O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. K. Jain assisted by Sri M. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri J. N. Verma and Sri S. N. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) COUNTER and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. ( 3 ) THE petitioners, who are five in number, have appeared in the entrance test for admission in b. Ed. Course for the session 1997-98. An advertisement was made on 21. 4. 1997 in which the minimum qualification required for appearing in the entrance examination was only Graduation. All the petitioners fulfilled the minimum requisite qualification, inasmuch as they have secured more than 40% marks in Graduation. The petitioners filled in the forms and they were issued admit cadre to appear in the entrance test. Thereafter they appeared in the said test. The result of the petitioners was declared. All the five petitioners were declared successful. After declaring them successful in the said test, they were allocated Institution namely Acharya Narendra Dev nagar Nigam Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur for pursuing their studies of B. Ed. Course. The petitioners approached the Institution aforesaid and deposited their fee on different dates. After admission, they started to attend the classes of B. Ed. Course. The petitioners were continuing their studies when all of a sudden the order of Registrar-Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, kanpur which was issued on 6. 11. 1997, was received, whereby the admission of the petitioners were directed to be cancelled on the ground that they have not secured minimum 45% marks in the qualifying examination i. e. Graduation. ( 4 ) SRI J. N. Verma, appearing on behalf of the University, urged that since the petitioners do not fulfil the minimum qualification, as has been prescribed by Notification of the State Government dated 4th July, 1997 under Section 28 of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, the petitioners were not eligible even to appear in the entrance test and on this basis alone the petitioners admission was cancelled. ( 5 ) UNDER the orders of this Court, the petitioners were permitted to take their examination subject to the decision of this petition. Now the petitioners have completed the B. Ed. course. ( 6 ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that since the forms of the petitioners were accepted and after the date of notification dated 4. Now the petitioners have completed the B. Ed. course. ( 6 ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that since the forms of the petitioners were accepted and after the date of notification dated 4. 7. 1997 admit cards were issued to the petitioners and they were allowed to take up the examination in which they remained successful, the respondents are now estopped from taking the plea that the petitioners were not eligible to appear in the examination as they did not fulfil the requirement of minimum percentage of marks. In this connection reference has been made to a decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 , Sri Krishnan v. The Kurkshetra University, wherein it has been held that once a candidate is allowed to take the examination, then he cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity except that of fraud committed by the candidate. ( 7 ) IN the present case there is no fault from the side of the petitioners, in as much as they have passed Graduation and have secured not less than 45% marks. ( 8 ) THERE is also a Division Bench decision of this Court, reported in (1985) 2 UPLBEC 1004, manoj Kumar Gupta v. Coordinator Admission Committee Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering college, Allahabad and Anr. , on the similar matter of admission. ( 9 ) BESIDES the Division Bench decision, there is another case reported in 1989 (15) ALR (SC)356, Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors. , which also covered the similar controversy. ( 10 ) THE Apex Court also found that somewhat similar situation arose in Premiji Bhai Ganesh bhai Kshetriya v. Vice Chancellor, Ravishankar University, Raipur, AIR 1967 M. P. 194, in which a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh observed as follows : "from the provisions of Ordinance Nos. 19 and 48 it is clear that the scrutiny as to the requisite attendance of the candidates is required to be made before the admission cards are issued. Once the admission cards are issued permitting the candidates to take their examination, there is no provision in Ordiance No. 19 or Ordinance No. 48 which would enable the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw the permission. Once the admission cards are issued permitting the candidates to take their examination, there is no provision in Ordiance No. 19 or Ordinance No. 48 which would enable the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw the permission. The discretion having been clearly exercised in favour of the petitioner by permitting him to appear at the examination it was not open to the Vice-Chancellor to withdraw that permission subsequently and to withhold his result. " ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on 1990 All. L. J. 1113 : (1991) 1 UPLBEC 261, Km. Savita Singh v. Board of High School and Intermediate exanination, U. P. ; Allahabad, through its Secretary, 1990 All. L. J. 1090 : (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1524, Alok Singh v. Kshetriya Sachivi and Ors. and (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1808, Km. Pallavi mukherjee v. Board of High School, in which placing reliance on Shri Krishnans case (supra), it was held that the educational authorities were estopped from withholding or cancelling the result of the petitioner on the ground that the combination offered by the student as private candidate was not permissible under the regulation. Reference was also made to the Division Bench of this court in Ved Pal Singh v. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, (1987) 1 UPLBEC 298, in which it was held that once having declared the result the Board is estopped from recalling the result and declaring the petitioner as failed almost after two years. This cannot be done and this will greatly affect the career of the petitioner who had already studied for two years by attending the classes in Intermediate. Another Division Bench of this Court in Rajnath Singh Yadav v. Secretary, madhyamic Shiksha Parishad, (1986) 2 UPLBEC 1424, quashed the order of the Board on the ground of delayed action. Similar view was taken in Pravesh Kumar Dubey v. Kanpur university, (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1053. ( 12 ) NOW the question is whether the present case comes within the fold of the above principle? as said above, on the date on which the petitioners applied for Entrance Test, they were undoubtedly eligible and qualified to appear in the test and their forms were duly accepted without any demur or objection. ( 12 ) NOW the question is whether the present case comes within the fold of the above principle? as said above, on the date on which the petitioners applied for Entrance Test, they were undoubtedly eligible and qualified to appear in the test and their forms were duly accepted without any demur or objection. Not only this, even after the crucial date of the Government notification, admit cards were issued to the petitioners, they were allowed to appear in the entrance Test and ultimately, their result was declared on 14. 10. 1997. All this exercise went on without any objection from the side of the respondents. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be penalised for the fault committed by the respondents. In the educational sphere the Apex Court has been quite liberal in extending the principle of promisory estoppel and acquiescence against educational authorities if they have, after giving an assurance, have acted to the detriment of a student. The other High Courts have also taken a liberal attitude in interpreting and applying the principle of estoppel, vis-a-vis, students in the matters of their admission, cancelling of results and other allied matter. A reference may be made to the decision of M. Hussain and Ors. v. Bharathyiyar University Coimbatore and Ors. , 1991 (3) AIEC 730 (Ad.) and the decisions of this court in Atul Mathur and Ors. v. Allahabad Agricultural Institute, Naini and Ors. . (1993) 1 e. S. C. 244 (Alld.) and Km. Pratima Srivastava v. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (1994) 1 ESC 74 (Alld.) : (1994) 2 UPLBEC 74 (Alld.), Km. Pratima Srivastavas case (supra), also related to entrance Examination for the B. Ed, course. It was held that the respondents in that case, after declaring the petitioner successful in Entrance Examination for b. Ed, and also after directing her to get herself admitted in the particular college, could not go back and refuse her admission on the ground that she did not possess degree of Graduation upto a particular date. It was held that the respondents in that case, after declaring the petitioner successful in Entrance Examination for b. Ed, and also after directing her to get herself admitted in the particular college, could not go back and refuse her admission on the ground that she did not possess degree of Graduation upto a particular date. In Sri Krishnans case (supra), the Apex Court had clearly laid down that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity, which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear in the examination. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the apex Court as well as this Court. The plea of estoppel if clearly attracted in the present case and now the respondents are debarred from assessing that the petitioners were not eligible to seek admission as they did not fulfil the minimum requirement of percentage of marks in the Degree examination. ( 13 ) IN the light of the above facts and authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court, this Court and various other High Courts, the University cannot cancel the admission of the petitioners. The impugned order is fully unjustified and arbitrary. The University is estopped from challenging the admission of the petitioners at such a late stage when the course has been completed. ( 14 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 6. 11. 1997 passed by the respondent No. 1 Registrar, Chhatrapati Sahuji maharaj University, Kanpur is hear by quashed and it is directed that the result of the petitioners of B. Ed. for the Sessions 1997-98 shall be declared within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Registrar of the University. .