JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondent 2 to admit him in M.Sc. (Agricultural Botany) course for 1984-85. 2. The petitioner applied to the Principal, Sri Murli Manohar Town Post Graduate College, Ballia, for admission in M.Sc. (Agricultural Botany) course for 1984-85. He submitted a photostat copy of his marks-sheet of B.Sc. (Agriculture). According to the rules his merit index came to 54.21. The selection list is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, there were 13 seats in the general category. The petitioner was at serial No. 13 of this list. He was, however, not admitted. On 22nd September, 1984, the Committee decided to cancel the admission forms of three candidates including the petitioner for having submitted forged marks-sheet along with the admission forms. 3. We have heard Sri Yatindra Singh, teamed counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. N. Srivastava learned counsel for respondent 2. The latter has produced before us the relevant file of the petitioner. On the request of the counsel, we are deciding the petition on merits at the admission stage. 4. The petitioner's admission form has been cancelled on the ground that in the photostat copy of the marks-sheet submitted by him along with the admission form, 28 marks were shown in Vth paper. On 20th September, 1984 the petitioner gave an application to the effect that he had in fact secured 18 marks and not 28 marks and filed another copy of the marks-sheet issued by respondent 2. There were two other candidates who had submitted forged marks sheets along with the admission forms. The Committee appointed by the Principal of Sri Murli Manohar Town Post Graduate College took serious view of the matter and decided to cancel the admission forms of all the three candidates. 5. The petitioner had filed a photostat copy of the marks-sheet along with the admission form. We enquired from the learned counsel if he could produce before us the marks-sheet of which a photostat copy was filed with the form. The learned counsel informed us that the said marks-sheet was lost. As the petitioner was required to submit a true copy of the marks-sheet at the time of admission, he obtained another copy of the marks-sheet and filed the same along with his application dated 20th September 1984. The learned counsel informed us that the said marks-sheet was lost. As the petitioner was required to submit a true copy of the marks-sheet at the time of admission, he obtained another copy of the marks-sheet and filed the same along with his application dated 20th September 1984. This marks-sheet shows that he secured 18 marks and not 28 marks in Vth paper. The photostat copy of the marks-sheet makes it highly probable that 1 of 18 was overwritten and changed to `2' to make it read as `28'. 6. In the application dated 20th September 1984 given by the petitioner, there was no explanation of this overwriting. The petitioner stated that another true copy of the marks- sheets was being filed as there was mistake in the photostat copy of the marks-sheet filed earlier. Who could be interested in filing a photostat copy of a forged marks-sheet? Who could forge the marks-sheet? The office of the Principal, Sri Murli Manohar Town Post- Graduate Colleges, Ballia, could not do the forgery on the true copy of marks-sheet. There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence which pointed towards the guilt of the petitioner. 7. The rule of `fair play in action' was stated in Wiseman v. Borneman, (1969) 3 All ER 275 as: "The principles and procedures are to be applied which, in any particular situation or set of circumstances, are right, just and fair." 8. In the case of Suresh Koshy v. University of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 198 , it was held : "The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether the requirements of natural justice have been met by the procedure adopted in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case in point, the constitution of the Tribunal and the rules under which it functioned." 9. In the case of Trimbak Pati Tripathi v. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad, AIR 1973 All 1 (FB), it was held that there is thus neither any statutory requirement nor any requirement of principles of natural justice which compels the Examination Committee to give a personal hearing to the candidate. 10. In Judicial Review of Administrative Action by A. S. de Smith. 10. In Judicial Review of Administrative Action by A. S. de Smith. 2nd Edition page 174, the learned author says: "In the administrative law a prima facie right to prior notice and opportunity to be beard may be held to be excluded by implication where an obligation to give notice and opportunity to be heard would obstruct the taking of prompt action, specially action of pre-emptive or remedial nature." 11. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , at p. 629, Bhagwati J. referred to the exception as below :- "There are certain well recognised exceptions to the audi alteram partem rule established by judicial decisions and they are summarised by A.S. de Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action. 2nd Edition. at Pp. 168 to 179. If we analyse these exceptions a little closely, it will be apparent that they do not in any way militate against the principle which requires fair play in administrative action. The word `exception' is really a misnomer, because in these exclusionary cases, the audi alteram partem rule is held inapplicable not by way of an exception to `fair play in action' but because nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present or meet a case. The audi alteram partem rule is intended to inject justice into the law and it cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice, or to make the law 'lifeless, absurd, stultifying, self-defeating or plainly contrary to the commonsense of the situation.". 12. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , the rules of exclusion were considered and it was observed in para 48 p. 892 : "The exceptions to the rules of natural justice are a misnomer or rather are but a shorthand form of expressing the idea that in those exclusionary cases nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present or meet a case." 13. In Bihar School Examinations Board v. Subhash Chandra Singh, AIR 1970 SC 1269 , there was use of unfair means by a vast majority of candidates at a centre. The Board cancelled the whole examination. The Supreme Court held that opportunity to represent their cases was not required to be given to all the candidates. 14. In this case the petitioner had already given his version in his application dated 20th September 1984. The Board cancelled the whole examination. The Supreme Court held that opportunity to represent their cases was not required to be given to all the candidates. 14. In this case the petitioner had already given his version in his application dated 20th September 1984. The true copy of the marks-sheet which was forged and of which photostat copy was filed with the aimission form had been lost. The petitioner obtained another true copy of the marks-sheet which shows that he had obtained `18'and not `28' marks in Vth paper. It is apparent that the first digit of `28' in the true copy of the marks-sheet was overwritten before the photostat copy was prepared. Filing of a forged marks-sheet with the admission form is a serious matter. It had to be put down by a firm hand. Stern action was called for immediately. It was already the third week of September and the next candidate in the waiting list had to be called upon to join. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not make any submission explaining as to how overwriting on `2' of `28' was made in the true copy of the marks-sheet before getting a photostat copy prepared. This is a case in which 'nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present or meet a case'. 15. We are, thus of the opinion that impugned order is not vitiated on account of failure to afford an opportunity to the petitioner as it is covered by the exception to the rule of `audi alteram partem'. 16. The petition is dismissed with costs to respondent 2.