JUDGMENT 1. - In all these writ petitions, a common question of law has been raised, for consideration, hence all are decided by one single order. All the petitioners have prayed that the order, by which, the permission to allow the petitioners to appear in examinations of Senior Higher Secondary Examination held in the year, 1991 has been cancelled, be quashed and they be allowed to appear in the examination. It may be stated that all these students were allowed, by the order of this Court, to appear provisionally in the said examination. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Annexures as mentioned in Petition No. 2057/91, have been mentioned in this order. Briefly stated, in this petition, the petitioner is daughter of Army personnel, who is a bona fide resident of Rajasthan and was posted at different places of the country such as Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra etc. during his service and recently, after retirement, settled at Jaipur. The Petitioner passed her High School examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, in the year, 1989. The mark-sheet has been marked as Anx.] and migration certificate is Anexxure 2. It is stated in the petition that the certificate issued by the above Board is recognised by the Government of Rajasthan and she was given admission in Bhawani Niketan Balika Senior Higher Secondary School, Jaipur, in Class XI. She passed out examination of 11th Standard from that Institution, in the year, 1989-90 and her mark-sheet is Anx. 3. She was given admission by the same school in Senior Higher Secondary (Class XI) ( for brevity, SHS Examination) in Academic Session, 1990-91, where she studied for the whole year. Her form for appearing in SHS Examination was found fit and forwarded by the Principal of the Institution to the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer ( for short, 'the Board'). The Board issued a letter dated March 13, 1991 (Anx.4), cancelling her admission in Class Xll, on the ground that the petitioner had obtained less than 33% marks in Mathematics subject in her High School examination, which she passed out in the Academic Session, 1988-89 from the Board at Madhya Pradesh. 3. In Petition No. 2092/91, father of the petitioner is originally resident of District Jaipur and did business in Assam. The petitioner was educated at Guwahati. 3. In Petition No. 2092/91, father of the petitioner is originally resident of District Jaipur and did business in Assam. The petitioner was educated at Guwahati. The petitioner passed out High School Examination in 1988 from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (Guwahati). His mark-sheets are Anxs. 2 and 3 receptively. He sought admission in Higher Secondary Commerce Second Year in Tinsukia College, Assam as regular student in July,1990. However, due to precarious law and order situation, in Assam, the parents of the petitioner had to leave Assam and came to Jaipur. He was admitted in Janta Senior Higher Secondary School, Jaipur, in the year, 1990. His form for appearing in SHS examination 1991 was forwarded by the Principal of the School to the Board. However, the Board, vide its letter dated March 25,1991, cancelled the admission of the petitioner to appear in SHS examination, on the ground that he had not secured 33% marks in all the subjects in the Secondary Examination, which he passed in 1988. 4. In Petition No. 2113/91, the petitioner passed Secondary School Examination in 1987 from the Board of Public Examination, Kerala State. His mark-sheet is Anx. 1. He joined in 11 Pre-Degree Course at Pathanapuram and his parents were serving at Jaipur.After obtaining transfer certificate dated July 15, 1989 (Anx.2), the petitioner was admitted in Higher Secondary Class in Janta Senior Higher Secondary School, Jaipur and passed the same in 1990 from the above-mentioned School. His mark-sheet is Anx.3. Thereafter, he was admitted in Class XII (SHS) and filled-up the examination form, which was sent by the school -respondent No-3 along with necessary fees/documents. He was allotted Roll Number and his center of examination was also given. The examination was to start from April 18, 1991. The petitioner received letter dated April 5, 1991(Anx.4), issued by respondent No. 3 - School , informing him that his examination form has been rejected by the respondent Board vide its letter dated March 17,1991 (Anx.6), which was addressed to respondent No.3 - School, on the ground that the petitioner in the Secondary School Examination has not secured 33 % marks in all the subjects. 5. 5. It is submitted by S/Shri P.S. Asopa, M. Gupta, and D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, that all the three petitioners had produced necessary documents before the School authorities and two were given admission in Higher Secondary Standard (Class XI), whereas, third petitioner was given admission in Senior Higher Secondary Standard (Class XII). They have pursued their studies for two years and one year respectively. Their examination forms for appearing in SHS examination were duly forwarded by the respective Schools, which are affiliated with the respondent-Board and were accepted and Roll Numbers were allotted to them by the Board. Only few days earlier, than the examination was to take place, their admissions were cancelled. It is submitted that,if securing 33% marks in Secondary Examination was a pre-condition, the petitioners, in the first instance, should not have been admitted by the respective School authorities, who are expected to have the full knowledge of the Rules and Regulations of the respondent-Board, but the students, did not have the knowledge of this pre-condition for admission. If the impugned orders are not quashed, the petitioners will lose two years and one year respectively of their precious lives for none of their fault. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the respondent- Board that in Petition No. 2057/91, on Anx.R1/1- the examination form filled up by the petitioner, it is mentioned with hand on the top of the form that the admission is provisional. It is also clearly mentioned on its back page at S.No. 6 that, if the admission of the students, who have passed out their examination from other Boards, is cancelled, the candidate himself will be responsible for it and he will not demand the examination 'fees back. It is further submitted that mark-sheets of all the petitioners were supplied only with the examination forms, therefore, the Board never knew earlier that the marks of the petitioner are not 33% in all the subjects.The forms were sent to the Board by the Schools in the month of February, 1991. It is also submitted that in Chapter XIX of the concerned Rules, regarding admission in Senior Higher Secondary Examination, it is clearly mentioned in sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 that regular students can get admission to Higher Secondary only if they have passed the Secondary Examination by securing at least minimum marks of 33% in each subject. It is also submitted that in Chapter XIX of the concerned Rules, regarding admission in Senior Higher Secondary Examination, it is clearly mentioned in sub-clause (2) of Clause 1 that regular students can get admission to Higher Secondary only if they have passed the Secondary Examination by securing at least minimum marks of 33% in each subject. It is pointed out that this provision was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajesh Kumar Swamy v. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer and others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 707/87), decided on July 26, 1988 . In the above decision, it was held that those, who have not secured 33% marks in all the subjects, were not entitled to sit in the examination of Senior Higher Secondary of the Board. 7. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. Certain facts are clear from the narration mentioned above. All the three petitioners were given admission by such Schools, which were recognised by the respondent-Board. Two of the petitioners got admission in Higher Secondary Standard and one was admitted in SHS Standard. Thus, two students have studied for two years and one has studied for one year. It may be mentioned that none of the petitioners has challenged the validity of the provision, regarding the condition of obtaining at least 33% marks in all the subjects in the Secondary Examination. The question for consideration arises that when the students are given admissions by the School recognised by the respondent-Board and are allowed to pursue the studies for two years/one year should they suffer on the ground that in some subject, they have not obtained 33% marks in the Secondary Examination, which they passed from such other Board, which is duly recognised by the respondent-Board. The recognised Schools work on behalf of the respondent-Board, which does not run its own Schools. The affiliated Schools, as was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board, are informed about the requirement of the terms and conditions/ Rules regarding the admission of students in Higher Secondary classes. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Board does not hold ground, in view of letter dated March 27,1991 (Anx.5) in Petition No. 2113/91, which is addressed to the respondent- Board by the Principal of Janta Senior Higher Secondary School, in which, two of the petitioners have studied. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Board does not hold ground, in view of letter dated March 27,1991 (Anx.5) in Petition No. 2113/91, which is addressed to the respondent- Board by the Principal of Janta Senior Higher Secondary School, in which, two of the petitioners have studied. It is pointed out in this letter that in Prospectus of Senior Higher Secondary (Academic) Examination, 1990-91, on page 41 in clause 4 of Chapter XIX, it is clearly mentioned that such students, who have passed their Higher Secondary Examination from another Board in the Scheme of 10+2, will be entitled to be admitted in Senior Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the respondent-Board. It is further mentioned that in the Rules quoted above, there is no mention of requirement of 33% marks as a condition precedent for giving admission. Therefore, two students, (who are petitioners in these two petitions) were given admission on the basis of the Rule quoted above. The Principal, thereafter, has stated that, in view of the position explained above, they should be permitted to appear in the Senior Higher Secondary Examination. It has also been stated that school expresses regrets regarding lack of knowledge of the Rules in this respect. Thus, it is clear that even the Principal of a recognised school of the respondent-Board never knew the condition laid down by the respondent-Board. Therefore, the question of the petitioners' having the knowledge, does not arise. The recognised schools act on behalf of and as agents of the respondent- Board for admitting the students to be examined by the Board in the Secondary and Senior Higher Secondary Examinations conducted by it. I do not find any reason why the petitioners should suffer for none of their fault, since they were admitted by the schools recognised by the respondent-Board and two of the petitioners have pursued in their school for two years and one has pursued for one year. There is no reason why these petitioners should lose precious two years/one year of their lives for none of their fault. I am fortified in my opinion by a judgment of the Apex Court given in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another AIR 1986 SC 1448 . There is no reason why these petitioners should lose precious two years/one year of their lives for none of their fault. I am fortified in my opinion by a judgment of the Apex Court given in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another AIR 1986 SC 1448 . This was a case of students from Rajasthan, who though ineligible for admission to B.E. Degree Course of Karnataka University, were admitted in certain Engineering Colleges in the State of Karnataka . Admission in some cases was made for the sake of capitation. Under the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, these students pursued their course for about four years. It was held that it is the colleges, who are responsible for giving wrongful admission to the students and they were allowed by the Apex Court to continue their studies.In the petitions, under consideration, the case of the petitioners is all the more strong, since admissions were granted to them not under the orders of any Court, but by the recognised schools themselves. So far as the decision of this Court given in Rajesh Kumar Swamy (supra) is concerned, the petitioner had come to the Court with unclean hands and his petition was rejected mainly on this ground. 8. Considered from any angle, I do not find any reason why the petitioners should not be allowed to appear in the Senior Higher Secondary School Examination conducted by the Board, in the year, 1991. The equity is completely in their favour. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders, in all the three petitions, issued by the respondent- Board, cancelling their admission to appear in Senior Higher Secondary School Examination, held in the year, 1990-91, are quashed and set aside. The respondent- Board shall declare their results forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******