ORDER : This is the second round of writ petition before this Court with respect to the declaration of the result of petitioner of class 12th in which petitioner appeared in the examination held in the year 2000 with roll number 23401083. Petitioner is assailing the orders Annexure P/13 and P/14. The Board has held that affidavit filed in the year 1997 by the petitioner was not in the proper form, it was not sworn before the Notary and petitioner had not submitted the affidavit while she obtained the admission in class 11th to the Principal, hence decision has been taken to cancel the examination of 2000 of class XIIth and action taken earlier of cancellation of exam has been reiterated. 2. Petitioner obtained admission in class 11th in Ganesh Abhilash Higher Secondary School, Sarasbahi, District-Umaria in the year 1997, she claims herself to be a regular student of class 11th and asserts that she passed class 11th in the year 1998. She applied for class 12th examination with M. P. Board of Secondary Education as regular student academic session 1998-99. Application was allowed, examination was held in March/April, 1999, result of the petitioner was declared and she failed in class 12th. Thereafter petitioner again persuaded the studies of class 12th as a regular student from the same school and again appeared in the examination held in March/April, 2000. However, her result this time was withheld on the ground that she had not properly explained the gap between class 10th and class 11th. Result was ultimately cancelled. 3. Petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court WP No. 1619/2001, the respondent/Board took the stand in the previous writ petition that petitioner had admitted in the petition that she failed in Class 11th in the year 1998, therefore, she could not appear in class 12th in the year 1999. It was also put forth that petition had passed class 10th in the year 1992, hence she could not have taken admission in the school in the year 1998. It was pointed out to this Court that petitioner, as a matter of fact, had passed class 11th in the year 1998. It was also put forth that petition had passed class 10th in the year 1992, hence she could not have taken admission in the school in the year 1998. It was pointed out to this Court that petitioner, as a matter of fact, had passed class 11th in the year 1998. Considering the factual dispute, another single Bench of this Court in W. P. 1619/2001 directed that :- "If these two aforesaid facts are essentially correct, I am of the considered view that the Board would not be justified in canceling the result of the petitioner relating to Class XII. As no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 and the matter relates to the realm of facts, it cannot be adjudicated by this Court. Accordingly, it is directed that Result Committee shall re-enquire into the matter whether the petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Principal who on the basis of said affidavit had admitted the petitioner to class XI in the year 1997. The Result Committee shall also enquire whether the petitioner had passed Class XIth in the year 1998, if the Result Committee arrives at the affirmative conclusions in respect of aforesaid two aspects, it shall revoke the order of cancellation of result. To facilitate the aforesaid enquiry the petitioner as well as Principal of the said school shall appear before the Result Committee on 21-9-2001 along with all the relevant documents which shall be scrutinised by the Committee. The enquiry shall be confined to the aforesaid two aspects. The Committee shall address itself with regard to the aforesaid two issues with objectivity and shall see that the petitioner does not suffer for no fault of hers. If the Committee is satisfied with regard to the aforesaid two issues it shall pass the consequential order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of." 4. This Court directed an enquiry by Result Committee in two aspects whether petitioner had filed an affidavit before the Principal who on the basis of said affidavit had admitted the petitioner to class XIth in the year 1997, secondly Result Committee shall also enquire whether petitioner had passed class XIth in the year 1998. It was also observed that if Result Committee arrives at the affirmative conclusions in respect aforesaid two aspects, it shall revoke the order of cancellation of result. It was also observed that if Result Committee arrives at the affirmative conclusions in respect aforesaid two aspects, it shall revoke the order of cancellation of result. Thereafter Result Committee has passed the Order P/13 which is communicated as per P/14 dated 29-1-2002, it has been found that no affidavit was submitted before Principal in the year 1997. 5. Petitioner in the present petition submits that decision taken by the Result Committee is illegal, proper opportunity was not afforded, petitioner was duly enrolled and was issued the admit card in 1999 and 2000. Proper opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner to substantiate the case, in the year 1999 result was declared but in the year 2000 results has not been declared by the Board. 6. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 M. P. Board of Secondary Education in return contends that decision of Result Committee is proper, the affidavit filed is worthless and cannot be said to be an affidavit, thus the action taken is proper. 7. Shri R. B. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1997 when petitioner obtained admission in class 11th, the instructions of the Board issued on 2-6-1997 were in vogue which did not contain the provision of explaining the delay by filing of an affidavit in seeking admission in the next higher class or the gap between the last class and the class in which admission is sought. For the first time, this requirement of filing affidavit was introduced by the Board in the instructions issued in the year 1998, in case there was gap of three years, student was required to explain the gap in between 9th, 10th and 11th class to satisfy that student concerned was not involved in unlawful activity and reasons for gap have to be explained. Similar requirement was reiterated by the Board of Secondary Education in the circular dated 14th July, 1999 containing the instructions, para 9 requires the filing of an affidavit. Instructions for 1997, 1998 and 1999 have been produced by learned counsel appearing for the Board as per direction of this Court. Similar requirement was reiterated by the Board of Secondary Education in the circular dated 14th July, 1999 containing the instructions, para 9 requires the filing of an affidavit. Instructions for 1997, 1998 and 1999 have been produced by learned counsel appearing for the Board as per direction of this Court. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that no finding has been recorded by the Result Committee that petitioner did not pass class 11th in the year 1998, filing of affidavit in view of instructions of the Board for the year 1997 is inconsequential, these instructions for 1997, 1998, 1999 were not earlier placed on record when the order was passed in the previous writ petition by this Court, thus, the decision taken by the Board simply on the affidavit, without making an enquiry into the fact that whether petitioner had passed class 11th in the year 1998 is improper and is not in accordance with the instructions. He further submitted that petitioner was allowed to appear in the year 1999 examination as a regular student, thereafter in all fairness affidavit ought not to have been asked for in the year 2000 for explaining the gap as there was no gap in studies of petitioner for last 2-3 years, in the year 1997-98 she passed class 11th, she failed in class 12th in 1998-99 and again appeared in class 12th in the session 1999-2000. Petitioner was not asked to explain the gap in case subsequent instructions issued in the year 1999 are to be pressed into service, the petitioner was not required to submit an affidavit by the Board, once she was allowed to appear in exam, her result could not be cancelled as per regulation 213 without giving opportunity to make good deficiency, if any, hence petitioner cannot be faulted for not admitting the affidavit in case it was required to be filed for appearing in the examination of the year 2000. 8. Shri P. D. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Secondary Education has submitted that this Court had directed enquiry into the fact whether the affidavit was filed explaining the gap in the year 1997 with the Principal and since on the first ground petitioner could not satisfy that affidavit was filed, it was not necessary to make an enquiry into the fact that whether the petitioner had passed class 11th in the year 1998. Thus, the decision taken is proper. Though in the instructions issued in the year 1997 by the Board of Secondary Education, there is no provision for filing an affidavit in the school explaining the gap between 9th, 10th and 11th, if any, of more than three years, but later this requirement has been introduced when petitioner appeared in the year 2000 and as per regulation 118 of the regulations framed by the Board of Secondary Education, M. P., it is necessary to satisfy the requirement every year whenever examination is attempted, as such it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have filed an affidavit in any case in the year 2000. Thus, the action taken by the Board is proper and calls for no interference. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and anxiously going through the instructions issued by the M. P. Board of Secondary Education in the year 1997, 1998 and 1999, it is clear beyond pale of doubt that there was no instruction prevailing in the year 1997 requiring gap to be explained by furnishing an affidavit. True it is that this Court in the previous writ petition directed enquiry into that aspect but consequence was not decided, however, Board has to go by the circulars and regulations framed by it. Instructions of the year 1997 were not brought to the notice of this Court before another Bench when the matter was earlier decided, which makes it clear that filing of an affidavit in the year 1997 is wholly inconsequential and it was not the requirement as per the instructions issued by the Board under the regulation 200. Thus, the decision taken by the Board of Secondary Education, M. P. to cancel the examination of the year 2000 on the basis that affidavit was not filed, by the petitioner with the school in 1997 when she obtained admission in class 11th, explaining the gap of more than three years is not sustainable. However, the matter does not rest there. Enquiry into the fact was also directed whether petitioner, as a matter of fact, had passed class 11th in the year 1997 as claimed by her, an enquiry was directed to be made into this aspect. However, the matter does not rest there. Enquiry into the fact was also directed whether petitioner, as a matter of fact, had passed class 11th in the year 1997 as claimed by her, an enquiry was directed to be made into this aspect. Result Committee has not adverted to that aspect probably on the basis that it opined that affidavit was not filed in the year 1997, hence it is not necessary to go into the second question. As discussed above filing of affidavit was not the requirement in the year 1997, however, I find force in the submission of Shri P. D. Gupta that filing of affidavit is required to explain the gap of more than three years whenever examination of Board is attempted as per regulation 118 though the Board did not insist in the year 1999 as petitioner failed in class 12th examination and the result was declared by the Board, however, this requirement was very much in existence when petitioner again appeared in the year 1999-2000 session, she ought to have filed an affidavit, but as provided under regulation 213 in case result is withheld, examinee has to be informed to make good the default, that was not intimated to the petitioner. Thus, for not filing the affidavit in the year 2000, petitioner cannot be said to be at fault as she could be required to explain gap in case Board required it to be explained. Purpose of affidavit is to check activities only and it could be obtained in 2000. 10. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the decision of the Result Committee P/13 is set aside. It is directed that Result Committee to make fresh enquiry into the aspect whether petitioner had passed class 11th in the year 1998 as claimed by her from Ganesh Abhilash Higher Secondary School, Sarasbahi, District-Umaria. Let affidavit be also obtained explaining the delay in between 1992 and 1997. Let the affidavit be filed within fifteen days from today. Let Board reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance with the directions made in this order. It is made clear that as there was no requirement of filing affidavit in the year 1997, it is inconsequential whether an affidavit, as a matter of fact, was filed or not and finding of the Result Committee that no such affidavit was filed is simply to be ignored as it is inconsequential. It is made clear that as there was no requirement of filing affidavit in the year 1997, it is inconsequential whether an affidavit, as a matter of fact, was filed or not and finding of the Result Committee that no such affidavit was filed is simply to be ignored as it is inconsequential. Let the Result Committee decide the matter afresh within two months from today. Respondent No. 4 is directed to cooperate with the Board in the enquiry. Costs on parties.