JUDGMENT S. Padmanabhan, J. 1. Petitioner had his B.Sc. degree course in Chemistry in the St. Albert's College. He completed full three year in 1987 and passed in Parts I and II. He then gave up, B.Sc. for his own reasons and applied for admission to B.A. Philosophy in the Maharaja's College, Ernakulam. Permission was granted under Ext. P-8. Since he completed the B.Sc. course and passed in parts I and II and what was involved was only change of optionals, he need study only for the second and third year courses for B.A. and he need only appear for the subjects and get a pass to take his B.A. degree. After completing the first year (second year B.A.) he wrote for the first year main subjects and second year subsidiary subjects in 1988 and then continued and completed his studies for the final year in 1989. Then he was informed by Ext. P-2 memo that the examinations written by him in 1988 are cancelled. The reason is that he could have written the entire subject papers only at a stretch and that too only in 1989 after completing the two years course. After Ext. P-2 he wrote for the remaining subject papers in April, 1989. By Ext. P-2 he was directed to write all the papers in April, 1989. Prayer is that Ext. P-2 may be quashed and his result directed to be declared and he be given the mark list. 2. The question involved is only interpretation of Regulation.18 of the B.A./B.Sc. regulations extracted in Ext. P-8 and relied on at page 2 of the counter. It reads thus: "A candidate for the Bachelor of Arts Degree Examination in the Faculties of Arts and Oriental Studies or the Bachelor of Science Degree Examination who passes the Examination in Parts I and II and fails in part III of the Examination shall be permitted to appear for Part III of the Bachelor of Arts Degree Examination at one sitting under these regulations offering a new optional group, provided he has undergone the prescribed course of study in the new optional group by attending a college for a period of not less than two academic years." 3. Petitioner says that he understood the regulation, on the basis of which Ext. Petitioner says that he understood the regulation, on the basis of which Ext. P-8 permission for change of optional was given, as one by which the option is with him to decide whether he should write the subjects piecemeal or at one stretch by the end of the final year. In other words, he understood that what is involved is that the University permitted him at his choice to write all the subjects together at the end of the final year or to have it written in piecemeal by the end of second and third years. Whatever is meant by the University and whatever be the more plausible interpretation, it cannot be said that the way in which the petitioner understood the regulation is impossible. The regulation is not clear beyond doubt. 4. Petitioner was able to write the papers piecemeal only because his applications for registration were allowed and he was given hall tickets and permitted to write for the examinations. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that violation of the regulation became known only after the petitioner got himself registered and appeared for the examination in 1988. It is said that even after that he wrote the final examination in 1989 in spite of Ext. P-2. That is also because, he was registered and permitted. If he was not eligible, the University ought not have permitted him to write for the examinations. There is no case that the petitioner was guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation. The University cannot now penalise the petitioner for the inactions of itself and its officers in permitting the petitioner to write for the examinations ignoring or overlooking the prohibition, if any. 5. No serious problem involving lack of entitlement or unfair advantage to the petitioner is there. Altogether petitioner had undergone studies for five years for the degree course instead of three years. That was on account of his change of optionals for which he cannot blame anybody else. But for the change of optionals he would have been entitled to write the subjects piecemeal at the end of every year. Writing some papers at the end of the second year and balance alone at the end of the final year is not likely to place the petitioner in an unduly advantageous position justifying his disqualification. But for the change of optionals he would have been entitled to write the subjects piecemeal at the end of every year. Writing some papers at the end of the second year and balance alone at the end of the final year is not likely to place the petitioner in an unduly advantageous position justifying his disqualification. At the best what could be involved is only a technical violation of the rule regarding the time at which the examinations had to be taken. Petitioner could not have unilaterally written the examinations but for the permission given to him. 6. Though not in identical situations, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider instances similar to this in Rajendra Prasad v. Karnataka University ( AIR 1986 SC 1448 ). A.P.C.M.E. Society v. Government of A.P. A.P. ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ), A. Sudha v. University of Mysore ( AIR 1987 SC 2305 ), Ashok Chand Singhvi v. Jodhpur University ( AIR 1990 SC 1075 ). These cases included even instances where ineligible persons secured admission and continued studies for a long time. Justice tempered with mercy on equitable considerations in order to avoid injustice resulting in future of the student being spoiled was the consideration. A line of distinction was drawn between cases where admissions were secured and studies continued by the student by his own wilful fraud by suppressions or otherwise in spite of warnings and those where the students were not guilty of such misconduct but admissions were secured on full disclosure of facts but bona fide mistakes were involved including in advertence or omission of the concerned authorities. In all cases except A.P.C.M.E. Society v. Government of A.P. ( AIR 1986 SC 1490 ) the decisions went on in favour of the student. In that decision, there were repeated warnings informing the true facts and the consequences also but admission was secured by suppression and misrepresentation. Such persons were not given the advantage of their actions in spite of the lapse of time and the possibilities of consequent hardships. In that decision, there were repeated warnings informing the true facts and the consequences also but admission was secured by suppression and misrepresentation. Such persons were not given the advantage of their actions in spite of the lapse of time and the possibilities of consequent hardships. In all other cases in spite of questions of ineligibility studies were regularised and allowed to be continued on the ground that the future of a student cannot be spoiled after the lapse of considerable time on account of the inactions of the authorities especially when the student is not guilty of any fault or misconduct even if bona fide mistakes are there. 7. It is true that Chapter VII Clause (23) of the Kerala University First Ordinance which is made applicable and followed in this University also permits its Syndicate to quash the results of candidates who are not eligible. Bat in the circumstances mentioned above, it is clear that petitioner was not at fault and the entire fault, if any, was on the University. Even if it is considered that according to the regulation, petitioner was ineligible to write piecemeal he was permitted he wrote the examinations. What remains is only publication of results. It may work hardship if the examinations are cancelled and the petitioner is asked to write all the examinations again at a stretch. He submitted Exts. P-1, P-3 and P-5 representations. In these circumstances, I feel that justice demands publication of the results. Petitioner will be bound to write again only if he fails in the examination. The original petition is allowed, Exts. P-2 and P-7 are quashed. Respondents are hereby directed to publish the results of examinations of the optional subjects written by the petitioner in 1988 and 1989 in the subjects and issue mark list to him as expeditiously as possible.