D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner had applied for admission in the B. Ed. Course for the Session 1991-92 through Combined Entrance Examination conducted pursuant to the Uttar Pradeah State Universities (Regulation of Admission to Courses of Instruction for Degree in Education in Affiliated, Associated and Constituent Colleges) Order, 1987 promulgated under Section 28 (5) of the U. P. State Universities Act. The petitioner was given admission and allowed to pursue his studies and also to appear for the examination but the result was withheld against which the present writ petition has been moved. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Univer sity had allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination and thereafter they cannot withhold the result. He has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 17th April, 1993 cancelling the petitioners admission on the ground that the petitioner having been admitted by the University in the examination, the University is estopped from cancelling the admission after such a long time. 3. Mr. Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, contends that in view of sub- section (5) of Section 28, a candidate can only be eligible for admission under the provisions of the 1987 Order promulgated under the said sub-section referred to above. In view of sub-section (6) of Section 28 of the U. P. State Universities Act, the Vice-Chancellor has power to cancel admission made in contravention of the provisions contained in the said 1987 Order promulgated under sub section (5) of the same section. Sub-section (6), according to him, provides that no student admitted in contravention of the provisions of the said section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University. According to him, the petitioner having been admitted in contra vention of the provisions of the said 1987 Order, his admission is liable to be cancelled. He draws my attention to Paragraphs 3, 7 and 9 of the said 1987 Order and points out the contravention with regard to the admission of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner having been admitted in contra vention of the provisions of the said 1987 Order, his admission is liable to be cancelled. He draws my attention to Paragraphs 3, 7 and 9 of the said 1987 Order and points out the contravention with regard to the admission of the petitioner. He also takes me through Paragraphs 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,13, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the counter- affidavit and contends that originally the admission was cancelled without giving any opportunity to the candidates whose admission were cancelled but subsequently each of them were issued notices to show cause pursuant to which those candidates had submitted their reply and after considering each case meticulously, the Vice-Chancel lor has cancelled the admission which are contained in Annexures ca-6 and ca-7 respectively. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in the cancel lation of the admission since those admission were in contravention of the said 1987 Order which consequently results in the prohibition to take up any examination conducted by the University. He further contends that since these students had taken up admission despite having knowledge of the contravention of the Rules depriving large number of students who had secured higher marked but could not be admitted because of the admission of the candidates securing lesser marks including the petitioner, therefore the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. It is by now established that prohibition of law applicable to educational sphere should not be interferred with by the Judiciary and the educational field shall be allowed to enforce the academic discipline. Interference with such matters would amount to anarchy in the academic field which is already suffering from anarchical situation by reason of different forces with such the Judiciary should not join issue. 5. In Order to appreciate the situation, it is necessary to Section 28 of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, here in after referred to as the Act which is quoted below : "28. Admission Committee.- (1) There shall be an Admission Committee of the University, the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinances. (2) The Admission Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit. Admission Committee.- (1) There shall be an Admission Committee of the University, the constitution of which shall be such as may be provided for in the Ordinances. (2) The Admission Committee shall have the power to appoint such number of sub-committees as it thinks fit. (3) Subject to the superintendence of the Academic Council and to the provisions of sub-section (5), the Admissions Committee shall lay down the principles or norms governing the policy of admission to various courses of studies in the University and may also nominate a person or a sub-committee as the admitting authority in respect of any course of study in an Institute or a constituent college maintained by the University. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) the Committee may issue any direction as respects criteria or methods of admis sions (including the number of students to be admitted) to constituent college maintained by the State Government and affiliated or associated colleges, and such directions shall be binding on such colleges. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, admission to medical and engineering colleges and to courses of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of medicine (including the number of students to be admitted), shall be regulated by such orders (which if necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf : Provided that no order regulating admissions under this sub section shall be inconsistent with the rights of minorities in the matter of establishing and administering educational institu tions of their choice. (6) No student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of this Section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted bv the University, and the Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to cancel any admission made in such contravention. " 6. Sub-section (5) makes it clear that the degrees in education which includes B. Ed. along with several other instructions mentioned therein are to be regulated in the matter of admission to such courses by the orders as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf to be erffective not prior to January 1, 1979. " 6. Sub-section (5) makes it clear that the degrees in education which includes B. Ed. along with several other instructions mentioned therein are to be regulated in the matter of admission to such courses by the orders as the State Government may, by notification, make in that behalf to be erffective not prior to January 1, 1979. Pursuant to sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the said Act, the State Government had issued the 1987 Order referred to above containing the conditions regulating admission to such courses. 7. In order to appreciate the position in the facts and circumstances of the present case, paragraphs 3, 7, 9 and 12 of the said 1987 Order are to be referred to, the texts whereof are quoted below : "3. Qualifications for admission and the responsibility of preparing merit list,- (1) The minimum educational qualification requisite for the admission of a candidate to B. Ed. Classes shall be the graduate degree of a University established by law ; (2) It will be the responsibility of the concerned University to prepare the merit list for admission to B. Ed. Courses in an affiliated, associated or a constituent college. Admissions shall be made according to the merit list so prepared, unless a candi date is found ineligible for admission under sub-para 3 of para 12. 7. "examination for admission.- (a) Every University shall organise its own combined admission examination to B. Ed. courses in its affiliated, associated and constituent colleges. The admission examination of all the Universities shall be organised on one and the same date as may be fixed by the State Government. 9. Course for Examination and qualifying marks.- (I) There shall be following two papers in the admission examination. Subject , Marks Time (a) Language and General Knowledge hours (b) Aptitude test in which there shall be separate question for Arts, Science and Commerce students. hours (2) Candidate securing at least 40 per cent marks in each paper shall be eligible for admission in B. Ed. courses. 12. Subject , Marks Time (a) Language and General Knowledge hours (b) Aptitude test in which there shall be separate question for Arts, Science and Commerce students. hours (2) Candidate securing at least 40 per cent marks in each paper shall be eligible for admission in B. Ed. courses. 12. Preparation of merit list.- (I) Separate merit lists for reserved and general seats shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in admission examination and the marks obtained under para 11 mentioned above ; (2) If the marks obtained by two or more candidates on the basis of admission examination and para 11 are equal preference shall be given to the candidate of the same university or of college affiliated or associated with or constituent of the same University. If still the marks are equal then candidate being elder will be given preference ; (3) If against the conduct of any candidate there is report in writing of District Magistrate or against whom criminal pro ceedings are in process in any court of law or if candidate has been punished by any court in any criminal case or if the candidate has been debarred from University examination for two or more years due to use of unfair means the principal of the college can refuse admission to such candidate with prior written approval of the Vice-Chancellor. " 8. Paragraph 3 of the said 1987 Order prescribes the minimum educational qualification requisite for the admission of a candidate to B. Ed. Course which provides in sub-para (2) that a merit list for admission to B. Ed. course in an affiliated, associated or a constituent college is -to be prepared and the admission is to be made according to the merit list so prepared, unless he is found ineligible for admission under sub- para (3) of para 12. This provision presupposes that a merit list is to be prepared and admission is to be given only according to the position in the merit list. There cannot be any question of pick and choose method. Para 7 lays down a provision for examination for admission which provides that every University would organise its own combined admission examination for admission to B. Ed. courses in its affiliated, associated and constituent colleges and such admission examination is to be organised on the same date as to be fixed by the State Government. Para 7 lays down a provision for examination for admission which provides that every University would organise its own combined admission examination for admission to B. Ed. courses in its affiliated, associated and constituent colleges and such admission examination is to be organised on the same date as to be fixed by the State Government. While sub-para (2) of para 9 provides that in order to secure admission in B. Ed. course, the candidate should secure at least 40 per cent marks in each paper and only such students who secure 4 percent marks in each paper are eligible for admis sion. Para 12 provides the procedure for preparation of merit list which makes provision for reservation of seats and such list is to be prepared on the basis of merit in the admission examination. 9. Therefore, it appears that every where it was the intention that the merit of the candidate is to be followed in each. Any contravention of the said 1987 Order would attract the consequence of sub- section (6) of Section 28 of the said Act. 10. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has secured marks less than 40 per cent in each paper. The said fact has not been denied by Mr. S. S. Tripathi counsel appearing for the petitioner. 11. In the present case, a very grave situation appears to have been concealed which has seen the light of the day after an enquiry as has been pleaded in the counter-affidavit in the paragraphs mentioned above to which my attention was drawn. A reference to the said paragraphs indicates that there were gross irregularities by reason whereof 87 students who had secured marks less than 40 per cent were get admitted while 18 candidates who did not at all appear in the entrance examination were also admitted. It further appears that 1314 students were admitted though the seats in the 1991-92 session were 1245. It further appears that 245 students who had secured marks above 40 per cent were not admitted though according to the merit list, they were eligible for such admission. Whereas 252 students who should not have otherwise been admitted on the basis of the merit list were admitted. It further appears that 245 students who had secured marks above 40 per cent were not admitted though according to the merit list, they were eligible for such admission. Whereas 252 students who should not have otherwise been admitted on the basis of the merit list were admitted. It further appears that for the pur pose of finding out the said irregularities, on the basis of complaints receiv ed by the Vice-Chancellor a Committee was constituted by order dated 5th March, 1992 for enquiring into the said matter while by a circular dated 31st March, 1992, the Principals of the affiliated or associated colleges were asked to furnish the details with regard to (a) the merit list sent to the College, (b) the candidates admitted pursuant to the aforesaid merit list, (c) the candidates admitted pursuant to the waiting list and (d) the candidates admitted on the basis of transfer from other colleges or the candidates that sent on transfer to other colleges. The Committee had enquired into the matter and had submitted its report which is Annexure ca-3. The Principals had also submitted their reports except in the case of few College in respect of which no such report was forthcoming. After considering the said report and scrutinising various documents, the facts referred to above were revealed. Therefore admission of the said 87 students securing marks less than 40 per cent and 18 students who did not appear at all in the examination were sought to be cancelled. Thereupon a question was raised that such cancellation was made without giving any notice and opportunity to concerned candidates. Thereupon show-cause notice dated 20th/21st October, 1992 was issued by the University to each such students whose admission were proposed to be cancelled and all such students except two or three submitted their reply to the said notices. The Vice-Chancellor had separately considered each cases of the students who had actually not appeared in the examination as well as who did not obtain 40 per cent marks in each paper in the written test. The Vice-Chancellor also went through the Master Chart of the candidates and con sidered each of the reply carefully as well as the relevant documents where-from the Vice-Chancellor was satisfied that those 18 students referred to above did not appear in the written examination. The Vice-Chancellor also went through the Master Chart of the candidates and con sidered each of the reply carefully as well as the relevant documents where-from the Vice-Chancellor was satisfied that those 18 students referred to above did not appear in the written examination. The admission, there fore, had been obtained by misrepresentation and, therefore, the same was accordingly cancelled by order dated 16th April, 1993 which is Annexure ca-6 to the counter- affidavit. A perusal of Annexure ca-o indicates that the Vice-Chancellor had considered the Master Chart, the show-cause notice and individual reply and also recorded his satisfaction. Similarly the Vice- Chancellor also went through the Master Chart and each individual reply to the show-cause notice and recorded his satisfaction as would be apparent from Annexure ca-7 in respect of those 87 students who had secured marks less than 40 per cent and had accordingly cancelled] their admission. 12. Therefore, it clearly established that those 18 students who were admitted without the examination were admitted in contravention of 1987 Order and the same had been duly enquired into and considered. Simi larly in the case of those 87 students who were admitted despite having obtained less than 40 per cent marks in each paper were also admitted in contravention of the said 1987 Order which has been duly found after an appropriate probe. Admittedly the petitioner is one of those 87 students having secured less than 40 per cent in each paper and, therefore, the petitioners admission is also in contravention of 1987 Order. 13. Since the 1987 Order was promulgated pursuant to sub-section (5) of Section 28 of the said Act, therefore, it has statutory force against which the principle of estoppel, as contended by Mr. Tripathi, cannot be attracted on the principle that there can not be any estoppel against statute. Further more the petitioner having secured admission in contra vention of the statute already in existence, the knowledge whereof is expec ted of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner had come with clean hands entitling him to have an equitable relief available under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart subjection (6) creates a mandate that no student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of Section 28 of the said Act shall be permitted to take up any examination conduct by the University. That apart subjection (6) creates a mandate that no student admitted to any college in contravention of the provisions of Section 28 of the said Act shall be permitted to take up any examination conduct by the University. The said sub-section empowers the Vice-Chancellor in such cases to cancel the admission made in such contravention. The said provisions is mandatory and there is no escape therefrom. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, by reason of admission of the said students including the petitioner whose admission has been cancelled as well as admission of 202 students who were far down in the merit list to the students^ who had secured ;higher marks have been deprived of their opportunity. Such a situation clearly indicates the irregularity and indiscipline in the educational sphere which is wholly undesirable. Such a situation has the effect of polluting the entire educational atmosphere and has the effect of negating equality clause and creates room for unscrupulous persons to operate in the field creating a wholly uncongenial and unhealthy atmosphere in the academic sphere effecting academic discipline. In such a situation, even if interim orders are issued initially, the Judiciary should not interfere with the academic discipline which is being sought to be strengthened by applying its own machinery by the University itself. The action taken in the present case generates a hope in the minds of all concerned that academic discipline is being attempted to be established and enforced. It is a matter to be encouraged and not to be admonished. 14. In that view of the matter, the petitioner having been admitted in contravention of the provisions of Section 28 of the said Act read with 1987 order, which has been duly established thought proper enquiry, as has been observed above after giving him appropriate opportunity, the petitioner cannot sustain the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. 15. Before I part with the matter, I cannot but observe that apparently it seems that situation cannot be brought about without the active participation of the Principals of the respective affiliated or consti tuent College. The conduct of the concerned students appears to be not less reprehensible. The conduct o ( the concerned Principals appears to be far more reprehensible. Before I part with the matter, I cannot but observe that apparently it seems that situation cannot be brought about without the active participation of the Principals of the respective affiliated or consti tuent College. The conduct of the concerned students appears to be not less reprehensible. The conduct o ( the concerned Principals appears to be far more reprehensible. It seems that the concerned Principals cannot disown their responsibility, or which it is for the University to consider how to enforce displine and what steps are required therefor. The University will be failing in its duty if it does not consider enforcing discipline in the administration itself. Otherwise the career of many students would be jeopardised as has been happened in the case of those 245 students high above in the merit list. This Court hopes and trusts that the University shall take a serious note of it. Petition dismissed. .