JAYANT PATEL, J. ( 1 ) ). Ms. Manisha Shah learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Government. ( 2 ) ). With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 3 ) ). This petition is heard with SCA No. 7189 of 2002 and therefore for the reasons recorded in the said judgment, elaborate discussion is not required. However, the only distinguishing feature shall be dealt with as stated hereinafter. ( 4 ) ). The contention of the present petitioner is that he had applied for in 12th standard HSC examination general stream and there were some alleged irregularities at the time of examination. The Gujarat Higher Secondary Examination Board had issued show cause notice as to why the result of the petitioner should not be cancelled. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had remained present and thereafter no decision whatsoever is communicated by the Board for cancellation of the result. It is submitted by the petitioner that since the Board did not communicate any decision, the petitioner got himself admitted again at the 12th standard HSC examination and undergone study and passed 12th standard HSC examination and has secured 78. 17 percent marks. ( 5 ) ). The respondent while considering the application of the petitioner for granting admission in PTC course took up a stand that since at the attempt of April 2000, the result may not have been cancelled, but the fact remains that the petitioner appeared at the said examination and therefore, it should be treated as an attempt made and since the result is not produced for one or the other reasons and since the petitioner has got himself admitted afresh and has appeared again at the 12th standard HSC examination general stream in April/may 2001 and passed it should be treated as the petitioner failed at the first attempt of April 2000 and therefore, deduction of 5 marks is sought to be justified by the respondent authority. ( 6 ) ). ( 6 ) ). It appears that the petitioner himself also considered that his result of 12th standard HSC examination of April 2000 as cancelled and the petitioner therefore, got himself admitted again and undergone study afresh and again appeared in April 2001 and when the petitioner himself has treated the result as cancelled the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the result is not cancelled. ( 7 ) ). Mr. Pujara learned advocate for the petitioner wanted to distinguish the case inasmuch as he submitted that since there is no decision of cancellation of the result and since the result is not declared finally either passing or cancelling the result, it cannot be said to be an attempt made and failed. I am afraid, said contention can be accepted. It is an admitted case that in the examinations some irregularities were there. As per the stand of the Board proceedings for cancellation of the result were initiated. But no final decision is taken by the board cancelling the examination of the petitioner. However, it cannot put the petitioner on a better footing than appeared and failed in the examination. ( 8 ) ). In the present case I am of the view that the case of the petitioner would be of less merit because allegedly irregularities were there at the examination and it cannot be totally ignored and moreover in any case since the petitioner himself had also accepted the said position of cancellation of the result, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not covered by the said provisions of deducting 5 marks on each attempt failed. Whether the result is declared or cancelled makes no difference. But the fact remains that the attempt of the petitioner of 12th standard HSC examination in April 2000 has not remained successful atleast till the petitioner applied for PTC course. There is no material shown to this court that the result was declared and therefore it is deemed and even the petitioner has accepted that his result as cancelled. Mr. Pujara had contended that in any case in absence of statutory rules the provision of deduction of five marks at each attempt failed cannot be sustained. The said contention deserves to be rejected for the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered by this court in Spl. C. A. No. 7189 of 2002 referred to hereinabove. Mr. Pujara had contended that in any case in absence of statutory rules the provision of deduction of five marks at each attempt failed cannot be sustained. The said contention deserves to be rejected for the reasons recorded in the judgment delivered by this court in Spl. C. A. No. 7189 of 2002 referred to hereinabove. ( 9 ) ). In view of this I am of the view that the authority is justified in deducting 5 marks for the attempt made by the petitioner in April 2000 12th standard HSC examination and therefore the petitioner would not be entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. ( 10 ) ). In view of the above discussion the petition fails. The same is rejected. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service. .