S. K. SEN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by M. J. P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as "the University") against the order dated 29th February 2000, passed by learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. Although we do not agree with the way the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition by directing the university to award more marks to the writ petitioner. ( 2 ) WE have heard Mr. Govind Saran, learned Advocate for the appellant-University and Mr. D. S. Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent-writ petitioner. ( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we agree with the view taken by earlier Division bench of this Court in Tarkeshwar Lal and others v. University of Gorakhpur and others. 1984 uplbec 1437, as also by the learned single Judge in Pravesh Kumar Dubey v. University of kanpur and another. (1900) 2 UPLBEC 1053, that once result has been declared and mark-sheet sent to the candidate whereby the student has been declared passed and marks have been allotted, there Is no scope for cancellation of the result subsequently. In this connection, the Division bench decision of this Court in the case of Tarkeshwar Lal and others (supra) may be taken note of. In the aforesaid decision, the University once declared the result and the concerned students (who were petitioners) on the basis of communication of the result of their LL. B. IInd year, pursued their course of study and obtained admit cards for appearing in LL. B. IIIrd year examination but subsequently, the results of LL. B. Part II examinations were cancelled on the ground that the petitioners committed fraud by conniving with Dealing Assistants in interpolating the tabulation chart of LL. B. IInd year examination of 1975. The Bench held that the University was stopped from cancelling the result of the petitioners and under such circumstances, the students should not suffer for the default or laches on the part of the university. In this connection paragraph 9 of the said judgment may be quoted which reads as under : "in the Instant case, the University of Gorakhpur had ample time to discover the fraud. It cannot be heard to say that on account of paucity of time or on account of lack of staff they accepted petitioners for appearance at the LL. In this connection paragraph 9 of the said judgment may be quoted which reads as under : "in the Instant case, the University of Gorakhpur had ample time to discover the fraud. It cannot be heard to say that on account of paucity of time or on account of lack of staff they accepted petitioners for appearance at the LL. B. Part III Examination and issued them the admit cards. If the University Authorities have acquinced in permitting the petitioners to appear at the LL. B. Part III Examination it obviously means that they are estopped from declaring the petitioners unsuccessful at LL. B. Part II Examination subsequent to their admissions at LL. B. Part III examination. Anil Kumar Srivastava v. University of Allahabad and another, AIR 1973 All 442 , was a case which was decided by one of us (Brother H. N. Seth. J. ). It was a case where the petitioner wanted to appear at the M. Sc. (Final) Examination of 1972 conducted by the allahabad University. It was due to commence on 15th of April 1978, On April 13, 1972 the registrar of the University informed him that he could not appear at the examination as he had failed in the M. Sc. (Previous) Examination held in the year 1971. The candidate filed a writ petition claiming a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to appear at the M. Sc. (Final) Examination. The result of, the M. Sc. [previous) Examination was pasted on the notice board and was also published in the Northern India Patrika showing that the candidate was successful at the M. Sc. (Previous) Examination. A mark-sheet was also issued by the university and on that basis the candidate had attended regular M. Sc. (Final) Classes. It was then revealed that the petitioner had failed at the M. Sc. (Previous) Examination as he had secured only 170 marks out of 500 but by mistake in the mark-sheet issued to the candidate marks obtained by another candidate whose roll number was 230 communicated to him. The mistake was discovered when the candidates application for appearing in the M. Sc. (Final) Examination was being scrutini/ed. He was, therefore, not permitted to appear at the M. Sc. (Final)Examination. The mistake was discovered when the candidates application for appearing in the M. Sc. (Final) Examination was being scrutini/ed. He was, therefore, not permitted to appear at the M. Sc. (Final)Examination. It was held that : "the principle of estoppel comes into operation and the University is estopped from taking up the stand or from producing evidence for showing that the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner ink which he was shown to have passed the M. Sc. (Previous) Examination was wrong and that the petitioner had, in fact, failed in the M. Sc. (Previous) Examination. " after considering the facts of the case and the legal position involved in the case. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was not open to the University of Gorakhpur to cancel the results of the petitioners of LL. B. Part II Examination as there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioners were party to the interpolations made or fraud committed in declaration of the results in their favour. The University on other hand, before admitting the petitioners for appearance at the LL. B. Part III Examination had ample opportunity to discover the fraud committed and refuse them permission to appear at the LL. B. Part II Examination. 1976. However, communication of the results through mark-sheets issued by the principal of the college amounts to declaration of results by the University. The University, in my opinion, is therefore, clearly estopped from cancelling the results of the petitioners of LL. B. Part II examination 1975. " ( 4 ) THE other decision on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent is Pravesh Kumar Dubey v. University of Kanpur. (1990) 2 UPLBEC 1053, wherein, on the facts of that case, the learned single Judge held as under : "the question for consideration before me is as to who is to be punished and who is to suffer for the mistake of the University in issuing incorrect mark-sheet. Mistakes can be corrected by the authorities at any time provided some other person has not changed his position on the basis of those mistakes. Equities are to be adjusted in favour of one who will suffer most. If the mistake are permitted to be corrected. Nobody will be allowed to suffer for the mistake of others. Mistakes can be corrected by the authorities at any time provided some other person has not changed his position on the basis of those mistakes. Equities are to be adjusted in favour of one who will suffer most. If the mistake are permitted to be corrected. Nobody will be allowed to suffer for the mistake of others. In all fairness the University is to be estopped from refusing to declare the result of B. Sc. Part II of the petitioner. " ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid decision of learned single Judge, a Supreme Court judgment in Sanatan gauda v. Berhampur University and others, JT 1990 (2) SC 57, was also considered and it was further held in paragraph 5 of the judgment at pages 1055 and 1056 as follows : "in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others. JT 1990 (2) SC 57. University withheld the result of a student of pre-law and inter law examinations on the ground that he secured less than minimum marks in M. A. and was, as such, not eligible for admission to the Law course. Honble Supreme Court held that student was admitted to law college on the basis of the mark-sheet issued by the University and the student cannot be punished for the negligence of the university authorities. The relevant extract from the judgment is quoted below : "this is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the pre-law and intermediate law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the Final Year of the Course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the pre law and Inter law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the result of the appellants examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the result of the appellants examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. " it was further observed that a student cannot be punished for the negligence of the University authorities and it was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinized the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his result. " ( 6 ) THE learned single Judge in the said decision accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the order withholding the petitioners result of B. Sc. Part II. ( 7 ) IN the present case, we do not find any reason to differ from the view expressed in the above referred decisions. It is not necessary for us to go into the question on the point relating to the direction given by the learned single Judge to the University for awarding more marks, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner/respondent should be declared to have passed on the basis of original result of B. Sc. Part I as declared for the first time. The petitioners result for the B. Sc. Part II examinations shall also be declared and he shall be permitted to appear at B. Sc. Part III examinations provided he has paid requisite charges and deposited the forms under the relevant rules. ( 8 ) IN the result, the special appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of the operative portion of this order be made available to the petitioner as early as possible. .