PALOK BASN, J. The present litigation indicates a sorry state of affair, if not condemnable. Universities and educational institutions are expected to declare results within statutory period and in exceptional circumstances within some more reasonable time, But to go on permitting the students to appear in "next year class provisionally" in the hope of declaring the result of the earlier class and then failing to declare the result of both classes is bound to recoil adversely on the career of the students. 2. It is high time that the State Government moves into the matter and the universitys authorities get up from this slumber in which they have thrown themselves. If results cannot be declared within the stipulated period the officers of the respondent institution shall have no right to exist inasmuch as to draw salary at the cost of the State exchequer only to play with the career of the students. However, under what circumstances Purvanchal Vishvavidyalaya, Jaunpur has not declared the results of the students who have appeared provisionally in second year examination has to be probed by the Government of U. P. and report shall be- submitted to this Court within six weeks from today. This extreme step has to be ordered keeping in view the tragic facts of this case which may ultimately recoil heavily on the career of the petitioner, Kumari Manorama Mishra. Shri S. S. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter with ability and the Court is satisfied that had the rules been permitting laxity, perhaps the petitioner may have been permitted to appear oven at the third year examination though results have not bee,, declared concerning the Back paper of the first year as also all the pacers of the B. Sc. II year. Shri H. N. Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the Purvanchal Vishwavidyalaya, Taunpur has been heard in opposition. He will do well to send a certified copy of this order to the Vice-Chancellor with such advice as he may extend to him so as to see that such delay in declaration of result is not caused henceforth. 3. Kumari Manorama Mishra, admittedly, was a regular student in B. Sc. I year in the year 1994. She failed in one subject. 3. Kumari Manorama Mishra, admittedly, was a regular student in B. Sc. I year in the year 1994. She failed in one subject. As per the Examination Betterment (Back paper) Ordinances of Purvanchal Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jaunpur, the petitioner provisionally admittadmitted at the second year class and also appeared at all the papers in second year examination of B. Sc. in the year 1995. Her roll number in B. Sc. II year is 259330. 4. The result, therefore, is that the petitioner has not yet passed B. Sc. Part I examination but by getting advantage of the Examination Betterment Rules referred to above, she was permitted to attend classes of B. Sc. Second year and appeared at the examination of B. Sc. II year simultaneous ly with the Back paper of B. Sc. Part I. 5. It goes without saying that as per the Regulation 7-A of the aforesaid Examination Betterment Ordinances such a re-course is permissible. Perhaps there is a policy behind such a provision. If one student appears at the Back paper and gets through in it, it is likely to consume sometime. There after, it was thought that provisional admission as well as provisional permission to attend classes of the second year level and also provisionally appear at the examination of the second year, appear to have been made to save the year of the candidates. It is so obvious, therefore, that no fault can be found with so much of the provisions because its purpose is laudable inasmuch as the students career in career is permitted to be maintained in the same year the candidate may have appeared as a regular candidate in the 2nd year examination if he or she was successful in the back-paper. 6. The admitted fact further is that the petitioners result concerning Back-paper of B. Sc. Part I as well as the result concerning appearing at the papers of the B. Sc. II year have not yet been declared, The prayer made in the writ petition is that a mandamus should be issued directing respon dents to declare the result of the petitioners Back-paper of B. Sc. Part I and the result of B. Sc. II year for the year 1995. It may be mentioned so far as mandamus concerning declaration of results of Back-paper of B. Sc. Part I is concerned it posss no difficulty. Part I and the result of B. Sc. II year for the year 1995. It may be mentioned so far as mandamus concerning declaration of results of Back-paper of B. Sc. Part I is concerned it posss no difficulty. There is, however, a reservation in the prayer concerning the simultaneous declaration of result of B. Sc. II year. The reason for this shall be adverted to a little later. However, the third prayer in the writ petition is more demanding. It has been prayed that a mandamus should be issued commanding the opposite parties to petitioner to appear in B. Sc. Ill year class for the session 1996. The last prayer mentioned can, in no circumstances, be granted. Again, the reasons for this shall be adverted to in the following paragraphs. 7. A look at Regulation 7-A indicates that provisional permission is a promotee to the higher class is permissible only with regard to those students who have appeared at a Back-paper in the preceding exami nation. This facility is not available to any other student. Admittedly, the petitioners appearing at the B. Sc. II year depends upon her being successful at the B. Sc. Back-paper result. So long as that has not been done and so long the petitioner does not pass the said paper, she has no right to get the result of the second year of B. Sc. declared. Consequently, the prayer about declaring result of B. Sc. II year has also to be negatived. However, it has to be clarified always that if the petitioner is successful at the Back paper of B. Sc. Part I, then perhaps some other consequences may follow which at the moment this court is not called upon to decide. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, it is not possible to concede to the prayer of the petitioner that she should be permitted to appear in B. Sc. Ill year session or to appear at the examination of Ministry Science or some other subject which according to the learned counsel is likely to begin from 2nd July, 1996. 9. Reliance has been placed by Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on two reported decisions. Ill year session or to appear at the examination of Ministry Science or some other subject which according to the learned counsel is likely to begin from 2nd July, 1996. 9. Reliance has been placed by Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on two reported decisions. In the case of P. K. Dubey v. Univer sity of Kanpur, 1990 ACJ 508, the learned Single Judge held as under j "who is to be punished and who is to suffer for the mistake of the University in issuing incorrect marksheet. Mistakes can be corrected by the authorities at any time provided some other person has not changed his position on the basis of those mistakes. Enquiries are to be adjusted in favour of one who suffer most, if the mistakes are permitted to be corrected. No body will be allowed to suffer for the mistakes of others. In all fairness the University is to be estopped from refusing to declare the result of B. Sc. Part II of the petitioner. " While making the aforesaid observations reliance was placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda v. Behrampur University, JT 1990 (2) SC 57, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that : "authorities cannot punish students for negligence of the principal of the University authorities. . . . . . It was bounden duty of the University have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before per mitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results. " The other decision cited is the case of Shikshak Abhibhavak Sangh Jai Narain Inter College, Varanasi v. Secretary Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. Allahabad, reported in 1991 UPLBEC 115. It has been observed in the said case as under : "it is obvious that mistake, in any, in permitting these girl students to study in and appear as regular student of the college in the examination conducted by the Board, is that if the college and officials of the Board. These girls are not to be blamed because the college was admitting the girl students in the past and Board has permitted them to appear in its examination. These students could have no reasons to believe that their admission in the college is wrong. These girls are not to be blamed because the college was admitting the girl students in the past and Board has permitted them to appear in its examination. These students could have no reasons to believe that their admission in the college is wrong. If it is the mistake of the college and officials of the Board then who is to be punished definitely not these girls who are in no way responsible. Punishing some one for the mistake of some one else is highly objectionable, arbi trary and illegal " 11. With great respect, made in the aforesaid rulings have no applica tion in the present case. On the narration of the facts noted above it is clear that the petitioner knew fully well where she stands. By Regulation 7-A the right conferred upon the petitioner was to provisionally get the admission in the B. Sc. II class and also appear provisionally in examina tion of that class. The result of B. Sc. II year is obviously depending on the declaration of result of being successful in B. Sc. Part I Back paper. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions cited by Shri Shukla is not available to lend support to the contentions raised by Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has to be partly allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner concerning Back paper of B. Sc. Part I with absolute promptitude and war like expeditiousness on filing a certified copy of this order before them. The State Government will conduct an enquiry through an officer and submit the report to this court within six weeks as noted above relating to the failure of the university to get the results declared and what are the reasons for blatant misuse or disuse of power. 13. The Registrar, High Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, U. P. within three days with a forwarding letter with request to secure compliance of the direction noted above. Parties will bear their own costs. Petition partly allowed. .