FAIZANUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 31-5-86 and 26-6-1986, Annes. P-4 and P-6 respectively, passed by the respondent University and conveyed by its Deputy Registrar, withholding M. A. (Final) result of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner's result for M. A. (Final) linguistic examination, held is April/may 1986. ( 2 ) THE petitioner took admission in M. A. (Previous) linguistic in the year 1984, in the respondent-University and became a regular student of the said University. He appeared in M. A. (Previous) Examination held by the University in 1985 and as per his Mark-sheet (Ann.-P-1) the petitioner was declared successful. However, for the final year the petitioner applied for permission to appear as a private candidate in the examination to be held in 1986. The petitioner was granted permission for which an admission card (Ann.-P-3) for the said examination was issued to him. Consequently, the petitioner appeared in M. A. (Final) examination of the University held in April/may 1986 but without any reason or rhyme his result has been withheld as per orders dated 31-5-1986 and 26-6-1986, copies whereof have been filed as Anns.-P-4 and P-6 respectively, which are hereby challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) THE respondent-University has opposed the petition by filing its return. In the return, although it has been accepted that the petitioner had appeared as a regular candidate of the University in M. A. (Previous) examination 1985 and was declared successful in the same, but it has been alleged that subsequently it was discovered that the petitioner, in fact, was in the regular employment and working as a Lecturer since 1984-85 in Mahatma Gandhi Intermediate College, Sultanpur (U. P.), which is at a distance of about 500 Kms from Sagar and it was practically impossible for him to attend the classes in the academic year 1984-85 while prosecuting his studies in M. A. (Previous) in the University at Sagar. It has been further alleged that by virtue of the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 6 of the University, it is necessary for a regular student to have at least 60% attendance to his credit in order to make himself eligible to appear in the examination. It has been further alleged that by virtue of the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 6 of the University, it is necessary for a regular student to have at least 60% attendance to his credit in order to make himself eligible to appear in the examination. But as the petitioner was serving at Sultanpur he could not have secured 60% attendance in M. A. (Previous) and, therefore, he was not eligible to appear in M. A. (Previous) as a regular student and that an enquiry against the petitioner is pending in this behalf before the respondent No. 2 (Head of the Department, University of Sagar ). ( 4 ) FURTHER case of the respondent University is that according to Cl. 13 (1) of Ordinance No. 6, it is a pre-requisite condition for a Non-Collegiate Candidate (Private Candidate) for any examination of the University that he should be a bona fide resident of a District within the territorial jurisdiction of the University or should have been residing on the date of submission of his application form for admission to an examination for at least 12 months in a place situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the University. But the petitioner was regularly working as a Lecturer on a permanent post since prior to 1984-85 and even thereafter and he never resided within the territorial jurisdiction of respondent University nor he submitted any certificate to this effect. On the contrary the petitioner left the necessary column unfilled in his application form (Annx.-R-2) and thus suppressed the material facts. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner was not eligible to appear as a private candidate in M. A. Final Examination also and as such his result has been rightly withheld. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has denied all the adverse allegation of the respondent-University by filing a rejoinder supported by an affidavit. In the rejoinder the petitioner has submitted that he availed of all the leave due to him in order to attend the classes in M. A. (Pre.) during 1984-85 as per certificate Ann.-P.-C (sic) dated 4-8-1986 of the Principal of the institution where he was serving. In the rejoinder the petitioner has submitted that he availed of all the leave due to him in order to attend the classes in M. A. (Pre.) during 1984-85 as per certificate Ann.-P.-C (sic) dated 4-8-1986 of the Principal of the institution where he was serving. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that once the petitioner was issued the admission Card and allowed to appear in the examination, then it must be presumed that the petitioner had fulfilled all the eligibility requirements and the defficiency, if any, has been condoned and therefore, the respondent-University cannot be permitted to turn round and withhold the result of the petitioner on the ground that he was not having 60% of attendance. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-University contended that the petitioner had committed a fraud by not disclosing the fact that he was in regular employment at Sultanpur (U. P.) a distant place from Sagar and it was not in any way possible for him to attend the classes in M. A. (Pre) at Sagar. Reliance was placed on Bal Krishna Tiwari v. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa ( 1978 MPLJ 172 ) and Alakhnanda Garg v. Jiwaji University Gwalior, 1979 MPLJ 637 . ( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions it would be useful first to look into the relevant provisions contained in the University Ordinance, University Ordinance No. 6 deals with the examinations (general), the sub-clauses (1) to (5) (sic) of which deal with percentage of attendance in order to be eligible for appearing in any examination. Clause 6 (1) provides that a candidate shall submit an application in the prescribed form, for admission to the examination through the Principal of College/head of the University Teaching Department which according to Cl. 7 (1) shall be forwarded to the Registrar of the University. Further Cl. Clause 6 (1) provides that a candidate shall submit an application in the prescribed form, for admission to the examination through the Principal of College/head of the University Teaching Department which according to Cl. 7 (1) shall be forwarded to the Registrar of the University. Further Cl. 7 (iii) of Ordinance No. 6 provides that the Principal of the College or Head of the University Teaching Department concerned shall send to the Registrar at least three weeks before the commencement of the examination concerned three separate lists, namely, List 'a' of those candidates who attended at least 75 per cent of lectures; List 'b' of those candidates whose attendance is short by not more than 15% for condonation by the Kulapati, the Principal or the Head of the University Teaching Department and List 'c' of those candidates whose shortage of attendance exceeds 15% and who are to be debarred from appearing at the examination. ( 8 ) FURTHER, if after scrutiny a candidate is found eligible to an examination having fulfilled all the pre-requisites, the Registrar under Cl. 21 (1) of Ordinance No. 6, shall issue an admission card in favour of the candidate for appearing in the examination. It would be relevant to refer to sub-cl. (iii) or Cl. 23 of Ordinance No. 6 which provides that the Executive Council may cancel the examination of a candidate and/or debar him from appearing at an examination, if it is discovered afterwards that the candidate had obtained admission to the examination by misrepresenting facts or by submitting false or forged certificates/documents. ( 9 ) NOW, in the present case, admittedly the petitioner was a regular student of the respondent-University in M. A. (Previous) in the academic session 1984-85. Admittedly the petitioner was issued admission card for appearing at the examination as regular candidate and that he did appear in M. A. (Previous) examination held by the University in 1985 and as per Ann.-P.-1 the petitioner was declared successful. There is also no controversy that the petitioner had applied in time to the Registrar in the prescribed form, through the Head of the University Teaching Department, for admission to M. A. (Previous) examination to be held in April/may 1985 in accordance with the provisions contained in Cl. 6 (i) read with Cl. There is also no controversy that the petitioner had applied in time to the Registrar in the prescribed form, through the Head of the University Teaching Department, for admission to M. A. (Previous) examination to be held in April/may 1985 in accordance with the provisions contained in Cl. 6 (i) read with Cl. (i) of Ordinance No. 6 There is also nothing on record to show nor it has been so asserted by the respondent University that the Head of the University Teaching Department concerned had sent to the Registrar List 'c' containing the name of the petitioner as one of those candidates whose shortage of attendance exceeded 15 percent and for that reason he had to be debarred from appearing at the examination. 9-A. Thus, as seen above, there being no dispute whatsoever in respect of the material facts, it would be reasonable and legitimate to draw the legal inference that the Head of the University Teaching Department concerned must have forwarded the application of the petitioner for admission in M. A. (Previous) examination to the Registrar of the University with the recommendation that the petitioner had prosecuted a regular course of study with required percentage of attendance, possessed good conduct and was fit to present himself at the examination in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-cls. (i) and (ii) of Cl. 7 of Ordinance No. 6. If in fact, the petitioner was not found to have possessed all the aforementioned prerequisites and necessary eligibility conditions he would not have been issued the admission card at all and, therefore, it has to be further presumed that all official acts leading to the grant of an admission card to the petitioner for appearing at the M. A. (Previous) examination must have been duly performed in accordance with the Ordinance No. 6 and the default, if any, found to exist on the part of the petitioner it was condoned by the authorities concerned. In almost similar facts and circumstances, in the case of Pretish Chandra Dutta v. University of Sagar, 1973 MPLJ 740 this Court relying on earlier Division Bench decision in the case of Purshotam Das v. Board of Secondary Education, AIR 1962 Madh Pra 3 which squarely applies to the case before us also, took the view that when a candidate has been allowed to appear in the examination, it must be taken that he had fulfilled all the requirements for admission to the examination. ( 10 ) PLACING reliance on the decision in the case of Purshottam Das (Supra), it was again reiterated by another Division Bench, in the case of Premji Bhai Ganesh v. Vice Chancellor, Ravishanker University, AIR 1967 Madh Pra 194 that the final certificate certifying the requisite attendance of a candidate, must be issued before the admission card to examination is issued and if any recommendation for condonation of deficiency in attendance is made it has to be done before the issuance of admission cards. But once the admission cards are issued, permitting the candidates to take their examination there is no provision in the Ordinance which could enable the concerned authority to withdraw the permission. It was further held that having permitted a candidate to appear for the examination, it is not open to withdraw that permission subsequently or to withhold the result of that candidate. Again, in the case of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 , it was observed that before issuing the admission card to a student it is the duty of the Head of the Department and University Authorities to scrutinise the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it is in order and had complied with all the requirements. But if neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. On these reasonings the Supreme Court held that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then thestatute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. This view was followed by yet another Division Bench of this Court in Jogendra Singh v. Vikram University Ujjain, AIR 1982 Madh Pra 202. Applying this principle, it has to be held that when the petitioner was given the admission card by the University, it must have been so granted because the petitioner has fulfilled all the requirements for admission to the examination and the defaults, if any, were condoned by the authorities competent to do so and therefore, the University is not justified In withholding the result of the petitioner. ( 11 ) THE decisions in the case of Balkrishna, AIR 1978 Madh Pra 86 (FB) and Alakhnanda, 1979 MPLJ 637 (Supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent University do not advance the case set up by the University as said decisions stand on different footing and on the different facts. No Rule, Regulation or any Statute or Ordinance was pointed to us by the learned counsel for the respondent-University to show that it was incumbent on the petitioner to show or state that he was in regular appointment anywhere nor there was any column in the admission form to make a mention of the same. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of any material facts. The petitioner also did not make any misstatements. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any fraud on the University authorities, which could probably enable the authorities to withhold or cancel his result. As regards the objection that the petitioner had not filed any certificate showing that he was a bona fide resident of a District within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent-University and, therefore, he was not eligible to appear as a private candidate M. A. Final examination, it has no merit at all for the reason that the respondent-University itself has filed a photo-stat copy of admission Form of the petitioner in which at page 2 it is printed that the certificate of bona fide residence is not necessary to be filed by those candidates who have already passed main examination of the University in 1985. As discussed above, the petitioner had already appeared in M. A. (Previous) as a regular candidate of the University in 1985 and as per marks-sheet (Ann.-P-1) he was declared successful and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to produce the said certificate. As discussed above, the petitioner had already appeared in M. A. (Previous) as a regular candidate of the University in 1985 and as per marks-sheet (Ann.-P-1) he was declared successful and, therefore, it was not necessary for him to produce the said certificate. This ground also therefore cannot be a valid reason to withhold the result. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders, Ann.-P-4 dated 31-5-1986 and Ann.-P-6 dated 26-6-1986, are quashed. The respondent-University is directed to declare the result of the petitioner of M. A. Final (Linguistic) forthwith. The respondent-University shall pay a sum of Rs. 250/- to the petitioner as cost of this petition. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .