R. C. CHOPRA ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a student of the Lawrence Public School, Lovedale (The Nilgiris), Tamil nadu seeks a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other direction to respondent No. 1-Central board of Secondary Education to permit her to appear in class XII examination of respondent no. 1 Board to be held in March, 2002 and quash the letter dated 21/ 28/11/2001 issued by it defining permission to her to take the aforesaid examination. ( 2 ) THE petitioner s case, briefly put, is that she is a regular student of Lawrence Public school, Lovedale (Nilgiris) Tamil Nadu and had taken her class X examination conducted by respondent No. 1 in the year 2000. She could not clear her paper in "kannada" in the said examination the results of which were announced in June, 2000. According to the bye-law no. 48 of respondent No. 1 Board, a candidate placed in compartment may reappear at the compartmental examination to be held in July/august and may also avail of the second chance in March/april next year. According to this Rule, the candidate will be declared passed provided he/she qualifies the compartmental examination but the candidate who does not appear or fails, shall be treated to have failed in the examination and shall be required to reappear in all the subjects at the subsequent annual examination of the Board. According to the petitioner, after the results of her examination for class X, she was granted admission to class XI along with other students who had passed the class X examination. She took her first chance in the compartmental examination in August, 2000 but could not clear the paper and as such, being entitled to take the second chance in compartmental examination she took the same again in March, 2001. In the meanwhile, she passed her class XI examination and was promoted to class XII. A certificate for having passed class XI was issued to her by the school. She cleared compartmental examination also. Thus, she had cleared her all the papers prescribed for class X and was issued a "passed" certificate for class X also by respondent No. 1. She was promoted to Class XII and. was doing well in her class XII Unit Test examinations. She had fulfilled all essential requirements to appear in the class XII Board examinations to be held in March, 2002. She was promoted to Class XII and. was doing well in her class XII Unit Test examinations. She had fulfilled all essential requirements to appear in the class XII Board examinations to be held in March, 2002. The School wrote a letter to respondent No. 1 to permit her to take the class XII Board Examinations but the respondent no. 1 vide its letter dated 9th of August, 2001 and 21st 21/11/2001 took a stand that the petitioner could not be permitted to take class XII examination to be held in March, 2002. According to respondent No. 1, the petitioner s request for permission to appear in class Xllth examination was not in conformity with the rules and as such, could not be allowed. Contending that the Rule 42, giving two opportunities to a candidate to clear the compartmental examination, was enacted with the object of preventing loss of an academic year to the students, the petitioner asserts that the decision of the C. B. S. E.-respondent No. 1 is unjust, unfair, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit of its Secretary according to whom the continuance of the petitioner in class XI after she failed to clear her compartmental examination in the first attempt was in violation of the rules in as much as a candidate who does not clear compartmental examination at the first chance, does not remain eligible to continue in class xi. It is submitted that after the amendment of Rule 42, new sub-clause (VI) has been added to Rule 42 according to which a candidate who is placed in compartment and fails to pass at the first chance of compartmental examination can not be admitted to class XI. It is submitted that since the petitioner failed to clear her compartmental examination at the first chance, her provisional admission to class XI stood cancelled and she could not be promoted to class XII by the school. It is pleaded that the School which was affiliated to respondent Board was under an obligation to follow its examination bye-laws and in case the bye-laws are not followed, no benefit can be given to a student who has been admitted in violation thereof. It is pleaded that the School which was affiliated to respondent Board was under an obligation to follow its examination bye-laws and in case the bye-laws are not followed, no benefit can be given to a student who has been admitted in violation thereof. It is also submitted that the petitioner could not appear in class XII examination to be held in 2002 as there was no two years gap between her clearing the class X examination and taking class XII examination because she had qualified class X examination in May, 2001 only upon clearing her compartmental examination. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since Rule 42 permits a student to clear the compartmental paper in two attempts, any Rule debarring him to continue in class XI merely on the ground that he could not clear the compartmental examination at first chance is unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India. It is argued that the amended Rule defeats the very purposes of permitting a candidate to clear a compartmental examination in two chances. It is submitted that the petitioner who has been pursuing her XI and XII classes and has already cleared the compartmental paper at the second attempt should not be made to lose her one year simply for the reason that the rule has been amended without any valid or just reason. He submits that a break in the pursuit of studies may be disastrous for maintaining the academic interests of a student especially when the student is doing well in other papers and is fully geared up for taking the Board examinations for class XII. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 argues that the object of permitting the student to take compartmental examination is not to save his academic year but to reduce the burden of examination on him in as much as by taking the compartmental examination in between, a student is saved from taking an additional paper in the final examination. He also argues that the admission of the petitioner to class XI was provisional only and since she failed at the first chance of the compartmental examination, her admission ought to have been cancelled by the School and she should have been asked to wait at home for taking the compartmental examination at the second chance and thereafter seek re-admission to class XI after clearing the same. It is disputed that the amended rule is unreasonable, arbitrary, unjust or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) RULES 42 (i) and (vi) of the Examination Bye-Laws of respondent No. 1 read as under: (I) A candidate placed in compartment may reappear at the compartmental examination to be held in July/august and may avail himself/herself of the second chance in March/april next year. The candidate will be declared pass provided he/ she qualifies the compartmental subject in which he/she had failed. ( 7 ) RULE 10. 1 of the Bye-Laws read as under: 10. 1 A candidate for All India/delhi Senior School Certificate Examination should have: A. passed the Secondary School examination (Class X) of this board or an equivalent examination from any other recognised Board/university at least two years earlier than the year in which he/she would take Senior School Certificate examination (Class XII) of the Board; and B. secured a grade higher than grade E in each of the subjects of internal assessment at Secondary School Examination (Class X) REFERRED TO at (a) above. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5614/1999 titled "central Board of secondary Education Vs. Gaurav Mishra and Others" dealt with a question as to whether the students could be allowed to take class XII examination when they had cleared four subjects out of five and thereafter had failed in the first supplementary examination but passed in the second supplementary examination held by Central Board of Secondary Education. The board respondent No. 1 had contended before the Apex Court that there should be a gap of two years between the passing of the X class and the date of examination of XII class. The board respondent No. 1 had contended before the Apex Court that there should be a gap of two years between the passing of the X class and the date of examination of XII class. The high Court had come to the conclusion that even those students who had failed in the first supplementary examination in August, 1997 but had passed in the supplementary examination of March, 1998 in the failed subject, could appear in the XII class examination in March, 1999 in as much as they had full two years of academic career in XI and XII classes. The High Court had observed that otherwise the students would lose one valuable year in their career. The apex Court fully agreed with the view taken by the High Court in as much as it was saving one year of a students career rather than compelling them to be idle at home. The Clause (VI) added to Bye-Law 42 of the C. B. S. E. Examination Bye-Laws was introduced w. e. f 9/10/1998 saying that a candidate who is placed in compartment and fails to pass a compartmental examination at the first chance, shall not be admitted to class XI. The supreme Court did not go into the implications of the amended clause and restricted its interpretation to the rules which stood before the amendment only. However, the view of the high Court that the students academic year should be saved rather than compelling them to sit idle at home was fully approved. ( 9 ) AFTER considering the pleas raised by parties and upon perusal of Rule 42 of the examination bye- Laws of respondent No. 1, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent No. 1 must have a fresh look upon the implications of Clause (VI) introduced in rule 42 by way of amendment in as much as it appears to be in direct conflict with Clause (i) of the said rule which permits a student placed in compartment to take two chances in the compartmental examination to be held in July/august and also in March/april next year. According to the said rule the candidate is to be declared passed if he qualifies the compartmental subject, in which he/she had failed. It, categorically conveys that a student who clears the compartmental examination in the first or second chance has to be declared passed. According to the said rule the candidate is to be declared passed if he qualifies the compartmental subject, in which he/she had failed. It, categorically conveys that a student who clears the compartmental examination in the first or second chance has to be declared passed. Sub Clause (vi) however puts an embargo by saying that a candidate who fails to pass the compartmental examination at the first chance shall not be admitted to Clause XI. If the clearance at the first chance only has to be given all importance, there is no purpose at all in giving a second chance to the student and that too after giving him admission to Clause xi. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that a student inspite of having been admitted to Class XI has to go back home and sit idle for one year if he fails to clear the compartmental examination at the first chance itself defeats the very purpose of Clause (i) of rule 42 and leads to a consequence which is not intended by the clause (i ). The judgement of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5614/1999 (supra) also emphasises the need of saving an academic year of the student and rejects the idea of sending him home and sit idle. ( 10 ) IT has to be noticed that Class XI examination is always an internal examination to be conducted by the School itself and as such a student who has two chances to clear his compartmental examination by virtue of Clause (i) has the facility of pursuing his Class XI course as well as preparing for his compartmental examination to be cleared before taking the next Board Examination which is for Class XII only. Any break in the continuity of education by making the student sit idle at home may deter some of the students from going back to the School and pursue further studies which could never be the object of Clause (i) of rule 42. If an academic year of a student has to go waste then there is no purpose at all in giving him two chances to clear his compartmental examination. If an academic year of a student has to go waste then there is no purpose at all in giving him two chances to clear his compartmental examination. The contention that according to sub Clause (vi) of Rule 42 all those who clear the compartmental paper at second chance have to seek readmission to Class XI cannot be sustained further for the reason that by the time the result of second chance examination is out a student has already studied for full one year in Class XI and may be in some cases even taken Class XI examinations. Therefore the purpose of giving him second chance gets defeated if inspite of clearing the compartmental examination he has to repeat Class XI all over again and waste his one academic year. In the present case this Court is not expressing its views on the validity and vires of amended clause (vi) of bye-law 42 for the reason that inspite of this rule, the petitioner appears to be entitled to take her Class XII examination schduled for March, 2002. ( 11 ) THE case of the petitioner is that after she was placed in the compartment in "kannada" she was given admission to Clause XI but she could not clear her said paper in the first compartmental examination held in July/august 2000. She took her second chance in March/ april next year and cleared that paper but in the meanwhile she had cleared her Class X examination also and as such was promoted to Class XII by the School. Now when she has almost completed two years in Class XI and XII she cannot be asked to seek re-admission to class XI as averred by respondent No. 1. It would be too harsh and unjust to ask the petitioner, who has already cleared her compartmental examination on her second chance as per rules and is in no way to be blamed for her admission to Class XII, to waste her two years and push her to square one seeking re-admission to Class XI. The School in which the petitioner is studying had admitted her to Class XII knowing fully well that she had not cleared her compartmental examination in the first chance and if any rule of respondent No. 1 was violated it was violated by the School only and not by the petitioner. The School in which the petitioner is studying had admitted her to Class XII knowing fully well that she had not cleared her compartmental examination in the first chance and if any rule of respondent No. 1 was violated it was violated by the School only and not by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 may take any action it likes against the School but the petitioner can not be punished for no fault of her as it cannot be stated that she had made any misrepresentation, played any fraud or manipulated her admission to Class XII. The rule of estopple comes into play. ( 12 ) THE Apex Court in various judgements has invoked the rule of estoppel as contained in section 115 of the Evidence Act to protect and preserve the admission of the students to various colleges and institutions inspite of the fact that the admissions were given in violations of rules or even in the absence of eligibility. It has been repeatedly held that it is the duty of the institutions to ensure that a student is admitted as per rules but where the student is granted admission wrongly and he is not found at fault the authorities cannot turn around and throw him out on the plea that his admission was by mistake. It is the duty of the universities, Colleges, Schools to see that statutory rules, regulations and resolutions are not violated putting a student to a piquant situation and peril of losing an academic year without any fault on his part. The only exception to this rule is that the student in no way should be found to have played any fraud on the authorities or made any misrepresentation for getting admission. In Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh Vs. Sanjay Gulati reported in AIR 1983 SC page 580, the Apex Court came down heavily upon the Engineering College chandigarh for making admissions in violation of the rules but still protected the admission of even wrongly admitted students by ordering increase in the seats. The other judgements in support of the application of rule of estoppel in such like cases are : Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University AIR 1990 SC 1075 , Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. Jodhpur University, air 1989 SC 823 , A. Sudha Vs. The other judgements in support of the application of rule of estoppel in such like cases are : Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University AIR 1990 SC 1075 , Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. Jodhpur University, air 1989 SC 823 , A. Sudha Vs. University of Mysore, AIR 1987, SC 2305, Rajender Prasad vs. Karnataka University MR 1986 SC page 1448, and a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Kanishka Aggarwal Vs. University of Delhi AIR 1992 Delhi 105. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon a Supreme Court judgement in civil Appeal No. 2662 of 1998 CBSE and Anr. Vs. P. Sumil Kumar and Ors. in which the Apex court has deprecated the practice of allowing the students to appear in the examinations of the Boards or the Universities and then ultimately regularising the same by taking sympathetic view in the matter. It is also observed. that the Courts by their fiat cannot direct the universities to disobey the statutes to which they owe their existence. Learned counsel also relies upon the orders passed by the Apex Court, in SLP- 18853/97 Central Board of secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati and Anr. on 13. 2. 1998 in which once again the practice of permitting ineligible students to undertake Board or University examinations was disapproved. However it was also added that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept it should better desist from passing such orders as it puts the rule of law to mockery. It is true that the Courts must not countenance in-fraction of rules nor should interfere with the rules, guidelines and policies made by the experts in academic matters but in a case like the present one where a student is shown to be put in an extremely disadvantageous position without any fault on his part the Court has the duty to intervene and set the equities right to ensure that the student is not made to suffer without any fault on his part. ( 14 ) THE contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that there should be two years gap between the clearance of Class X examination and the date of the examination of Class xii and since the petitioner had cleared her compartmental examination at the second chance only this two years period is not complete cannot be sustained as the clearance of the compartmental examination at the second chance relates back to class X Board Examination in which the petitioner had appeared. She is deemed to have cleared her class X Examination alongwith other students who had passed out in that batch. The petitioner otherwise even has actually studied in Class XI and Class XII of her School for full two years and as such two years period gets completed for all intents and purposes. This two years period cannot be counted and computed rigidly with reference to dates of declaration of results of Class X and conduct of the examinations for Class XII as these dates are not firm and keep on changing. ( 15 ) UNDER the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that upon principles of the equity, justice and fair play, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for grant of relief in her favour. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the respondent No. 1 is directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the Board Examinations for Class XII being conducted by respondent No. 1 in March 2002. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.