JUDGMENT : S.R. SINGH, J. 1. By means of the present petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to declare the result of intermediate Examination of 1983 in so far as it relates to the Petitioner after quashing the notice dated 13-9-1983. 2. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner passed High School examination conducted by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education in 1981 as a regular student of Government Girls Inter College Aonla in the district of Bareilly. Having passed her High School examination, she sought for admission and was admitted in Class 11 of the same college in the academic sessions 1981-82. She appeared in the Board's Intermediate Examination 1983 as a private student with Roll No. 469693. According to the Petitioner, she had passed Class 11 examination from the said college as a regular student but thereafter, she ceased to be a student of the said college and appeared in the Board's Intermediate examination 1983 as a Private student as stated supra. The Board by its letter dated 12/13-9-1983 queried her that she had not passed the Examination of Class 11 as a regular student of the said college. It transpires from a perusal of the facts on record, the result of her examination was withheld but the Board issued a provisional certificate on the basis of which she took admission in B.A. Classes and admittedly she passed her B.A. Examination from Roohelkhand University, a copy of the mark-sheet of her B.A. examination is annexed as Annexure-2 to the Suppl. affidavit. 3. By means of an order dated 9-7-1986, the learned standing counsel was required to obtain instructions from the Regional office Bareilly and the petition was directed to be listed after a month. Sufficient time has since ticked away but no counter affidavit is forthcoming on behalf of the Respondents. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon Regulation 10(3) of Chapter XII of the Regulations made under U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The said regulation being relevant for the purposes of the present case, is quoted below. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon Regulation 10(3) of Chapter XII of the Regulations made under U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921. The said regulation being relevant for the purposes of the present case, is quoted below. (3) Agaroi Hone Wali High School Athwa Intermediate Pariksha Me Byaktigat Pariksharthi Ke Roop me Pravishta Hone Ki Anumati Un Parik-sharthi Ko Nahin Di Jayegi, Jnhn Kaksha 10 Athwa 12 Ke Liye Pronnati Prapt Hone Me Saphalta Nahin Mili Hei Athwa Jinhone 31 December Se Age Kaksha 9 Athwa 11 Me Adhyan Kiya Hai. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions contained in Regulation 10 Chapter XII of the Regulations made under U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921, the learned Standing Counsel has sought to vindicate the action taken by the Board inasmuch as his contention is that the Petitioner had not passed the examination of Class 11 and therefore, she was disentitled from appearing in the Board's Intermediate Examination of Class 11 and therefore, she was disentitled from appearing in the Board's Intermediate Examination, 1983 even as a private candidate. Be that as it may, the Board, in my opinion, was estopped from withholding or cancelling the result of Petitioner's Intermediate Examination once she had been allowed to appear in the Intermediate Examination as a Private candidate. All that the Regulation 10(3) of Chapter XII of the Regulations provides is that a candidate shall not be permitted to appear in the High School or Intermediate examination, if such candidate has failed in Class 9 or Class 11, as the case may be, as a regular student/examinee This provision cannot be made to operate after a candidate had been allowed to appear in the Board's examination as a private student. To cap it all, the Petitioner has submitted the mark-sheet of Class 11 be speaking of the fact that she had qualified the examination of Class 11 and there is not an iota of evidence before me to vouchsafe the fact that she had failed in Class 11 examination as a regular student. As such, the Regulation 10(3) of Chapter XII of the regulations, to my mind, cannot be said to be attracted and the Board was not justified in withholding the result or even cancelling the same in any view of the matter. As such, the Regulation 10(3) of Chapter XII of the regulations, to my mind, cannot be said to be attracted and the Board was not justified in withholding the result or even cancelling the same in any view of the matter. The view taken by this Court in Chandra Pal v. Secretary Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad U.P. Allahabad (1991) UP LB EC 388 and by the Hon. Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, AIR 1990 SC 1075 , supports the view that I have taken in the present case. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice dated 13-9-1983 issued by the board and the order of cancellation of result if any are quashed accordingly. The Board is directed to declare the result of the Petitioner and further to issue certificate to the Petitioner in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.