ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged an order passed by the respondent-university dated 26. 11. 1992 (Annexure-11 to the petition) whereby the petitioners admission to M. B. B. S. course in the Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, varanasi has been cancelled. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner, who was admitted to m. B. B. S. course in the year 1990 under scheduled caste quota and on the basis of his performance in the pre-medical test, the petitioner could not have been admitted under General quota. University further says that it came to the knowledge of the university that the petitioner claims to be a scheduled caste candidate not on the basis of birth in a scheduled caste family but by adoption in a scheduled caste family. The university, therefore, directed the petitioner to produce necessary documents on the basis of which petitioner claims to be a scheduled caste candidate. On the aforesaid query made by the university, the petitioner filed a photostat copy of the deed of adoption dated 28. 8. 1989 purporting to have executed by one Algoo the alleged adopted father (who has put his thumb impression) and Jagat Narain Singh and Smt. Raj Kumari devi the parents of the petitioner, who have put in their signatures on the said deed. ( 3 ) THE university further says that from the examination of the aforesaid deed and other documents, it transpires that all through the petitioners educational carrier, petitioner has been describing himself as son of Jagat Narain Singh and passed his intermediate examination in the year 1985 showing as he is son of Jagat Narain Singh with a view to get admission in the institute of Medical Sciences, petitioner appeared to have got prepared a deed of the year 1989 with a statement therein that the petitioner has already been adopted by Algoo 15 years ago and in the application for admission to M. B. B. S. course on the declaration by the father there appears signature of Algoo (which shows that Algoo is literate ). In the application for admission to m. B. B. S. course in place of signature of father/guardian, Jagat Narain Singh, natural father has signed. In the application for admission to m. B. B. S. course in place of signature of father/guardian, Jagat Narain Singh, natural father has signed. ( 4 ) UNIVERSITY further says that all these facts go to show that the deed of adoption is a forged document only for seeking admission under scheduled caste quota whereas admission under scheduled caste quota can be availed only by person belonging to scheduled caste by birth not by adoption. The petitioner was, therefore, by memo dated 7. 12. 1991 asked to show-cause as to why his admission be not cancelled (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner wrote a letter addressed to the Director of Medical Sciences, banaras Hindu University, giving a reference to the show cause notice referred to above that in para No. 7 of the said notice, it has been stated that for admission under scheduled caste quota a candidate should be scheduled caste by birth and not by adoption. This inference has been drawn on what basis, university has not pointed out. The university replied the aforesaid letter by memo dated 18. 12. 1991 stating that reservation under scheduled caste are not meant for the persons belonging to higher castes claiming to have been adopted by a scheduled caste and further asking to submit his explanation positively by 23. 12. 1991. ( 5 ) PETITIONER submitted his detailed explanation on 23. 12. 1991 wherein he reiterated the facts stated above that the adoption took place in the year 1974 and deed was prepared in the year 1989, as stated above. He also cited some decisions in reply and a Government order which is not relevant for the purposes of controversy at present. The second plank of the petitioners defence was that an adoptive is entitled to claim admission against scheduled caste quota in the same way as any they person belonging to scheduled caste. Regarding the nature of the document, petitioner also submitted explanation. The university after considering the petitioners explanation by impugned order dated 26. 11. 1992 cancelled the petitioners admission which was communicated by order dated 26. 11. 1992. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contested the order on the ground firstly that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to show cause in the alternative. The university after considering the petitioners explanation by impugned order dated 26. 11. 1992 cancelled the petitioners admission which was communicated by order dated 26. 11. 1992. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contested the order on the ground firstly that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity to show cause in the alternative. He has submitted that the petitioners explanation has been mis-read and the decision arrived at. is not supported by law. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in Dr. Ashok kumar v. State of U. P. and others, 1999 All LJ 377, wherein this Court in para 8 of the decision has observed ; "to begin with, it may be mentioned that the factum of adoption of the petitioner by Rushtam singh son of Atar Singh, resident of Arsena, Tahsll Kirawali, district Agra and his wife Smt. Raj rani, through the deed dated 25. 10. 1974 is beyond the pale of challenge for one simple reason that the Civil Suit No. 431 of 1997 instituted by the petitioner for declaration has been decreed after contest by the State Government. There is thus an unassailable finding of the competent court that the petitioner is the adopted son of Rushtam Singh son of Atar Singh and his wife, servance of all formalities and after obtaining the approval of the elders of the tribe would belong to the tribal community to which her husband belongs on the analogy of the wife taking the husbands domicile. " ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help that there is no declaration by the civil court in the present case. There is no such declaration much less, it is a declaration qua university or State. ( 9 ) THE second case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2000 UPLBEC (2) 1114 which relates to admission to M. Ed, course. Division bench has come to the conclusion that the cancellation of the admission by the university without giving any opportunity of hearing is illegal. On the facts, this Division Bench Judgment is also distinguishable as there is no such case. In the present case the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity. Division bench has come to the conclusion that the cancellation of the admission by the university without giving any opportunity of hearing is illegal. On the facts, this Division Bench Judgment is also distinguishable as there is no such case. In the present case the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon a decision in 2000 (1) AWC 662 which says that under Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, presumption of the validity of a document, which is registered, is there unless the same is proved otherwise. In this case also, it was a case of adoption for the purposes procuring an appointment under dying-in-Harness Rules by way of deed of adoption. The view of the learned single Judge of this court has been approved by the Honble Supreme Court after reversing the judgment of the division Bench that a adoptive son is not entitled for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules in the facts of the case. ( 11 ) NO other argument was advanced as already been stated that the university has afforded full opportunity to the petitioner and after considering explanation of the petitioner, the university came to the conclusion that petitioner has manufactured the deed only to procure the admission under scheduled caste quota. Thus, the university has arrived at the findings that the petitioner has misrepresented to the university for procuring the admission under scheduled caste quota. Learned counsel for the respondent-university Shri V. K. Upadhyaya has tried to explain the law by citing a decision in AIR 1984 SC 600 . The relevant portion thereof runs as under : "31, Another aspect which one must not forget is that when a child is born neither has he any religion nor is he capable of choosing one until he reaches the age of discretion and acquires proper understanding of the situation. Hence, the mere fact that the parents of a child, who were christians, would in ordinary course get the usual baptism certificate and perform other ceremonies without the child knowing what is being done but after the child has grown up and becomes fully mature and able to decide his future, he ought not to be bound by what his parents may have done. Therefore, in such cases, it is the Intention of the convertee which would determine the revival of the caste. If by his clear and conclusive conduct the person reconverts to his old faith and abjures the new religion in unequivocal terms, his case automatically revives. 32. Another dominant factor to determine the revival of the caste of a convertee from christianity to his old religion would be that in cases of election to the State Assemblies or the parliament where under the Presidential order a particular constituency is reserved for a member of the scheduled caste or tribe and the electorate gives a majority verdict in his favour. Then this would be doubtless proof positive of the fact that his community has accepted him back to his old fold and this would result in a revival of the original caste to which the said candidate belonged. " ( 12 ) ANOTHER case relied upon by Shrl Upadhyaya is in AIR 1996 (1) SC 1011. In this judgment, Supreme Court has expressly overruled the judgment which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In para 36 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that : "the recognition of the appellant by the member of Latin Catholic would not, therefore, be relevant for the purpose of her entitlement to the reservation under Article 16 (4), for the reason that she, as a member of the forward caste, had advantageous start in life and after her completing education and becoming major married Yesudas ; and so. she is not entitled to the facility of reservation given to the Latin Catholic, a backward class. " ( 13 ) IT is settled that one who seeks Indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India, must come with clean hands. From the facts above and the findings recorded by the university, which cannot be assailed, it cannot be said that the petitioner has come with clean hands and thus, he has made himself disentitled for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this :ourt. The petitioner though had a right under Section 5 (7) of Banaras Hindu university, 1915 but I have decided the petition on merits as since 1992 there has been an interim order in favour of the petitioner which deserves to be vacated. The petitioner though had a right under Section 5 (7) of Banaras Hindu university, 1915 but I have decided the petition on merits as since 1992 there has been an interim order in favour of the petitioner which deserves to be vacated. ( 14 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to cost. .