JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. The instant special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.3.1997 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 19056 of 1996, wherein the writ petition of the Appellant was dismissed and the Court declined to issue any writ or direction to declare the result of the Appellant of LL.B. third year. 2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant appeared in the LL.B. second year examination in the year 1995 and secured 40% marks in each paper, but failed as she could not secure minimum 48% marks in aggregate. The Appellant wanted to improve her percentage by appearing in back paper and as she was not permitted by the Respondents to appear in the back paper, she preferred Writ Petition No. 5288 of 1996 before this Court and the same was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.2.1996, wherein this Court considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the University as under: Mr. J. N. Verma summarised the said Rules to the effect that it is the college who can permit the Petitioner to appear in the back paper after having provisionally admitted along with third year examination. In case she is successful, her result of the third year LL.B. examination would be declared. In case she is unsuccessful, the result of third year examination shall be treated to be cancelled and she will again have to appear afresh for the second year examination because she will be treated to have been unsuccessful in the second year examination. The Court passed the following orders: In that view of the matter, the Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to consider the Petitioner's representation which the Petitioner shall make within one week from date and allow her provisional admission and to appear in the third year examination with back paper as provided under the Rules if she is found eligible. If the Petitioner is provisionally admitted, in that event, the University shall consider the question of permitting the Petitioner to appear in the examination in accordance with the said Rules when applied for. 3. In view of the aforesaid directions, the Appellant was permitted to apply for improving her performance in Mohammedan Law as back paper and she was also provisionally admitted in LL.B. third year. 3. In view of the aforesaid directions, the Appellant was permitted to apply for improving her performance in Mohammedan Law as back paper and she was also provisionally admitted in LL.B. third year. As the University conducted the examination of the University and the back paper simultaneously, the anomaly arose as to whether without passing/clearing the LL.B. second year first, the Appellant may be permitted to appear in the examination of LL.B. third year. She had provisionally been permitted in the examination of LL.B. third year also in December, 1996 as well as in back paper of LL.B. second year, her result of LL.B. third year had not been declared. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Petitioner-Appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 19056 of 1996, which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 21.3.1997 on the basis that the Rules permit improvement of the performance of the students as well as provisional admission to a higher class, but unless a student clears the back paper and pass the examination of that year, he cannot be permitted to appear in the examination of the higher class and on this interpretation, the writ petition has been dismissed. Hence this special appeal. 5. Heard Shri R. C. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri J. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondents-University. 6. The Rules which permit the improvement of the performance of the students in the last examination are meant only for the benefit of the students and the students cannot be deprived of the benefit if there is no fault of the students at all. In the instant case, this Court had not given any positive direction to the University to allow Appellant to appear in the examination of LL.B. third year. It was left at the discretion of Respondent-University to allow or not to allow Appellant to appear in the said examination. University, however, exercised discretion in favour of Appellant and permitted her to appear in the LL.B. third year examination, by order dated 5.6.1996, which is Annexure 1 to the affidavit. In pursuance of this order, Appellant has appeared in the examination. The claim of Appellant for directions to Respondents to declare her result of LL.B. third year examination has to be considered in light of this development. 7. In pursuance of this order, Appellant has appeared in the examination. The claim of Appellant for directions to Respondents to declare her result of LL.B. third year examination has to be considered in light of this development. 7. The thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the University is that though it is true that University by order dated 5.6.1996 permitted Appellant to appear in LL.B. third year examination. She cannot claim any advantage of it as this permission was against the Rules governing the back paper examination. However, we are not impressed by this submission of the learned Counsel for Respondents for more than one reason. First reason is that Respondents were supposed to conduct the back paper examination of LL.B. second year before the final examination of LL.B. third year. There should be a reasonable time-gap in two examinations so as to avoid such an anomalous situation causing hardship to the students. It cannot be denied that Respondents failed in discharging their duty and legal obligations and for this failure of Respondents, Appellant cannot be blamed in any manner. 8. The second reason is that the purpose and affect behind the provision for providing facility of appearing in back paper and to improve performance is to give opportunity to the student to save loss of academic year. If Respondents could not hold the examination of back paper within reasonable time so that Appellant may get benefit of her improved performance by appearing in third year examination, Respondents now cannot be allowed to take shelter of Rules once they have permitted her to appear in examination fully knowing position in Rules. 9. In almost similar circumstances, in case of Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC 311 , the Apex Court took the view that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then University cannot be allowed to withdraw his candidature. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced hereunder: The last part of this statute clearly shows that the University could withdraw the certificate if applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. But this could be done only before the examination. The relevant portion of the judgment is being reproduced hereunder: The last part of this statute clearly shows that the University could withdraw the certificate if applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. But this could be done only before the examination. It is, therefore, manifest that once the Appellant was allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the Appellant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear. 10. The aforesaid view expressed by the Court is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in equity, the result of the Appellant of LL.B. third year should be declared by the Respondents. 11. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the order dated 21.3.1997 of learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to declare the result of the Appellant of LL.B. third year examination, forthwith. However, there will be no order as to costs.