JUDGMENT A.P. Misra, J. - Anil Kumar Shukla filed the present writ petition seeking the cancellation of order dated 2nd December, 1982, passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Gorakhpur University, which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. By means of this order petitioner was directed to appear again for both the III semester and IV semester examinations. The stand of the University is, to pass M.Sc. (Part II) it is necessary that a candidate should pass both the semesters in the same academic year. 2. The petitioner appeared in the M.Sc. (part I) in Zoology from the Gorakhpur University both in the first semester and the second semester in the year 1979 with Roll No. 9662. The petitioner after passing M.Sc. (part I) also appeared in the third semester examination of M.Sc. (part II) in the year 1980 and obtained pass mark in this semester with Roll No. 1263. In the fourth semester of M.Sc. (part II) the petitioner did not appear in any of the papers and was shown as absent. The case of the petitioner is that he could not appear because of his illness. Subsequently, the petitioner alleged that for the IV semester examination of the year 1981 he deposited both the college and examination fees with the affiliated college, namely, Kashi Naresh Government Post graduate college, Gyanpur, Varanasi, on 4th May, 1981. According to the case of the petitioner this was sent by the Principal of the said college to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University. When the said examination was going to be held, petitioner found that the university neither sent his admit card nor allotted any roll number. However, the Principal of the said college on his own allotted him Roll No. YNS 1. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner appeared in all the papers of the fourth semester in the year 1981. When the marksheet of the petitioner of the aforesaid semester was not issued and his result was withheld, he made a representation to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University stating all the aforesaid facts and further claimed that since he has passed the third semester his result of M.Sc. (part II) be declared after taking into consideration of his marks of fourth semester. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order. 3. (part II) be declared after taking into consideration of his marks of fourth semester. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the stand of the University that every student has to pass both the semester examinations third and fourth in the same academic year is unsustainable. According to the petitioner, since he passed the third semester in the year 1980 and even if he appeared in the fourth semester in the next year (1981), then on that account alone his result for M.Sc. (part II) cannot be cancelled. His further case is that once he was permitted to deposit both the college and examination fees and was permitted to appear by the Principal in the said examination the respondents are estopped from refusing to declare the result of the petitioner. In other words, the claim of the petitioner is that on these facts the principle of estoppel will be applicable as against the respondent University and thus the impugned order dated 2nd Dec. 1982, is liable to be quashed and a direction be issued to declare his result. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Gorakhpur University. Notice was also served on respondent No. 3, viz. the Principal of the aforesaid college, but he did not appear. The stand taken by the answering respondents is that the course for M.Sc. in the subject concerned is spread over a period of two years consisting of M.Sc. part I and M.Sc. part II, each of one years duration. However, for convenience of the students each part is divided into two semesters and both the said two semesters constitute the examination of one part of the M.Sc. course, namely M.Sc. part I (prey) and M.Sc. part II (final). Their further case is that there are in all eight theory papers and two practicals which are conducted in each part. Thus, four theory papers and one practical are in each semester. It was admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner passed the third semester of M.Sc. part II in the year 1980. However, since he did not appear in the fourth semester of M.Sc. part II in the year 1980 he was declared failed. Thus, four theory papers and one practical are in each semester. It was admitted in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner passed the third semester of M.Sc. part II in the year 1980. However, since he did not appear in the fourth semester of M.Sc. part II in the year 1980 he was declared failed. According to the stand of the University as per regulations it is incumbent on a student to complete two semesters in one academic year and if he fails in the fourth semester of part II he cannot claim to appear in the next session only in fourth semester. In such a situation he will be declared failed for M.Sc. part II and will have to appear again both for III and IV semesters. According to the case of the University this division of papers and semester was only for convenience of students, so that they may not be burdened at the end of each year of M.Sc. Examination (Part I and Part II). Their further case is that the examination form as required under the rules was never received in the office of the University and thus question of allotting any roll number or issuing admit card to him does not arise. The answering respondents further contended in their supplementary counter affidavit that a student is declared as pass or fail after end of each part of the M.Sc. Examination, i.e. after the conclusion of two semesters and not on the basis of one semester only. In other words, their case is that the examination of one separate semester does not have any individual identity. It is only after considering the marks obtained in each paper and the practical of both two semesters taken together, his result is declared either to have passed or failed in M.Sc. part I or M.Sc. part II. The petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit denied the case taken by the University both in law and on facts. They further said that the Principal of the aforesaid college did send the form of the petitioner and then it was the duty of the University to have scrutinised the examination forms and in case the University failed to do so it will be deemed that the petitioner was allowed by the University and principle of estoppel will be fully applicable as against the University. 5. 5. In fact, the petitioner has raised two points for consideration by this court, viz. (i) Result of each semester is separately declared and it cannot be said that a student must complete both the semesters either of M.Sc. part I or M.Sc. part II in the same academic session. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that a student can appear in the second semester in another year of the same part. (ii) Once the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination, after giving him the roll number, the University cannot withheld the result, on the principles of estoppel. 5A. For deciding the first question raised by the petitioner it is necessary to refer to the Ordinances of Faculty of Science in Zoology : "Regulation II: A candidate will be assigned division on the combined result of Previous and Final Examination on the following basis : First Division 60% and above Second Division 48% and above but below 60% Third Division 36% and above but below 48% The M.Sc. course shall comprise 4 semesters. The course for I and II semesters shall be imparted in M.Sc. Previous and the courses for III and IV semesters shall be imparted in M.Sc. Final. An Examination shall be conducted at the end of each semester. Each semester examination shall comprise four theory papers carrying 50 marks each and a practical test carrying 100 marks. The candidates shall have to secure a minimum of 24% marks in each paper and in practical and to secure a minimum of 36% marks in the aggregate, separately in theory and practical in the first two semesters and in the last two semesters taken together. The grading of successful candidates shall be done on the overall performance in written and practical examinations over the four semesters as prescribed in University Ordinances." In order to decide this controversy it is necessary to examine the intention from these regulations whether it is to split M.Sc. degree into four parts or it is only splited into M.Sc. Part I and Part II with two semesters examinations in each academic year. In this context it is necessary to quote para 2 of the aforesaid ordinances. "A candidate who after passing the M.Sc. degree into four parts or it is only splited into M.Sc. Part I and Part II with two semesters examinations in each academic year. In this context it is necessary to quote para 2 of the aforesaid ordinances. "A candidate who after passing the M.Sc. (Previous) Zoology examination of the University, has completed a regular course of study for one academic year in the Teaching Department of the University shall be admitted to the Final Examination for the degree of Master of Science in Zoology." The aforesaid Ordinances and regulations make it clear that M.Sc. Course consists of M.Sc. previous and M.Sc. final and the course of M.Sc. final has to be completed by the students within one academic year. It is not disputed in this case that the academic year is always the same year during which the course of study of either M.Sc. previous or final is imparted. The stand taken by the University is fully supported by the aforesaid Regulations and the Ordinances that if a student joins either M.Sc. previous or M.Sc. final he has to complete the two semesters of previous and final courses in the same academic year. It is only for the convenience of the students, the subjects taught are divided in the two semesters of the same academic year so that he has not to appear in all subjects at the end of the year but could appear in two separate semesters in the same year. It also makes it clear that it is only after passing the M.Sc. previous a student is admitted to M.Sc. final and in order to pass a student has to secure minimum 24% marks in each paper and in practical with minimum of 36% marks in aggregate in the two semesters of that year. 6. A similar question arose in the case of Umesh Chandra Pathak v. Gorakhpur University 1982 UPLBEC 553 : 1982 UPLT NOC 65. In this case the question was whether the cancellation of second semester of LL.B. part II could amount to the cancellation of both the semesters or only one semester. The Court held that the examination of one separate semester does not have any individual identity and the contention of the petitioner that the result of only second semester could be cancelled, was rejected. The Court held that the examination of one separate semester does not have any individual identity and the contention of the petitioner that the result of only second semester could be cancelled, was rejected. The relevant para 19 in the aforesaid case is reproduced below : "Counsel for the petitioner next argued that as the petitioner was found copying in the II Semester of LL.B. part II, his result of that semester could alone be cancelled. We do not find any merit in this submission. The entire course of LL.B. is spread over a period of three years called three part of LL.B. (LL.B. part I, LL.B. II, and LL.B. III). The examination of each part is treated as one examination. However; for the sake of convenience of the students that the examination of each year is taken in two semesters. It is a convenient way or method of dividing the subject of study. The examination of separate semester does not have any individual identity. No separate result of any semester is declared and the result of each part is declared only when the two semesters of that part if over. Ordinances and Regulations of Gorakhpur University dealing with this matter is reproduced below: "2(a) The examination for the degree of Bachelor of Law shall be in six semesters and the course of study shall be spread over three academic years. (b) The first two semester examinations shall together constitute the LL.B. part I examination and the next the semesters examinations shall together constitute LL. B. part II Examination. The last two semester examinations shall together constitute LL.B. part III Examination. 3. A candidate shall be awarded the degree of Bachelor of Law after he has been declared successful at all the three examinations- i.e. LL.B. part I, II and III separately. 4. The result of a candidate for the LL.B. .parts I, II and III Examinations separately shall be declared on the basis of the aggregate of marks obtained by the candidate at the two semester examinations of each academic years." From the above, it is demonstrated that the submission has no merit." In view of this the petitioners' contention in respect of the first point has no merit and is not acceptable on the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. 7. Petitioner then vehemently raised his second point that after giving him the Roll No. and permitting the petitioner to appear in the IVth Semester examination in the year 1981, the University authorities are estopped from questioning the validity of his appearance in this examination. Before dealing with the legal aspect of this contention, it is necessary to look into the facts in the present case. According to the petitioner's case he deposited his fees for the IVth semesters examination with the Principal of the aforesaid college and the Principal sent the same to the University. Since the University did not allot Roll No. nor issue any admit card to the petitioner, the Principal of the college allotted him Roll No. YNS-1 for the said IV semesters. It is also the case of the petitioner that in any case the Principal was acting as an agent on behalf of the University and thus the principle of estoppel will be applicable as against the university. The answering respondent, University of Gorakhpur in the counter-affidavit specifically pleaded that the examination form of the petitioner was not received in the office of the University and thus the question of allotment of any Roll No. or issuance of admit card does not arise. On these facts without going into the legality of the principles of estoppel, it is clear that no estoppel could be made out as against the University since it has neither issued the Roll No. nor the admit card to the petitioner. The Principal of the said college on his own issued the Roll No. and permitted the petitioner to appear. It was neither on the basis of any authority either under the rules or regulations nor on the basis of any direction or communication sent by the University. It is only in cases where either the University itself or under its authority a person is admitted to any course or is permitted to appear in the examination, the principle of estoppel could be pleaded. In the present case on the facts it is clear that the petitioner was not issued any admit card or Roll No. by the University nor the petitioner could show any authority under which the Principal acted on behalf of the University. Similar question arose in the case of Sukhpal Singh Sharma v. Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University 1982 UPLBEC 603: 1982 All LJ 1021. Similar question arose in the case of Sukhpal Singh Sharma v. Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University 1982 UPLBEC 603: 1982 All LJ 1021. There also the college got the fees deposited and permitted the petitioners to appear in the examination and a contention was raised that since the college is an agent of the Gorakhpur University, the University is estopped from contending that the admission of the petitioner was illegal. Relevant para 14 of the said case is quoted hereinafter : "So far as the Sakaldiha college is concerned, counsel for the petitioners submitted that its position was that of an agent of the University and even if the representation had not been made by the University directly or indirectly, the petitioners had definitely acted on the representation of the Sakaldiha college, hence the University was estopped from changing its position on account of the representation made by its agent. We do not find any merit in this submission as well. Agency of the Sakaldiha college was in respect of only some of the matters which were governed by the Act, Rules and Ordinances. The College had no authority to act on its own against the directions and orders of the Gorakhpur. University. Any representation, therefore, if was made by the Sakaldiha college against the directions of the Gorakhpur University or in contravention of law, the same would not be binding on the University and would, thus not confer any right on the petitioners. The question of the authority of any agent at the very core of the agency is of relationship. For being an agent of person must have authority express or implied to act on behalf of another person (the Principal) and to bind that other person by his acts or defaults. A person who has no authority, therefore, of the Principal cannot be considered to be an agent. Such an authority cannot be exclusively expressed beyond the limits of the operation of law." 8. For this part of his case the petitioner relied upon a case reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University. In that case the student was allowed to appear in LL.B. part II Examination by the University itself and was only subsequently when it was revealed that his attendance was short, the said examination was cancelled. The facts in that case were entirely different than the facts in the present case. In that case the student was allowed to appear in LL.B. part II Examination by the University itself and was only subsequently when it was revealed that his attendance was short, the said examination was cancelled. The facts in that case were entirely different than the facts in the present case. It was on these facts the Supreme Court held that after permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination later even if it was found that his attendance was short, then on that basis alone the result of the petitioner could not be cancelled. In our case the University never permitted that petitioner to appear in the examination. In fact it is the petitioners' own case that neither the admit card nor Roll No. was issued by the University. 9. The petitioner next relied on the case reported in 1983 UPLBEC 226 : ( AIR 1983 All 378 ), Bundelkhand University v. Laxmi Narain Yadav. This case is also of no help to the petitioner. In this case the principle of estoppel was invoked on the facts which were different from the present case. In that case the respondent failed in B.Sc. part I and then applied for revaluation of his marks. Simultaneously he also filed the form for B.Sc. part I in the forthcoming examination. However, the University declared him successful and gave him a fresh marks sheet. It is on this basis the petitioner did not appear in the B.Sc. part I examination and applied for appearing in B.Sc. part II examination. The University admitted him in B.Sc. part II and also permitted him to appear in the B.Sc. part II examination. In that case later the University found that the revaluated marks sheet given by the petitioner for appearing in the B.Sc. part II was forged and thus he cancelled his examination. The finding in that case was also in favour of the petitioner. The stand of the University that the marks sheet was forged, was also not believed. 10. Petitioner next relied on the case reported in 1983 UPLBEC 296, Kailash Chandra v. University of Lucknow. In that case the examination form was submitted to the University through the Principal of the college. However, in that case the petitioner appeared because his forms were accepted by the Lucknow University itself. Thus this case also does not lend any support to the petitioner. In that case the examination form was submitted to the University through the Principal of the college. However, in that case the petitioner appeared because his forms were accepted by the Lucknow University itself. Thus this case also does not lend any support to the petitioner. In fact in that case the University neither contested the points raised nor filed any counter-affidavit. In view of this it could not be said that any controversy of law was decided. 11. On the other hand, the answering respondent, University relied in the case reported in 1983 UPLBEC 468 : ( AIR 1983 All 281 ), Atul Kumar Singh v. State of U. P. In that case even though the admit card was issued to the petitioner from the office of the Kanpur University treating him to be a candidate in the reserved category, yet he was not given admission to the M. B. B. S. course. In that case admittedly the University issued admit card but later it was detected that he could not be a candidate of reserved category. The principle of estoppel was pleaded in that case relying on the aforesaid AIR 1976 SC 376 but the contention was repelled by this Court. in view of this even petitioner's second point is devoid of any merit. 12. Having found both the points raised by the petitioner as unsustainable in the eyes of law, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs on parties.