JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is a final B.A. student of the St. Stephen's College (Private College), Uzhavoor affiliated to the Mahatma Gandhi University. After passing Pre degree in first class from the same college, he was admitted for B.A. with English Literature as the main subject and Special English as additional language. He wrote for the first year examination. Results were published and Ext. P-1 is the mark list. Ext. P-2 is the hall ticket. He wrote the second year examination also. Results were not published and mark list not given. By Ext. P-3, the Controller of Examinations demanded explanation from the Principal as to how Special English was permitted to be opted by the petitioner as additional language. When the regulations prevented Special English being taken as additional language by a student who opted English Literature as the main subject. By Ext. P-4 the Principal pleaded ignorance of the regulations. 2. The petitioner then moved Ext. P-5 representation to grant him exemption as a special case since he applied and the Principal admitted him unaware of the restriction imposed by the regulation. Thereafter, the decision of the Syndicate cancelling his examinations and directing him to write for any other language as Part II additional language was communicated to him by the Registrar under Ext. P-6. In spite of his requests, the Controller of Examinations directed the Principal to get back the original mark list of the first year examination from the petitioner. The prayers in this Original Petition are to issue appropriate writ quashing Ext. P-6 and P-8 and the decision of the Syndicate to cancel Part II Special English examination taken by the petitioner. Any how the petitioner completed the three years course. He also wants a direction that he is entitled to be permitted to write for the examinations. He also wants the Court to direct 2nd respondent to publish his results of the Special English examination for the second year and issue the mark list. 3. I am really pained to note the ridiculous way in which the University and the Principal handled the situation. As per regulations, a student who opts English Literature as the main subject for B.A. is not entitled to opt Special English as Part II additional language. The Principal who is to give admission is expected to know the regulations. He coolly pleads blissful ignorance. As per regulations, a student who opts English Literature as the main subject for B.A. is not entitled to opt Special English as Part II additional language. The Principal who is to give admission is expected to know the regulations. He coolly pleads blissful ignorance. It may be bona fide or mala fide. Either way it will not improve the case of the respondents. Even if an unworthy Principal acted in ignorance or mala fide the student who is not expected or alleged to know all these facts cannot be blamed especially when there is no allegation of knowledge or mala fides on his part. The University and its officers are expected to be on the alert to correct mistakes, if any, and avoid prejudice. They also chose to have inaction and allow the student to complete his studies and write for the examinations. Now their stand is that the student who was allowed to complete his studies and write for the first year and second year examinations will have to take some other Part II additional language and write the examinations again. Practically they want to penalise the innocent student who underwent the ordeal of a three year course and examinations after preparation to take another language which he did not study and write the examination again. I could describe it only as sadistic pleasure to cover up their inactions. At least out of guilty conscience and sense of Justice they ought to have ratified everything and published the results instead of asking the petitioner to write again after cancelling his examinations. The concerned persons deserve to be hauled up in the interests of justice. The University cannot go under the impression that it is above law and it can ignore its responsibilities and have a light hearted approach in these matters. University, though an autonomous body, is governed by the rule of law and justice. Its actions and inactions cannot prejudice innocent persons. 4. Identical situations were considered by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ), A Sudha v. University of Mysore ( AIR 1987 SC 2305 ), Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University ( AIR 1989 SC 823 ), and Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University ( AIR 1990 SC 1075 ). 4. Identical situations were considered by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ), A Sudha v. University of Mysore ( AIR 1987 SC 2305 ), Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University ( AIR 1989 SC 823 ), and Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University ( AIR 1990 SC 1075 ). If a student by his own acts of fraud managed to secure admission and continued his studies by suppression of facts known to him or giving false informations in spite of warnings, the position may be different. In spite of, the fact that he continued his studies for long or completed the same and inspite of the facts that hardship is likely he may have to reap the consequences because he cannot blame anybody. But if he was not at fault and not guilty of misrepresentation, he cannot be penalised for the actions or inactions of the Principal or University, whether bona fide or mala fide. That may be so even in cases involving a question of slight ineligibility provided a contrary result on account of lapse of time and other factors is likely to affect the future of the student and result in injustice. In such a situation, the Principal or the University who meddled with the future of the student by their actions or inactions cannot penalise him unless the matter involves some extreme situation where in spite of everything the position cannot be saved. 5. Here what is involved is only violation of a technical rule which is not likely to result in failure of justice or affect public interest even if the student is allowed to complete his studies and his results are published. What is involved is only propriety of an additional language. The University may be entitled to have its own rules and regulations prescribing course of studies. But in a situation like the present one, interest of justice demands that petitioner should be allowed the reliefs prayed for. The Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P-6 and P-8 are quashed. The decision of the Syndicate to cancel Part II Special English examination taken by the petitioner is also cancelled. It is hereby declared that the petitioner duly completed his three years degree course and as such entitled to be permitted to writ the examination. The Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P-6 and P-8 are quashed. The decision of the Syndicate to cancel Part II Special English examination taken by the petitioner is also cancelled. It is hereby declared that the petitioner duly completed his three years degree course and as such entitled to be permitted to writ the examination. The second respondent will publish the result of the second year Special English written by the petitioner and issue his mark list. No costs.