JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J.- The Central Board of Secondary Education (for short the Board ), felt aggrieved by the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered on 2-7-1996 in writ petition No. 426 of 1996, filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2, whereby directing the Board to declare the result of the examination undertaken by the respondent No. 1 for class X in the year 1996, hence the present appeal. In the impugned judgment it was also directed that a fresh marks-sheet be also issued to her, since the result had been declared earlier only provisionally. The grievance of the Board that the respondent No. 1 was not eligible to appear in the high school examination, was not accepted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 was a student of St. Paul s School, Morar, Gwalior, affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. She filled up form for high school examination but the same was withheld by the school authorities on the ground that she had not cleared her class IX examination. It gave rise to filing of a writ petition No. 484/95 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the candidate and her father. On 4-4-95 an interim order was passed by the High Court to the following effect:- "4.4.95 ORDER (1) Notice of admission was given to the respondents. (2) There is a report that respondents have refused the notice. (3) Let a fresh notice be sent by way of registered post also and service be effected by affixation. The Notices be issued for 18th April, 1995. (4) In para 11 of the Petition, it has been stated that the Petitioner was initially "promoted" but later on she was declared to have "failed". In this view of the matter, a direction is given to the respondents to permit the petitioner No. 2 to join Class X. This would be subject to the decision of this petition. C.C. Today. Sd/- T.S. Doabia Judge" Later yet another interim order was granted on 19-9-1995 in Writ Petition No. 484 of 1995 to the following effect:- "19.9.1995 ORDER Petitioner No. 2 be permitted to take part in the examination To come up on the date already fixed. C.C. Today. Sd/- T.S. Doabia Judge" Later yet another interim order was granted on 19-9-1995 in Writ Petition No. 484 of 1995 to the following effect:- "19.9.1995 ORDER Petitioner No. 2 be permitted to take part in the examination To come up on the date already fixed. Sd/- T.S. Doabia Judge" The Writ Petition No. 484/95 was thereafter disposed of by order dated 5-12-95, which reads as under:- The order of the High Court was set aside. Another decision reported in 1993 (4) SCC 401 , Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal, a three judge bench decision, was relied upon in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra). A passage from the above noted decision was also quoted therein which reads as follows: "We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensure from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions. Yet another decision referred to is reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667 , A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. etc. etc., again a three judge bench decision. It was observed in this case: "...We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws." The above referred matter relates to the admission and examination of M.B.B.S. courses. 7. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws." The above referred matter relates to the admission and examination of M.B.B.S. courses. 7. In the background of the law as laid down by this Court, we find that in the case in hand the fact situation was even worse as compared to the decision cited above. The student, namely, respondent No. 1 had failed to clear her class IX examination which was a necessary requirement as provided under the bye-laws of the Board so as to be entitled to appear in the class X examination conducted by the Board. Despite notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 to indicate any fact or circumstance so as to take any different view. Condoning the lapses or overlooking the legal requirements in consideration of mere sympathy factor does not solve the problem rather breeds more violations in the hope of being condoned. It disturbs the discipline of the system and ultimately adversely affects the academic standards. 8. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 2.7.1996 passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 426 of 1996. There would, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ****************** 00082