final B.Sc. Part II examination on the bask of a forged mark-sheet which he had obtained in collusion with some clerk of the defendant University, according to which mark-sheet the plaintiff had passed B.Sc. Part I examination when, in fact, he had failed at that examination. The plaintiff had, however, duly passed the B.Sc. Part I examination, as a result of the revised marksheet which was issued to him upon re-evaluation of his marks in the subject of Chemistry. In the first instance the plaintiff had been declared to have failed at the B.Sc. Part I examination held in 1979. However, the plaintiff applied for reevaluation of his papers in Chemistry as a consequence of which he was declared to have passed the said examination. In addition to applying for reevaluation of his papers in Chemistry, the plaintiff had also submitted the form for B.Sc. Part I of 1979 examination as an ex-student by way of abundant caution so that in the event of his not succeeding even as a result of re-evaluation he might take another chance at the B.Sc. Part I examination of 1979. However, in the meantime the plaintiffs papers were re-evalued and he was declared to have passed both in the theory as well as the practical of Chemistry. The Plaintiff was issued a revised marksheet, according to which he had passed the B.Sc. Part I examination. On the strength of the said mark-sheet the plaintiff was duly admitted to the B.Sc. Part II class as well as at the Special Final Examination of B.Sc. Part II. The Plaintiff was issued a revised marksheet, according to which he had passed the B.Sc. Part I examination. On the strength of the said mark-sheet the plaintiff was duly admitted to the B.Sc. Part II class as well as at the Special Final Examination of B.Sc. Part II. The defendant was under these circumstances estopped from challenging the correctness of the revised mark-sheet as well as from withholding the result of the plaintiffs examination in B.Sc. Part II. 3. The defence of the appellant was that at the B.Sc. Part I examination held in the year 1978 the plaintiff had obtained the following marks:- 1. Physics (theory) 31 out of 100 2. Physics (Practical) 25 out of 50 3. Chemistry (theory) 23 out of 100 4. Chemistry (Practical) 44 out of 50 5. Mathematics 69 out of 150. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for reevaluation of his papers in Chemistry at which he was awarded the following marks:- 1. Chemistry Ist paper 12 (instead of 5 obtained initially). 2. Chemistry II paper 7 (instead of 9 obtained initially). 3. Chemistry III paper 8 (instead of 9 obtained initially). 4. Thus the plaintiff had obtained a total of 27 marks out of 100 at the reevaluation in theory of Chemistry. As he had obtained less than 33 per cent marks, he could not be declared in have passed. However, somehow he got his admission in B.Sc. Part II by manipulating the mark-sheet issued to him. When the result of the Special Final Examination was being prepared, the Tabulation Chart of B.Sc. part I in respect of the plaintiff in the Chemistry II paper was found tampered with. The plaintiff was asked to produce his mark-sheet to find out the correct position but he did not submit the same. Thereupon the position was checked and it was found that in the Tabulation Chart in Chemistry II paper the figure 7 had been changed into 17. On these facts it was clear that the plaintiff had wrongly obtained admission into the B.Sc. Part II examination on the basis of misrepresentation and collusion. 5. On the pleading of the parties, relevant issues were framed by the Trial Court. The parties led evidence and on a consideration of the same the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to pass B.sc. Part II examination on the basis of misrepresentation and collusion. 5. On the pleading of the parties, relevant issues were framed by the Trial Court. The parties led evidence and on a consideration of the same the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had failed to pass B.sc. Part I examination and consequently there was no question of declaring his result of B.Sc. Part II examination. As a result, the suit was dismissed. 6. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal which has been allowed. The appellate Court formulated two questions for its consideration namely. (i) whether the plaintiff had passed the B.Sc. Part I examination and (ii) whether the respondent (defendant) is estopped from challenging the correctness of the revised mark-sheet after having permitted the plaintiff to appear at the B.Sc. Part II examination. 7. The Appellate Court considered the evidence on the record and held that the claim of the defendant that the original mark-sheet issued to the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of which he had obtained admission into the B.Sc. Part II class and subsequently the Special Final Examination of B.Sc. Part II had been tampered with or that it was not a genuine document, was incorrect. On the material brought on the record it was clear that the Original Mark-Sheet issued to the plaintiff showing that he had passed the B.Sc. Part I examination was genuine and it had not been tampered with. It also rejected the case of the defendant that the Tabulation Chart had been tampered with in the case of the plaintiff. The appellate Court observed that the Tabulation Chart produced by the defendant did not indicate any overwriting, addition or alteration in the case of the plaintiffs marks in the second paper of Chemistry. 8. The appellate Court further found that the plaintiff had been issued a genuine Mark-Sheet showing that he had passed the B.Sc. Part I examination. He hence rightly considered it unnecessary to appear at the B.Sc. Part I examination which was to be held in the year 1979. On the strength of the mark-sheet issued to him the plaintiff obtained his admission in the B.Sc. Part II class and he having been duly admitted by the defendant-University to the B.Sc. Part II examination, the University was estopped from withholding the plaintiffs result. Part I examination which was to be held in the year 1979. On the strength of the mark-sheet issued to him the plaintiff obtained his admission in the B.Sc. Part II class and he having been duly admitted by the defendant-University to the B.Sc. Part II examination, the University was estopped from withholding the plaintiffs result. On these findings the Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the plaintiff-respondents suit for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to declare the plaintiffs result of B.Sc. Part II for the year 1979. 9. Aggrieved, the defendant-University has filed this second appeal. In the second anneal the defendant had applied for stay of the operation of the Appellate Courts decree. This Court however, declined to grant any stay. As a consequence, the result of the plaintiff-respondent has since been declared and according to the result announced by the defendant-respondent, the plaintiff has passed the B.Sc. Part II examination. 10. Sri V.N. Khare the learned Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the defendant-appellant submitted that the plaintiff-respondent having obtained his admission to the B.Sc. Part II examination on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud relying on a forged marksheet issued to him, the principle of estoppel could not possibly have any application to the present case and the Appellate Court has committed an error of law in holding otherwise. In support learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 1285 , M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana . 11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the above contention. In my view, on the facts found by the Appellate Court it rightly decreed the plaintiff-respondents suit. 12. Turning to the aforesaid contention of Sri V.N. Khare, I find that the basic premise upon which it was founded, is wrong. Before the Courts below the principal issue which was raised by the parties was whether the original Mark-Sheet issued to the plaintiff by the defendant was a genuine document or it was the result of any collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants employees. The contention of the appellant University was that the tabulation chart had been tampered with in the case of the plaintiff in so far as the marks obtained by him in the second paper of Chemistry was concerned. The contention of the appellant University was that the tabulation chart had been tampered with in the case of the plaintiff in so far as the marks obtained by him in the second paper of Chemistry was concerned. The Appellate Court examined the mark-sheet issued to the plaintiff as well as the record produced by the defendant-University, including the Tabulation Chart and it has come to the conclusion that the Mark-Sheet issued to the plaintiff is perfectly genuine and that there is no evidence of any overwriting in or tampering with the Tabulation Chart - which is a record maintained by the defendant-University - itself so as to give the slightest indication that the figure 7 has been changed into 17 or to throw any doubt on the genuineness of the Mark-Sheet issued. 13. The substance of the finding of fact recorded by the Appellate Court is that the mark-sheet issued to the plaintiff being genuine and being in conformity with the Tabulation Chart maintained by the defendant-University and the plaintiff having been granted admission at the Special Final Examination of B.Sc. Part II on the strength of the own document issued by the University to him, the University must be held to be estopped from contending that the plaintiff was wrongly admitted to the B.Sc. Part II examination because he had in fact. failed at the B.Sc. Part I examination. 14. The Appellate Court has also stressed the fact that because of the revised Mark-Sheet issued in the plaintiff showing that he had passed the B.Sc. Part I examination, he did not consider it necessary to appear again at the B.Sc. Part I examination which was scheduled to be held in the year 1979. The implication is that had the plaintiff been informed in time that he had in fact failed at the B.Sc. part I examination, he would have availed himself of the opportunity of appearing at the B.Sc. Part I examination of 1979. Of such an invaluable opportunity the plaintiff has been deprived wholly on account of the representation of the University as conveyed through the Revised Mark-Sheet. 15. Even if, therefore, it be assumed that in point of fact the plaintiff had failed at B.Sc. Part I examination of 1979. Of such an invaluable opportunity the plaintiff has been deprived wholly on account of the representation of the University as conveyed through the Revised Mark-Sheet. 15. Even if, therefore, it be assumed that in point of fact the plaintiff had failed at B.Sc. Part I examination, on account of the omission or failure of the University to take adequate care in the preparation of the Tabulation Chart and the Mark-Sheet, the plaintiff, has been put in a position which is beyond repair, in that, he has, as a consequence, lost many years in the process a loss which cannot, in my humble view, be compensated in terms of money. In my view, on the facts found by the appellate court its conclusion that the defendant-appellant was estopped from withholding the plaintiffs result, is correct, and, indeed supported by good authority, including a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (Shree Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University) as well as a decision of our own Court reported in AIR 1973 All 442 (Anil Kumar Srivastava v. University of Allahabad). 16. Coming to the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff ( AIR 1980 SC 1285 ). I find that the same is clearly distinguishable. There the position was that the plea of estoppel was being set up to defeat the claim of a Municipality to levy octroi duty which had been legally imposed under the relevant statutory provisions. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the principle of estoppel was not available against the Government and its agencies in regard to the exercise of legislative, sovereign or executive power of the State. It was observed that there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislative power of the State. So the doctrine cannot be invoked for preventing the Government from acting in discharge of its sovereign duties under the law. 17. The present is, in my humble view, not a case where the plea of estoppel is being raised to prevent the Government or its agencies from exercising its legislative or sovereign functions or duties. 18. In my view the case reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (supra) is more apposite. The situation there which gave rise to the argument founded on the principle of estoppel was materially the same as in the present case. 18. In my view the case reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (supra) is more apposite. The situation there which gave rise to the argument founded on the principle of estoppel was materially the same as in the present case. In that case the University having allowed the appellant to appear at the Part II Law Examination was held estopped from cancelling the candidature of the appellant subsequently on the discovery of the fact that the attendance of the candidate was short of the minimum prescribed by the applicable statute. Upholding the plea of estoppel their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if the University authorities did not take adequate care to scrutinise the admission forms etc. at the relevant time with a view to ascertaining whether the candidate fulfilled the requirements of law and thereby granted permission to him to appear at that examination, the University ought to be held to be estopped from cancelling the candidature of the appellant. 19. The position in the present case is materially the same. The Appellate Court has found that the Mark-Sheet issued to the plaintiff was genuine and that it was in conformity with the Tabulation Chart maintained by the respondent-University. It was further found that in the admission of the plaintiff to the B.Sc. Part II Final Examination the plaintiff was guilty neither of misrepresentation nor of any collusion. On the representation therefore, as conveyed through the aforesaid Mark-Sheet that the plaintiff has passed the B.Sc. Part I examination he applied for and was admitted to the aforesaid examination and in pursuance thereof he also appeared at the said examination. Further, because of the representation made by the University, the plaintiff did not re-appear at the B.Sc. Part I examination. Lastly, like the case reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (supra) the appellant University had the opportunity of checking its records before admitting the plaintiff to the said examination and they were hence in a position to discover the mistake, if there was any. Not having done that the University is clearly estopped on the ratio of the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (supra) from withholding the plaintiff result. 20. The same view has also been taken by our own Court in the case of Anil Kumar Srivastava ( AIR 1973 All 442 ) (supra). Not having done that the University is clearly estopped on the ratio of the decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (supra) from withholding the plaintiff result. 20. The same view has also been taken by our own Court in the case of Anil Kumar Srivastava ( AIR 1973 All 442 ) (supra). It has been ruled in this case that where the University represented to an examinee of M.Sc. previous examination that he had passed that examination by forwarding to the candidate the Mark-Sheet, showing him to have been successful it could not after the candidate had completed his M.Sc. final course refrain him from appearing at that examination on the plea that in fact that the candidate had not passed the M.Sc. previous examination. The dictum fully supports the view taken by the Appellate Court. 21. My conclusion, therefore, is that on the findings of fact recorded by the Appellate Court, its decision that the plaintiff was entitled to have his result declared is perfectly correct in law, and, indeed is supported by very good authority. 22. In the premise the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.