V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether a student who has failed in class XI examination can appear next year in class XII Intermediate Examination? ( 2 ) BOTH the petitioners were regular students of A. S. N. I. College, Gopalpur Azizpur, Bareilly (in brief institution ). They passed High School Examination in 1998. They studied in class XI as regular student for the session 1998-99 in Group cha "krishi Varg". They could not get through and failed in class XI in the home examination, 1999. Next year, they appeared in Intermediate examination, 2000, correspondence course under the Correspondence Education Scheme as private candidates with subjects Literary Hindi, Economics. Sociology and Wood Craft. They were declared to have passed in second division. By letter dated 18. 7. 2000, the Regional secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. , Bareilly, directed the petitioners to deposit their original mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000, with the Principal Government Inter college, Bareilly. The guardians of the petitioners contacted the Principal of Government Inter college, Bareilly, who issued and show cause notice on 21. 7. 2000 that petitioners had failed in class XI examination in Group cha "krishi Varg" in the academic session 1998-99, therefore, they could not appear in Intermediate Examination, 2000, correspondence course as private candidates. On 8. 8. 2000, Regional Secretary the respondent No. 2 again directed the petitioners to deposit their mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000, with Principal Government Inter college, Bareilly, otherwise penal action will be taken against the petitioners. Another letter was written on 12. 9. 2000 by Principal the respondent No. 3 directing the petitioners to deposit the mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000. On 13. 9. 2000 a notice was published in the newspapers having wide circulation stating that user of the mark-sheet of Intermediate examination, 2000, by the petitioners was illegal and if the petitioners obtain admission or use the mark-sheet for any purposes, it shall be the sole responsibility of the petitioners. It is this notice published in the newspaper dated 13. 9. 2000, which has been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The petitioners had prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents not to force the petitioners to surrender the mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000, issued to the petitioners. It is this notice published in the newspaper dated 13. 9. 2000, which has been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The petitioners had prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents not to force the petitioners to surrender the mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000, issued to the petitioners. ( 3 ) SHRI Ashwani Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that even if the petitioners failed in class XI examination in the session 1998-99, they could appear in intermediate Examination of session 1999-2000 as private candidate under the correspondence course scheme as there is no bar that a candidate who has failed in class XI examination conducted by the institution cannot appear next year as private candidate in Intermediate examination, 2000, in correspondence course. The learned counsel further urged that in Chapter xii, Regulation 36 (2) of the Regulations framed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the correspondence course shall be normally for a period of two academic sessions but additional Director of Education (Correspondence Course) can make necessary changes. Chapter XII, Regulation 36 (2) of the Regulations is extracted below :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 4 ) THE learned counsel relying on the Regulation extracted above argued that the academic session could be of one year as well. The learned counsel submitted that in any case, the petitioners having appeared and their results having been declared in which they passed the respondents are estopped from cancelling the result of the petitioners or treating the candidature of the petitioners in class XII of the correspondence course to be illegal. On the other hand, Shri a. K. Banerji the learned standing counsel for the respondents has urged that unless the student is declared pass in class XI examination he cannot appear in class XII examination or final intermediate Examination either as a regular candidate or as a private candidate under the correspondence course scheme. ( 5 ) THE correspondence course education scheme has been provided in Chapter XII of the regulations. It clearly provides that academic session shall be normally for a period of two years. It clearly means that the student in the first year has to pass class XI examination under correspondence course scheme and the next year, he has to appear in final examination. It clearly provides that academic session shall be normally for a period of two years. It clearly means that the student in the first year has to pass class XI examination under correspondence course scheme and the next year, he has to appear in final examination. The scheme does not provide that the candidate who has failed in class XI examination as a regular student can appear next year in final year Intermediate Examination as a private candidate under the correspondence course scheme. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no bar under the correspondence course scheme that a regular student who has failed in class XI examination could appear in final examination cannot be accepted. It is true that the additional Director of Education (Correspondence Course) could make modification in the academic session but it does not mean that two years session can be reduced to one year or it has to be read as one year. Moreover, no order has been passed by Additional Director of Education (Correspondence Course) reducing the correspondence course from two years to one year. Therefore, the petitioners were not eligible to appear in final year examination of class XII under correspondence course scheme as they had not studied for two academic sessions under the correspondence course scheme. Even if the petitioners have appeared in the examination of class xii and their result had been declared, it could not confer any right on the petitioners. The respondents have rightly directed the petitioners to return the mark-sheet of Intermediate examination, 2000 and are in process of cancelling the result of the petitioners. The argument of estoppel is not available. It is a principle of equity. It can be invoked for sake of justice and not for perpetuating illegality. If the submission founded on estoppel is aotepted, it would not only be against Regulations but illegal and unjust. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to appear in Intermediate Examination, 2000. Since petitioners did not disclose correct facts, they cannot be permitted to derive any benefit of their own wrong. The respondents have rightly directed the petitioners to deposit the mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000. I do not find any merit in all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The respondents have rightly directed the petitioners to deposit the mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination, 2000. I do not find any merit in all the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. .