M. H. S. ANSARI J. ( 1 ) - The petitioner in the instant case is the guardian of student. It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter was admitted in Higher Secondary Course in Class XI in Science stream of Baidyabati Charushila Bose Balika Vidyalaya. She has been promoted to Class XII and at present she is studying in that class. The petitioner states that after being promoted to Class XII, the school authorities sent the application of the petitioner's daugher for registration to the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. On coming to know that the registration has been refused by the Council, the present writ application has been filed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is no scope for refusal of registration. The respondent authorities, it is stated, are bound to register the petitioner's daughter for appearing in the Higher Secondary Examination. ( 3 ) IT is further submitted that the petitioner's daugher passed secondary examination in 2nd Division having a total marks of 448 i. e. 56% in Science group and the school authorities having admitted her in the Science group cannot now refuse registration when she has been promoted to Class XII. ( 4 ) AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION has been filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. It is stated therein that the amended Regulation 14 which repealed the earlier Regulation 14 by substitution and has been published in the Gazettee Notification dated 8. 7. 92 prescribes the eligibility criteria for the elective subjects at Higher Secondary level. For Science group, the candidate must obtain 34% which is the minimum percentage of marks for admission in Science group. The petitioner's daugher in the instant case has not obtained the minimum persentage in Physical Science and as such, was not entitled to get admitted in the Higher Secondary course with Physics and Chemistry as her compulsory subjects. ( 5 ) MR. Debranjan Basu Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's ward having been granted admissiion to Class XI and having been promoted to Class XII cannot be denied registration on technical grounds for no fault of the petitioner's ward. The student in question will loose two years if registration is refused at this stage, it was contended. Debranjan Basu Mallick, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's ward having been granted admissiion to Class XI and having been promoted to Class XII cannot be denied registration on technical grounds for no fault of the petitioner's ward. The student in question will loose two years if registration is refused at this stage, it was contended. A plea of estoppel was also raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitioner's case on the ground that the respondent authorities having permitted the petitioner's daugher to continue upto Class XI and thereafter, on promotion to Class XII are estopped from raising the question of eligibility. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon serveral judgments of the Supreme Court, reference to which will be made presently. ( 7 ) MR. P. K. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent West Bengal Board of Higher Secondary Council sought to counter the said contentions by submitting that as per the Regulation 10, the candidates admitted to Class XI are required to immediately apply in the prescribed form for registration of their names with the Council. The petitioner's daughter in the instant case did not choose to follow the said regulation 10, nor was any application for registration made at the time of her admission in Class XI. As soon as the aplication was made by the petitioner's daughter on being promoted to Class XII, the same was rejected in the light of substituted Regulation 14. The petitioner cannot take advantage of his own default, it was submitted nor does the plea of estoppel arise in the instant case. The respondent council has acted in accordance with the rules and without delay. ( 8 ) IT was further submitted by Mr. Chatterjee on behalf of the respondent council that the petitioner's daughter is not eligible to be admitted in the Higher Secondary Course with Physics and Chemistry as her elective compulsory subjects as she did not get the minimum required percentage i. e. 34% in Physical Science at the scondary level. ( 9 ) BEFORE considering the various judgments cited at the Bar, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant Regulation. ( 9 ) BEFORE considering the various judgments cited at the Bar, it may be appropriate to refer to the relevant Regulation. ( 10 ) REGULATION 10 dealing with the registration of students reads as under :"all students admitted into Class XI of a recognised institution should immediately apply in the prescribed form for registration of their names with the council on payment of the requisite registration fee through the Head of the same Institution. Students migrating from other States should pay migration fee. Cases of registration are to be submitted in the prescribed form duly filled in and countersigned with the usual fee of Rs. 5. 00 latest by the 28th February of the year in which a student is in Class XI. Under exceptional circumstances registration form shall be accepted till the 31st July of the year in which a student is in Class XII provided a fine of Rs. 1. 00 is paid for each such form. The council reserves the right to extend this date in exceptional circumstaces on the specific declarations of the Head of the Institutions. The Heads of the Institutions are to submit registration forms in two instalments-One by the 28th February of the years in which the students are in Class XI and the other by the 31st July of the year in which the students are in Class XII. (Fees shall be deposited in the manner provided at the bottom of registration form ). " ( 11 ) REGULATION 14 was substituted by Regulation 14 by Notification No. 2610/3 (1) DS (A)SD/92 dated 8. 7. 92. The relevant portion of which reads as under; "in order to be eligible to take following elective subjects at Higher Secondary Level the student must obtain a minimum percentage of marks in the corresponding subject in the equivalent examination (i. e. M. P. or its equivalent) as noted below; Higher Secondary Minimum Marks to be obtained Subjects. in Madhyamik or equivalent examination. Mathematics 34% Statistics. including Business Mathematics. 34% Biological Science, 34% in Life Science Zoology, Bottany, Business Economics Physiology, Physics 34% in Physical Science. and/or Chemistry. Geography 34% in Geography. in Madhyamik or equivalent examination. Mathematics 34% Statistics. including Business Mathematics. 34% Biological Science, 34% in Life Science Zoology, Bottany, Business Economics Physiology, Physics 34% in Physical Science. and/or Chemistry. Geography 34% in Geography. ( 12 ) IN A. P. Christan Medical Educational Society v. Government of A. P. , 1986 (2) SCC 677, the apex court held that the court will not be justified in issuing direction to the University to protect the interest of the students who had been admitted to the Medical College in clear transgression of the provision of the Universities Act and the regulation of the University. It was also observed therein that the court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of rule of law. ( 13 ) IN State of T. N. v. St. Joseph Teachers' Training Institute, 1991 (3) SCC 87 , the Supreme Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorised educational institutioins and permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and that the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination. ( 14 ) THE above cases were again considered by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, 1992 (4) SCC 435 , wherein it was held that the students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. ( 15 ) IN a recent judgment in C. B. S. E. and Anr. v. Sashi Kumar and Ors. , 1998 (5) SCC 377 , the Supreme Court referred to the judgments cited supra and also distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, 1998 (3) SCC 5 in the following terms. ( 15 ) IN a recent judgment in C. B. S. E. and Anr. v. Sashi Kumar and Ors. , 1998 (5) SCC 377 , the Supreme Court referred to the judgments cited supra and also distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, 1998 (3) SCC 5 in the following terms. "???in the aforesaid case, this court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future but did not interfere with the ultimate direction of the High Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of the students and therefore, it would be inappropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case, inasmuch as there is no iota of material palced before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein, either directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been affiliated or are going to be affiliated or are going to be affiliated in the near future. " ( 16 ) IN the instant case, it must be held that the petitioner's daughter in the light of the substituted Regulation 14 does not fulfil the eligibility criteria for admission to Class XI in the Higher Secondary Course with Physics and Chemistry as her elective compulsory subjects as she has not obtained the minimum prescribed percentage of 34% marks in Physical Sciences at the Secondary level. The petitioner's daughter is, therefore, not eligible for being admitted nor on that ground can a direction be issued by this court to grant her registration. The respondent council have not held out any promise that she would be granted registration notwithstanding that she does not fulfil the eligibility criteria. The petitioner's daughter is, therefore, not eligible for being admitted nor on that ground can a direction be issued by this court to grant her registration. The respondent council have not held out any promise that she would be granted registration notwithstanding that she does not fulfil the eligibility criteria. On the contrary, on the petitioner's own showing the application for registration was made not at the time of the petitioner's daughter's admission to Class XI as required under Regulation 10 but after her promotion to Class XII, the petitioner cannot sustain the plea of estoppel as it is the petitioner who is responsible for the delay in seeking registration after promotion and not as required by the rules within the prescribed period at the time of admission to Class XI. No blame can be fastened on the respondent council. ( 17 ) THE judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts of the instant case. ( 18 ) IN Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 , it was found that University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination. The court held that thereafter, the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidates. ( 19 ) IN Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr. , AIR. 1986 SC 1448, the court observed that the blame for the wrongful admission was upon the Engineering Colleges which granted admission than upon the students. In the instant case, as per Regulation 10, referred to supra, all students admitted to Class XI are required to immediately apply for registration of their names with the council. The petitioner, as noted above, did not comply with the said regulation. ( 20 ) IN Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan v. The Dean, Dr. V. M. Medical College, Solapur and Ors. , AIR 1989 SC 382 , the Supreme Court noticed that the supernumerary housepost was specifically created for the appellant therein so as to enable her to become eligible for post graduate degree course. The court held that the respondents were not justified in refusing her even an application form and in not considering her case for admission. , AIR 1989 SC 382 , the Supreme Court noticed that the supernumerary housepost was specifically created for the appellant therein so as to enable her to become eligible for post graduate degree course. The court held that the respondents were not justified in refusing her even an application form and in not considering her case for admission. In that case, it was not disputed that the appellant therein had all the requisite qualifications for admissiion to the post graduate degree course. ( 21 ) IN Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors. , AIR 1990 SC 1075 , the court observed that the petitioner therein was duly qualified to be admitted to Law course, Sharma J. in his concurring judgment observed as follows;"the interpretation of the rule on the basis of which the University assets that the appellant was not eligible for admission is challenged by the appellant and is not accepted by the College and my learned Brother accepts the construction suggested by him as correct. In such a situation even assuming the construction of the rule as attempted by the University as correct, the Principal cannot be condoned for recommending the candidature of the appellant for the examination in question. It was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results. " ( 22 ) IN the instant case, the bounden duty of the respondent council to scrutinise the matter has been duly discharged and without dealy. ( 23 ) FOR the reasons aforestated, the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismised, however, without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed