JUDGMENT S.K. Choudhuri, J. In this writ application under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges that part of the order dated 15th September 1980 contained in Annexure-6 by which the examination of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a regular student of Govindpur High School, Garhwa, district Palamau and appeared in the annual Bihar Secondary School Examination of the year 1980, after admit card had been issued to him. The reason mentioned for cancellation of his examination in Annexure-6 is that as he was not registered in the office of the Board, the examination of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. According to the petitioner the deposited the requisite registration fee on 20th May 1979 with the Head Master of the school. He has claimed that the said deposit was made under Annexure-1. Annexure-l is a photostat copy of the receipt showing deposit of Rs. 5/- as the registration fee, and Annexure-If A is another photostat copy of a receipt dated 22.11.1979 which shows that the necessary examination fee was deposited. He has also annexed as Annexure-5, a copy of the letter written by the Headmaster to the petitioner's lawyer which was given in reply to the pleaser notice. In that letter the Head Master has stated that the petitioner was a regular student of the school and had to appear at the annual examination of the Board of the year 1980, and for that purpose he deposited Rs.5/-, but as the petitioner could not come to the office of the school for signing the form, his signature was not obtained in the registration form which was to be sent to the Board office, It has been further stated in that letter that in the beginning of October, 1979 this mistake was detected and steps was taken in this regard and an assurance was also given by the authorities of the Board to the guardian of the petitioner that the petitioner's registration will be done. The letter further says that the last date for .registration was 10th of October, 1979, and on 1st of October 1979, the office of the school sent the required registration form after getting it completed, to the Examination Board. The letter further says that the last date for .registration was 10th of October, 1979, and on 1st of October 1979, the office of the school sent the required registration form after getting it completed, to the Examination Board. According to the statement of the Headmaster as appeared in the letter (Annexure-5), it appears that as the registration certificate was not received till the filling up of the form for the annual examination, therefore, on 28th November 1979, fresh registration forms with late fees were sent in respect of seven students including that of the petitioner along with bank draft dated 26th November. 1979 and in anticipation of the registration, fees and forms of the petitioner along with other six students with examination fees were also sent to the Board and thereafter, admit card was issued and the petitioner appeared along with those students. It further shows that the draft which was lent along with the registration forms of the petitioner and six other students were, however, returned by the Examination Board by its letter no. 4012 dated 16th January, 1980. The Headmaster has expressed his feeling in favour of the petitioner by expressing in that letter that the school authorities tried its best to get the aforesaid work done and the representation was also sent to the Examination Board, but it failed and/or neglected to fulfil the just and legal demand of the petitioner, and cancelled the result of the petitioner by its letter no. 3058 dated 15th September 1980. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 the Secretary of the Bihar School Examination Board and respondent no. 3 the Assistant Secretary (south Chotanagpur), Bihar School Examination Board. In that counter-affidavit, they have denied receipt of the registration fees before the bank draft was sent and which was returned by the Board. It will be relevant to state that in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the admit card had been issued to the petitioner through inadvertence because of the pressure of the work. S. Mr. S.B. Sinha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that having issued the admit card to the petitioner and having allowed the petitioner to appear at the annual examination of the year 1980, the Board had no jurisdiction to withhold the result of the petitioner. S. Mr. S.B. Sinha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that having issued the admit card to the petitioner and having allowed the petitioner to appear at the annual examination of the year 1980, the Board had no jurisdiction to withhold the result of the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon Regulation 17 of Chapter IV of the Bihar School Examination Board's Regulation, 1964. Regulation 17 of Chapter IV reads thus:- "17. Issue of Admit Cards.-(a) On receipt of the application for candidates to appear at the Board's Examination, the Secretary shall after satisfying himself that all the requirements for admission to the examination have been fulfilled issue an Admit Card in the prescribed form in favour of the candidate and send the same to the Head master or Principal concerned or to the Superintendent of Centre at which the candidate will be appearing at the examination. (b) The Head Master or the Principal or Centre Superintendent to whom Admit Cards are sent shall issue the cards to the candidates concerned; provided nothing has happened since the submission of the application form by the candidate to debar or disqualify any candidate from appearing at the examination. (c) If the Head Master or Principal or Centre Superintendent withholds the Admit Card of any candidate he shall immediately return the same to the Secretary giving his reasons for withholding it". This Regulation deals with the issue of admit cards by the Secretary after satisfying himself that all the requirements for admission to the examination have been fulfilled. According to the learned counsel, after the admit card is issued and the petitioner was allowed to appear at the examination, the publication of the result of the petitioner could not have been withheld on the ground of any irregularity which should have been scrutinised by the Secretary before issue of the admit card. On a plain reading of Regulation 17 of Chapter IV it appears that the submissions of the learned counsel is correct. Clause (b) of Regulation 17 speaks of a stage after submission of the application form by any candidate. On a plain reading of Regulation 17 of Chapter IV it appears that the submissions of the learned counsel is correct. Clause (b) of Regulation 17 speaks of a stage after submission of the application form by any candidate. It is nobody's case that something has happened after the application form has been submitted by the petitioner to debar or disqualify him from appearing at the examination and, therefore, the case of the petitioner comes under clause (b) Clause (c) of this Regulation says that where any admit card is withheld under clause (b) aforesaid, then the authority withholding the admit card viz., the Headmaster or Principal or the Central Superintendent, shall immediately return the same to the Secretary giving reasons for withholding it. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Admit card which was issued to the petitioner a photostat copy of which has been made Annexure-3 shows that it contains a registration number and the said column in the admit card was filled up by the issuing authority. 6. Mr. Ramnandan Sahay Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand relied upon Regulation 18 appearing in Chapter V which reads thus :- "18. Mal-practice, indiscipline, etc. In any case where it is found that the examination has been violated by error, improper conduct, or other causes or where mal-practice, fraud, or act of indiscipline or use of unfairmeans are reported to have been restored to the Board shall have the power to cancel the examination or to withhold or amend the result in such case and to take such other action as it may deem fit." A plain reading of this Regulation shows that if the examination has been violated by any error, improper conduct, or other causes or where mal-practice, fraud or act of indiscipline, or use of unfair means are reported to have been resorted to, the Board shall have the power to cancel the examination. It is, therefore, manifest that Regulation 18 has no application in the present case, as it is not the case of the Examination Board that the result has been cancelled and, or withheld under this Regulation. 6. (a) Mr. Ram Nandan Sahai Sinha during the course of his arguments referred to the counter-affidavit of respondents nos. 2 and 3, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4. 6. (a) Mr. Ram Nandan Sahai Sinha during the course of his arguments referred to the counter-affidavit of respondents nos. 2 and 3, particularly paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 3 quotes Regulation 2 of Chapter IV and paragraph 4 quotes Regulation 22(iii) of Chapter VI of the Bihar School Examination Board Regulation. As quoted in the counter-affidavit, Regulation 2 of Chapter IV reads thus :- "Eligibility of candidates : Subject to conditions prescribed under these regulations, the following class of candidates shall be eligible to be sent up for the examinations of the Board ; (a) The candidate who has attended the required course of study in the topmost class in one or more High schools for at least one session immediately preceding the examination in which he intends to appear and whose records of work and conduct are assessed to be satisfactory and who has been found fit for being sent up. (b) The candidate who has failed at the examination of the Board or could not appear therein after having been sent up and has not joined any School, on the production of a certificate of (i) good conduct and (ii) diligent and regular study from the Headmaster or from the Principal of the School last attended by him; (c) The candidate who has been duly registered by the Board under Article 22 of Chapter IV of this Regulation. Explanation: In the case of candidate who has once failed at the Board's Examination and is again admitted to a school to attend a regular Course of study in topmost class, the term 'session' means the period between the publication of results of the examinations at which he failed and the next annual examination." Regulation 22(3) of Chapter IV as quoted in para 4 of the counter-affidavit reads thus :- "22(iii) : Applications from regular candidates with requisite fee for registration duly forwarded by the Head of the Institution shall be received up to 31st March of the preceding year of the Suresh Kumar Singh Board Examination. No application for registration shall be entertained after this date." 7. Arguments of Mr. No application for registration shall be entertained after this date." 7. Arguments of Mr. Sahai Sinha is that under clause (c) of Regulation 2 a candidate has to be duly registered to become eligible to be sent up for examination of the Board and under Regulation 22(iii) such candidate should forward the requisite fee for registration through the Head of the institution which shall be received by the Board up to 31st March of the preceding year of the Board Examination. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the Examination Board rightly cancelled the examination of the petitioner. This argument, in my view has no force at all as admittedly the Board extended the date for receiving application form for registration till the 10th October 1979 and therefore the Board itself treated the provision of Regulation 22(iii) quoted above as merely directory. So far as the argument of Mr. Sahai Sinha On clause (c) of Regulation 2 is concerned, it will be apposite to mention here that in the letter of the Head Master of the School (Annexure-(5) it was admitted that registration fee was deposited with him not once but twice for sending it to the Examination Board and in proof of the same one photostat copy of the receipt dated 20.5.1979 has been made Annexure-l to the writ application. Thus no fault can be found with the petitioner that he did not deposit the registration fee within the extended time, viz., 10.10 1979. 8. It has already been discussed above that it was necessary of for the Board to scrutinise and satisfy himself that the candidate concerned has fulfilled all the requirements for admission to the examination before admit card could be issued to him. Once such admit card has been issued and the petitioner has been allowed to appear at the examination, his result cannot be withheld on the ground of alleged non-fulfilment of any requisite condition which was for the Secretary of the Board to scrutinise before issue of an admit card. Having issued admit card and having allowed the candidate to take his examination, the authority concerned would be estopped to go back to a stage before the issuance of an admit card and find fault so as to withhold the result of the examination. 9. Having issued admit card and having allowed the candidate to take his examination, the authority concerned would be estopped to go back to a stage before the issuance of an admit card and find fault so as to withhold the result of the examination. 9. The view, that I have taken, fully finds support from the decision in Shri Krishan V. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra wherein it has been held as follows :- "............It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was 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 applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear............" In this reported case the appellant was allowed to appear at the examination after fulfilling the formalities. Later on he was informed that his percentage of lectures had fallen short and therefore his candidature stood cancelled. This action was challenged to be illegal by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, but it was rejected in limine. The appellant then moved the Supreme Court of India. The appeal was allowed. 10. Another decision of this court in the case of Arkendu Sinha and others. Vs. Bihar School Examination Board and others was cited on behalf of the petitioner. This case also supports the petitioner's contention. 11. For the reasons stated above, this writ application has to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and that part of Annexure-6 by which the examination of the petitioner has been cancelled is hereby quashed. A direction is being issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to publish the result of the petitioner without any delay. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.