JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his LL.B, IInd and IIIrd year examinations conducted by the Lucknow University in the years 1986 and 1987. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was a regular student of Shia Degree, College, Lucknow, opposite party No. 3 in the LL,B, 1st Year Class. He passed the 1st year examination in the year 1985. Thereafter he did not attend classes in the year 1986 and submitted application in the prescribed form the appearing at the IInd year examination as an exempted candidate. The application was submitted to the Principal. Shia Degree College to be forwarded to the Lucknow University without pointing out any deficiency therein. The University issued the `Admit Card' on the strength of which the petitioner appeared at the examination and was declared successful. In the IIIrd year he again joined the Shia Degree College and appeared at the examination held in the year 1987 as a regular candidate and not as an exempted candidate. He was successful at this examination also. Thus he passed all the examinations which made him eligible to get the LL.B. Degree. At this stage the University authorities discovered that in the year 1986 the petitioner was is eligible to appear at the IInd year examination and his appearance there at was invalid. They consequently concluded that the declaration of his result of the IInd year examination was also invalid. Since a candidate could appear at the IIIrd year examination only after passing the IInd year examination, the further consequential conclusion drawn was that the declaration of result of IIIrd year examination was also invalid. With these conclusions the University cancelled the petitioner's result of the IInd and IIIrd years examinations. Before cancelling the results the Principal, Shia Degree College was consulted and he confirmed his mistake in forwarding the petitioner's application for the IInd year examination. Aggrieved by the action of the Lucknow University the petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the decision of the University cancelling the said examinations and seeking a writ of mandamus to command the University to issue him the LL.B. Degree. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the Lucknow University the petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the decision of the University cancelling the said examinations and seeking a writ of mandamus to command the University to issue him the LL.B. Degree. 3. It appears that there is a rule in the University that a candidate who has passed the 1st year examination as a regular student in a particular year cannot appear at the IInd year examination in the succeeding year, one year must intervene. As such the petitioner was indeed ineligible to appear at the IInd year examination in the year 1986 as an exempted candidate although he could appear at that examination as a regular candidate. The pertinent question that arises is what the University authorities were doing when the petitioner submitted his application seeking to appear as an exempted candidate. Was it not their obligation to scrutinise the application and see whether it was in order ? They do not do it in the year 1986 and issued the `Admit Card'. They do not do it in the year 1887 when the petitioner appeared at the LL.B. IIIrd year examination. They discovered the mistake only in the IInd year (1988) when the letter, dated April 22, 1988 was addressed by the Registrar of the University to the Principal of the Shia Degree College who replies to it on April 26, 1988, Annexure 7. For their own detail in checking a mistake at the right time the authorities seek to punish a student who has closed his studies and is now seeking to enter the profession of law as stated by him. 4. It is not the case of the University that the petitioner either made in is representation or suppressed a fact which he was under a legal obligation to disclose. It may be pointed out that notice of the petition was received by the learned Counsel for the University on July 28, 1988 but till date on counter-affidavit has been filed. It was submitted only orally by the learned Counsel that the appearance of the petitioner at the IInd and IIIrd year examinations was against statutory provisions and therefore, no advantage can accrue to him by passing in the said examinations. The learned Counsel submits that the statutory rules are mandatory and have to be observed. 5. It was submitted only orally by the learned Counsel that the appearance of the petitioner at the IInd and IIIrd year examinations was against statutory provisions and therefore, no advantage can accrue to him by passing in the said examinations. The learned Counsel submits that the statutory rules are mandatory and have to be observed. 5. We may assume that the rule relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Lucknow University is mandatory and, therefore, its compliance is obligatory. It by virtue of this requirement the University had rejected the petitioner's application that, perhaps, would have been the end of the matter. But this is not the position here. The University whose duty it was to apply the rule, did not apply it, it has been guilty of laches not only in one year but in two years and now it seeks to cancel the examination of IIIrd year also appearance where at by itself did not suffer from any infirmity. The University does not attribute any mala fide or improper conduct to the petitioner We, therefore, do not find any justification to punish the petitioner at this late stage. Of course, if the petitioner had been guilty of any mala fide or improper conduct the position might have been different. 6. It also deserves mention that as an exempted candidate the petitioner does not appear to have gained any unfair advantage at the examination itself as it is not the case of the University that there were different sets of papers for the exempted and regular candidates. Thus the petitioner took examination in the same papers in which the regular candidates took. The writ petition will, therefore, have to be allowed. 7. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the resolution No. 8, dated May 9, 1988 contained in Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.