JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - This is one of those common cases coming to this Court these days where the students are dragged to litigation on account of the negligence or arbitrariness on the part of Board of High School and.Intermediate Examination, U.P. Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. The present petition was presented on 11th June, 1990, when the learned standing counsel was granted three days' time to file counter-affidavit. Nothing was done. Ultimately on 14th June this Court again granted three days' further time with a clear order that no further time would be granted. Inspite of that the Board has not cared to file the counter-affidavit. Even today, no standing counsel is present in the Court to oppose the writ petition and the Court had to wait for about two hours. Under these circumstances, it has-to be presumed that the opposite party has got nothing to say in the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner after passing her High School Examination in the year 1988, filled up the examination from to appear as a private candidate in the intermediate examination of 1990. The offered Hindi, History, Music (vocal), Home Science and Trade (Khadya Sanrakshan) as her subjects. 4. After her examination form was accepted by the opposite party, she was allotted roll number as 690277. Accordingly, she appeared in the Intermediate final examination from D.P.Girls' Intermediate College, Allahabad, as a private candidate. 5. Without any objection by the opposite party, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination with the combination of subjects mentioned above. The petitioners candidature was accepted by the Board. 6. On 29th May, 1990 when the result of Intermediate was declared, it was found that the result of the petitioner was cancelled. On enquiry, it was revealed that the combination of subjects offered by her was not permissible. 7. There is no denial that this combination of subjects was permitted to regular students and also to ex-students. Then why not to private candidates ? If the combination of subjects offered by the petitioner was not permissible, she should have been informed by the Board before accepted the examination form, so that she could get an opportunity to rectify the mistake and change the subjects. But once the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination with the said combination, her result could not be cancelled on that ground. But once the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination with the said combination, her result could not be cancelled on that ground. The opposite party is estopped from raising this objection at this stage. 8. In a case Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 , it was held : "Once the candidate is allowed to lake 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 candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear." 9. The principle of law enunciated in the above case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In the instant case, before issuing admit card to the petitioner, it was the duty of the Board to serutinise the examination form filled by her in order to find out whether it was in order and whether the combination of subjects offered therein was permissible. Once the opposite party permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination, it has got no jurisdiction to cancel the same on the ground of combination of subjects. If the Board acquiesced to the infirmities and allowed here to appear in the examination, then it has no power to withdrew the candidature of the petitioner. 11. Relying upon the case of Shri Krishan (Supra), I hold that the opposite party is debarred from raising this objection. The principle of estopple comes into play after the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination with the said combination of subject. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party is directed to declare the result of the petitioner and issue the mark-sheet to her within a period of one week from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within twenty four hours on the payment of usual charges.