ORDER 1. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 who are the contesting respondents. Respondent 5 is dead and as such his name has stood deleted from the array of parties. Other respondents though served, did not think it fit to appear and contest the proceedings and they are set ex parte. 2. A short question arises for consideration. The appellant had filed a writ petition being Matter No. 2307 of 1987 in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta bringing in challenge the permission granted to Respondent 6, 9 Assistant Professor of Town & Regional Planning enabling him to appear at the Master of Town and Regional Planning (Sections C & D) Examination, which was conducted by Calcutta University. His submission was that Respondent 6 was not entitled to appear as a private candidate at the Section Examination and without passing the same he could not appear at the Section D examination as Regulation 4(b) of the relevant Examination Rules promulgated by Calcutta University prohibited such a candidate. 3. The relevant facts leading to these proceedings are that the appellant as well as Respondent 6 herein are serving as Assistant Professors of the a Town & Regional Planning Department of Bengal Engineering College, Shibpur. The said College was affiliated to Calcutta University at the relevant time. According to the appellant, Respondent 6 who was a full-time teacher in the Town & Regional Planning Department in the same College, was not entitled to appear at the Section C Examination as per the rules and regulations of the University and still the Principal of the College certified him to be fit and permitted him to appear at the examination in the year 1986-87. In the said petition, apart from Respondent 6, who was likely to be affected by the result of the writ petition, the appellant joined the ViceChancellor of the University of Calcutta; Principal of the Bengal Engineering College; State of West Bengal; the Secretary, Faculty Council of Postgraduate Studies in Sciences, Technology, Agricultural Engineering, Veterinary Science of the University of Calcutta and the Controller of Examination of the University of Calcutta. The writ petition remained lingering on the file of Calcutta High Court for a period of almost eight years. The writ petition remained lingering on the file of Calcutta High Court for a period of almost eight years. In the meantime, no counter was filed by any of the contesting respondents in spite of opportunity being given to them from time to time. Learned Single Judge thereafter took up the matter for final disposal. Relying on the relevant regulations governing the question in controversy learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellants writ petition deserved to be granted to limited extent namely that the authorities of the University were directed to consider the question of declaration of the result of Respondent 6 taking into consideration the representation of the appellant and to decide whether in view of the provisions of the University Act and other rules and regulations, Respondent 6 was entitled to appear in the examination in question. During the pendency of the consideration of the controversy before the authorities of the University, declaration of the result of Respondent 6 was directed to remain stayed. It was also further directed that while considering the question in controversy giving rise to the writ petition, the respondent authorities will afford opportunity to the appellant and Respondent 6 and thereafter would decide the representation regarding the controversy in question. 4. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant original writ petitioner went up in appeal in Appeal No. 2062 of 1995. His contention before the Division Bench of the High Court was that the writ petition should have been fully allowed instead of relegating the appellant to the remedy by way of representation to the university authorities to consider his case. The Division Bench of the High Court took the view agreeing with the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have left the matter to the University and it could have been decided by the Court itself and that is how appeal was allowed and the writ petition was remanded to the learned Single Judge for redeciding the question after hearing the parties and after giving further opportunity to the contesting respondents to file their reply to the writ petition. It is this order of the Division Bench that has been brought in challenge in this appeal on special leave. It is this order of the Division Bench that has been brought in challenge in this appeal on special leave. S. So far as the main question of eligibility of Respondent 6 to be entitled a to appear at the Section C Examination as a private candidate is concerned, the relevant regulations to which our attention was invited are Regulations 3(i), 4(a) and 4(b). They read as under: "3. (i) For the purpose of registering as a private candidate for any of the Master of Town and Regional Planning Examinations (Section A/Section B/Section C/Section D) such a candidate must apply, together with (i) testimony of his work since graduation, (ii) certificate of the period of his present employment as full-time Teacher or Research Scholar/Fellow in an affiliated engineering college, (iii) academic diploma, (iv) a fee of Rs 30 to the University through the Principal of the engineering college where he is employed as full-time Teacher or Research Scholar/Fellow at least three months prior to the date of the Master of Town and Regional Planning Examination. 4. (a) A candidate who has already passed the diploma in Town and Regional Planning Examination of the Calcutta University under new regulations (since 1966) and has been prosecuting his profession with repute shall be exempted from appearing in Master of Town and Regional Planning Section A and Section B Examinations. (b) The candidate who has qualified for exemption as stipulated in Regulation 4(a) may be admitted to Master of Town and Regional Planning Section C Examination provided he has prosecuted the prescribed course of study for the Section C Examination in an engineering college affiliated to the Calcutta University in Town and Regional Planning course for the third semester and is certified by the Principal of the college to be fit to take examinationl or as a private candidate provided he is a full-time Teacher/Research Scholarl Fellow of not less than two-and-a-half years standing in an engineering college affiliated to the Calcutta University in Architecture and Civil Engineering degree course. The candidate may be admitted to Section D of the Town and Regional Planning Examination provided he has passed Section C of the Master of Town and Regional Planning Examination of Calcutta University within the provisions of clause 6(c) and has prosecuted the prescribed course of study for the Section D Examination in a college affiliated to Calcutta University in Town and Regional Planning course for the fourth semester and is certified by the Principal of the college to be fit to take the examination or as a private candidate provided he is a full-time Teacher/Research Scholar/Fellow of not less than three years standing in an engineering college affiliated to Calcutta University in Architecture or Civil Engineering degree course and has passed Section C of the Master of Town and Regional Planning Examination of Calcutta University within the provisions of clause 6(c)." 6. It is not in dispute that Respondent 6 was having a diploma in the Town and Regional Planning Examination of Calcutta University and was duly exempted from appearing in the Master of Town and Regional Planning Section A and Section B Examinations. Consequently, Regulation 4(a) does not come in his way. 7. So far as Regulation 3(i) is concerned, it deals with the procedural aspects to be complied with by a private candidate who wants to appear at any of the Master of Town and Regional Planning Examinations (Section A/Section B/Section C/Section D). It was agreed by the appellant that Regulation 3(i) was complied with by Respondent 6. But his main grievance is that there has been non-compliance with Regulation 4(h) by Respondent 6. Now, a mere look at Regulation 4(h) shows that even though Respondent 6 had complied with Regulations 4(a) and 3, and was exempted from appearing in the Master of Town and Regional Planning Examination, Sections A and B, he is still to go further and comply with other requirements of Regulation 4(h) before he can appear at the Section C Examination. Regulation 4(h) deals with two types of candidates who can appear at the examination, namely (a) a regular student who has prosecuted the prescribed course of study for Section C in an engineering college affiliated to Calcutta University in Town and Regional Planning course for the third semester and he is certified by the Principal of the college to be fit to take the examination, and (h) even though a candidate might not have undertaken the course, yet he can appear as a private candidate provided he satisfies the requirements of a private candidate to be eligible to appear at the Section C Examination. To be an eligible private candidate, the regulation requires that he should be a fulltime Teacher or Research Scholar or Fellow who has not less than two-and-ahalf years standing in an engineering college affiliated to Calcutta University in Architecture and Civil Engineering degree course. Now, it becomes obvious that Respondent 6 was a full-time Teacher in Bengal Engineering College which was affiliated to Calcutta University. But the real grievance of the appellant is that even though he was a full-time Teacher, yet he was a full-time Teacher appointed by the authority to teach Town & Regional Planning to the degree course students in that College. He had not therefore, two-and-a-half years standing as a full-time Teacher in Architecture or Civil Engineering degree course. Our attention was invited to para 12 of the writ petition which reads thus: "12. Curiously, after the receipt of the objection by the petitioner the name of Respondent 6 was purported to be removed by the authorities from the timetable for the course of Town and Regional Planning and Respondent 6 s service was exclusively utilised for the course of Architecture. Your petitioner will in this connection crave leave to refer to various timetables to show that Respondent 6 for a considerable period of about ten years acted as a teacher in Town and Regional Planning course and for the first time in 1986-87 his name was removed from the said timetable. Copies of some of such timetables are annexed hereto and marked B." 8. Copies of some of such timetables are annexed hereto and marked B." 8. This paragraph clearly shows that according to the appellant writ petitioner herein Respondent 6 was having considerable experience of more than 1 0 years of teaching in Town & Regional Planning in the College but for the first time in the year 1986-87 his name was removed from the timetable and his services were exclusively utilised for teaching Architecture. It was therefore, clearly averred in the writ petition that for a number of years Respondent 6 was teaching Town & Regional Planning and not Architecture and according to the appellant writ petitioner, Respondent 6 was unauthorisedly shifted from teaching Town & Regional Planning to a Architecture only for 1986-87. In that very year he sat at the Section C Examination. Curiously enough, this averment made in the writ petition was not thought to be fit to be controverted by either of the respondents either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench. Nothing also is said in this connection in the counter filed in the special leave petition on behalf of Calcutta University. Therefore, we must proceed on the uncontroverted factual position that Respondent 6 when he appeared at the Section C Examination in the year 1986-87 was not having the qualification of a full-time Teacher in Architecture in the College in question. We may not go into the wider question whether switching over of Respondent 6 as a Teacher in Town & Regional Planning to Architecture was authorised or not. Even assuming that it was authorised, two-and-a-half years eligibility requirement of a full-time Teacher in Architecture before being eligible to appear at the Section C Examination as a private candidate was obviously not fulfilled by Respondent 6. Therefore, Respondent 6 was ineligible to appear at the Section C Examination. Once that conclusion is reached, it becomes obvious that his result could not have been declared so far as the examination of Section C was concerned. His very appearance at the said examination was unauthorised. Therefore, his result could not be declared and had to be cancelled. Therefore, Respondent 6 was ineligible to appear at the Section C Examination. Once that conclusion is reached, it becomes obvious that his result could not have been declared so far as the examination of Section C was concerned. His very appearance at the said examination was unauthorised. Therefore, his result could not be declared and had to be cancelled. The moment Respondent 6 was ineligible to appear at the Section C Examination he was not eligible to sit at the examination in Section D as the very same Regulation 4(b) provides that unless a private candidate has passed the Section C Examination in Town & Regional Planning of Calcutta University he cannot appear at the Section D Examination. Consequently, it must be held that Respondent 6 was not eligible to appear either in the Section C or Section D Examination thereafter. We may note that this aspect of the matter should have been gone into because of the uncontroverted factual position and in the light of the clear language of Section 4(b), by learned Single Judge and also by the Division Bench but unfortunately that was not done. We may also note that the Division Bench had noted one supposed possibility that because the College in question had become a deemed university after 1993, a question may arise whether Calcutta University could declare the result of the examination. Even that question would not survive because the examination in question was of the year 1986- 87 when admittedly it was Calcutta University which could have conducted the examination. In view of the observations made above, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed in terms of prayer (b) against the respondents save and except Respondent 5 who is dead. Costs quantified at Rs 5000 to be paid by Calcutta University represented by Respondents 1 and 2 to the appellant within eight weeks from today.