R. H. ZAIDI, J. In both the aforesaid petitions common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9664 of 1993 is treated as the leading case. 2. By means of this petition petitioner prays for a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-2-1993, passed by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondents to permit her to continue her studies in B. A. Part-II of the academic Session 1992-93 as well as to permit her to reside in the Hostel, i. e. Priyadarshani Hostel of Allahabad University on pay ment of usual charges. 3. The facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are that the petitioner passed her High School Examination in 1989 and in the year 1991 Intermediate Examination, from the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate, Allahabad. She also obtained N. C. C. Certificate in the year 1991. Thereafter, she appeared in the entrance test for her admission in B. A. Part-I in Allahabad University, Allahabad, in which she was secured 509 computed marks and qualified for admission in the said class. Thereafter she has allotted three subjects i. e. Medieval History, Hindi and Education and was allowed to attend the classes. Petitioner was also allotted a room in the Priyadarshani Hostel of Al lahabad University, Allahabad. The petitioner deposited the requisite admis sion fee and was thereafter issued an ad mission card, bearing Roll No. 3780. In the year 1991-92 petitioner appeared in B. A. Part-I Examination, but her result was withheld and thereafter by means of a show cause notice dated 17-11- 1992 she was called upon to appear before the en quiry committee on 6-12-1992 at the Law Faculty Building, Chatham Lines Campus, University of Allahabad. It is stated that on the date and time fixed in the notice referred to above, the petitioner went to the specified place with her father, but on the said date and time neither any enquiry-was conducted nor any meeting of the en quiry committee was held, but thereafter vide order dated 22-2- 1993 the petitioners admission in B. A. Part-I of the year 1991- 92 academic session was can celled by the admission committee on the basis of the enquiry report. It was also stated that examination and the result of B. A. Part-I of the petitioner was also can celled by the examination committee. On the basis of the aforesaid order the petitioner was required to vacate the hos tel and was directed not to pursue her studies further in B. A. Part- II class. She therefore approached this Court and filed the present petition for the abovementioned reliefs. 4. Writ petition was entertained by this Court and on 23-3-1993 following order was passed: "learned Counsel for the University, Sri Haider Husain, Advocate, prays for and is granted a weeks time to file counter- affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a period of one week thereafter. List immediately after two weeks on 8-4-93. In the meantime, operation of the order dated 22-2-93 shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that the seat, which was occupied by the petitioner in Priyadarshani Hostel, Univer sity of Allahabad, shall be kept vacant and shall not be allotted to anybody else. " Thereafter vide order dated 14-7-1993 this Court permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination of B. A. Part-II. However, it was directed that the result of the examination shall be subject to the decision of this petition. 5. On behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed con troverting the facts stated in the writ peti tion. It has been asserted that admissions in B. A. Part-I, B. Com. Part-I and B. Sc. Part-I were made in 1991-92 academic ses sion on the basis of entrance test. The result of the said test was declared but the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of the candidates qualified in the said test as she did not qualify for the admission. It has been stated that the girl students who have secured 503 and the boys who have secured computed marks up to 505 were admitted in B. A. Part-I in the aforesaid academic session. Since the petitioner secured only 412 computed marks she was not qualified to be admitted in the said class. It has also been asserted that on receipt of complaints regarding illegal admission on the basis of forged documents, a committee consisting of five members was constituted to enquire into the said complaints and to submit its report. Since the petitioner secured only 412 computed marks she was not qualified to be admitted in the said class. It has also been asserted that on receipt of complaints regarding illegal admission on the basis of forged documents, a committee consisting of five members was constituted to enquire into the said complaints and to submit its report. The said committee issued notices to the students concerned who were al leged to have obtained fictitious admis sion. Petitioner was also issued a show cause notice but she did not appear before the enquiry committee. The enquiry com mittee thereafter submitted a report against the petitioner, which was placed before the admission committee. The ad mission committee accepted the report of the enquiry committee and the admission of the petitioner was thereafter cancelled. In view of the said facts it was asserted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed. 6. In rely to the facts stated in the counter-affidavit a rejoinder-affidavit was filed by the petitioner, controverting the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, reiterating the facts stated in the writ peti tion. It was specifically stated that the petitioner secured 509 computed marks in the entrance test and was therefore, legally entitled to be admitted in B. A. Part-I. It was also stated that on the strength of the order passed by this Court, she after ap pearing in the B. A. Part-I also appeared in B. A. Part I and II Examinations, but the result of the said examinations have not been declared. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the, petitioner was not afforded an oppor tunity of being heard before passing the impugned order dated 22-2-1993, the im pugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, it also did not contain the reason and it was nothing but an order in cyclostyle form, without ap plication of mind to the facts of the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner has secured as many as 509 computed marks in the entrance test and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Chairman of the Admission Committee and other teachers and professors. Attention of this Court was also invited to the photostat copy of the said certificate, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the validity and genuineness of which was not disputed by the respondents. Attention of this Court was also invited to the photostat copy of the said certificate, contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the validity and genuineness of which was not disputed by the respondents. It was, there fore, asserted that the petitioner was en titled to be admitted in asmuch as the students inferior in merit to her i. e. who have secured less than 509 computed marks were admitted in B. A. Part-I. 8. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner failed to qualify the entrance test and secured less than qualify ing marks in the said test, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted in the aforesaid classes. It was urged that the petitioner was afforded full oppor tunity of being heard to explain her case before the enquiry committee, but she did not avail of that opportunity, therefore, the order impugned in the present petition cannot be said to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has also placed before this Court a copy of the report of the inquiry commit tee. 9. I have considered the rival submis sions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The questions which require con sideration in this case are as to whether the petitioner had qualified the entrance test and secured qualifying marks in the said test and whether she was on the basis of the same entitled to be admitted in B. A. Part-I for the academic session 1991-92. 11. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it was stated as under:- "that the petitioner was declared success ful in admission test held by the University and her comprehensive computed marks are 509. The petitioner was duly allotted three subjects for study namely Medieval History, Hindi and Education. A photocopy of the said certificate duly issued and signed by the Chairman of Ad mission Committee is filed as Annexure-6 to this department. " 12. In the counter-affidavit, the reply of paragraph 5 of the writ petition has been given as under:- "that paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not admitted. The petitioner failed in Entrance Test as stated above, got only 152 marks, was not entitled for admission. " 13. " 12. In the counter-affidavit, the reply of paragraph 5 of the writ petition has been given as under:- "that paragraph 5 of the writ petition is not admitted. The petitioner failed in Entrance Test as stated above, got only 152 marks, was not entitled for admission. " 13. Thus, it is apparent that the facts stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition have not been controverted, specifically as required under the rules. The genuineness and the validity of Annexure-6 to the writ petition has not been disputed or denied by the respondents in the counter-af fidavit. A perusal of Annexure-6 to the writ petition reveals that the petitioner secured as many as 509 marks. The same was certified and bears the signatures of the Chairman of the Admission Commit tee as well as other teachers and professors concerned. It also reveals that petitioner was allotted subjects of Medieval History, Hindi and Education. The respondents having failed to deny the validity and genuineness of the said certificate are estopped from contending that the petitioner has secured less than 509 com puted marks in the entrance test for admis sion in B. A. Part-I. After the said certifi cate was issued, petitioner was also issued admit card to attend the classes and was allotted seat in the hostel on the basis of which she has pursued her studies and appeared in B. A. Part-I Examination. 14. In view of the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, in my opinion the respondents are estopped from contending that the admission of the petitioner was not proper or that she was not entitled to pursue her studies in B. A Part I. It has also been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that students who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner and were inferior in merit were admitted in B. A. Part-I. A reference in this regard may be made to a student who has secured 505 computed marks, but was admitted in B. A. Part-I and his admission or examina tion was not cancelled. Therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to cancel the admission of the petitioner and the examination of B. A. Part-I, by means of the impugned order dated 22-2-1993. Therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to cancel the admission of the petitioner and the examination of B. A. Part-I, by means of the impugned order dated 22-2-1993. It may be noted that no documentary evidence has been placed on the record by the respondent with the counter-affidavit to show that petitioner has secured less than 509 marks. 15. Further, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard or to show cause as well as to explain her case before or after the report of the enquiry committee was submitted against her. The copy of the enquiry report was also not supplied to her, but her admission and result of the examinations were cancelled vide order dated 22-2-1993. The said order also does not contain reasons for the con clusion arrived at by the respondents. The impugned order dated 22-2-1993 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 16. The only distinction in the case of the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9665 of 1993 is that she has secured 505 marks in the admission test. In other respects the facts of the case are exactly the same as in the case of Km. Poonam Singh, i. e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9664 of 1993. It has been admitted in the counter-affidavit that the girl students who have secured 505 computed marks in the said test were eligible and entitled to admission and were admitted accordingly. In para graph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that only those boy students who secured computed marks up to 505 and girl students who secured 503 marks were admitted in B. A. Part-I for the ses sion 1991-92. Thus, Km. Chetna Singh is also entitled to the relief claimed by her and her petition is also liable to be al lowed. 17. In view of the facts and cir cumstances of the present cases and in vi.-w of the aforesaid discussion, these petitions deserve to be allowed. 18. The writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 22-2-1993 are quashed. 17. In view of the facts and cir cumstances of the present cases and in vi.-w of the aforesaid discussion, these petitions deserve to be allowed. 18. The writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders dated 22-2-1993 are quashed. Since the petitioners have already appeared in B. A. Part-I, II and III Examinations, but their results have not yet been declared, the respondents are therefore directed to treat the admissions of the petitioners as valid and to declare the result of the aforesaid examinations of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a cer tified copy of this order is produced before the respondent No. 1. 19. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .