Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner who is a student of Master of Information Technology of Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka (hereinafter to be referred to as MAHE), a deemed University under the U.G.C. Act, has moved this Court for a direction to the Respondent-University to issue her corrected mark sheet in view of request made to them from their authorised Study Centre being Zakir Hussain Institute at Bhagalpur. 3. A fact which is not in dispute is that the petitioner was pursuing her curriculum from the Zakir Hussain Institute at Bhagalpur which is an authorised Study Centre of MAHE. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was pursuing her vocational course with them. The dispute relates to the examination of third semester held in January, 2002 at Bhagalpur in which she was declared as failed. From the stand of the Study Centre, it transpires that there was a typographical error in preparation of the result. As the petitioner requested for rectification of mistake and publication of her revised result, the same was refused on the ground that in view of circular dated 4 January, 2002 as contained in Annexure-B, by which it has been decided that henceforth no exception or deviation will be made to the rules and regulations pertaining to preparation and submission of Internal Assessment Marks. In view of the same, it has been communicated that all Study Centres should take suitable measures to ensure correct and timely submission of I.A. Mark Statements. Certain further direction had also been given regarding submission of the mark sheet in prescribed format and how a soft copy and the hard copy was to be submitted. In view of the same, though the Study Centre as would be clear from Annexure-3 had requested for correction of the marks of the petitioner as marks list showed that she had obtained 56,57,57 and 57 in PGDTT in different papers in the third semester. The error which has crept in was said to be on the part of the Controller of Examination, MAHE, as such, the same was requested to be corrected. The aforesaid letter of petitioners father finds support from Annexure-4 i.e. the letter sent by the Director of the Institute to the Controller of Examination. The error which has crept in was said to be on the part of the Controller of Examination, MAHE, as such, the same was requested to be corrected. The aforesaid letter of petitioners father finds support from Annexure-4 i.e. the letter sent by the Director of the Institute to the Controller of Examination. However, Annexure-4 series would go to show that though such complaint has been received by the MAHE but in view of rules of the University as errors committed by the Study Centre are not required to be corrected by the MAHE, as such, no correction was possible. 4. On the query of the Court as to which were the relevant rules which debar even typographical errors to be corrected, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the MAHE that the rules as has been appended as contained in Annexure-B was the relevant provisions which debar the same. This Court has examined Annexure-B. The same prescribes how the proforma regarding mark sheet is to be filled up though it stipulates that the correct roll number, name, marks should be entered thereunder and other relevant rules are also required to be followed. It also states that there is no provision to improve the internal assessment marks once submitted to the University. 5. As I have already discussed above, the provisions under Annexure-B, but under no stretch of imagination it can be interpreted to hold that if a mistake has crept in by typographical error and marks of a candidate has been wrongly entered, the mistake on the part of the Centre or if it be of the MAHE, cannot be corrected and the candidate who has prescribed to the course and have duly cleared the same would be made to suffer and made an escape-goat. MAHE may be required to adhere to the aforesaid rules by issuing circular as contained in Annexure-B, and any interpretation be given to the same, but it in no way can be an estoppel in correcting typographical error, when the same has been accepted. Admittedly here in the present case the Centre in its letter had communicated that there was an error, the person responsible in the Centre for the same has already been removed. The petitioner, if she has cleared the third semester then she cannot be made to suffer, as laches is not on her making. 6. Admittedly here in the present case the Centre in its letter had communicated that there was an error, the person responsible in the Centre for the same has already been removed. The petitioner, if she has cleared the third semester then she cannot be made to suffer, as laches is not on her making. 6. The case relied on by counsel for the MAHE being Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology and another V/s. Gangadeep Sharma and another, reported in 2001(9) Supreme Court Cases 157, to my mind, is of no help as the aforesaid case is related to the interpretation regarding unamended Regulation in the Institute operating during academic year 1997-98, where students of 1st year failing to secure minimum specified grade in any paper or papers were given benefit of repeating the examination in the said papers and thereafter, they again failed to secure specified grade, they were asked to leave the Institute. Subsequently, the aforesaid regulation was amended with effect from 10.5.1999 whereunder minimum percentage of pass marks was reduced but right to repeat the examination taken away and students on failure to secure minimum percentage were asked to leave the Institute. The Respondents joining the course in academic year 1997-98 and on their failure to secure specified grade in some papers, they availed the benefit of repeating the examination under the unamended regulation which was then in vogue but they having failed to secure specified grade, their names were removed from the rolls of the Institute. But as the Respondents had obtained the reduced minimum percentage of pass marks they have moved the Court for a relief that they should be allowed to continue in view of the amended regulation. The Court held that the Respondent cannot be heard to say that they should be allowed to repeat the papers as was provided under the amended regulations and should also be allowed to take advantage of the amended regulation in so far as reduced percentage is concerned. 7. To my mind, this fact is not the fact at all in the present case. Here the petitioner had successfully cleared her first and second semester. She has also successfully appeared in the examination of third semester and cleared. 7. To my mind, this fact is not the fact at all in the present case. Here the petitioner had successfully cleared her first and second semester. She has also successfully appeared in the examination of third semester and cleared. The Institute which has forwarded the marks to the MAHE had erred in sending the correct marks in place of the marks placed by the petitioner 00 in the statements of marks. The Institute also realised the mistake. They sent the corrected mark sheet. In view of the accepted facts now MAHE had no option but to accept the recommendation of the Study Centre which was their authorised centre, if they have no other reason to revise the mark sheet. 8. In the facts of the case, as this is not the ground for rejection of issuance of the corrected mark sheet but the only ground is that may be she may have obtained a higher marks but as the Study Centre erroneously forwarded a different mark sheet which she had not obtained her result would be decided on the marks erroneously sent by the Study Centre and not on the marks which she had actually obtained. This proposition cannot be sustained under any stretch of imagination, as such, letter of communication dated July 5, 2002 issued by the Controller of Examination, Manipal Academy of Higher Education as contained in Annexure-4 series stand quashed and the Respondent-Controller of Examination, MAHE is directed to issue revised mark sheet as duly obtained by the petitioner after making necessary verification in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today. As the order is passed in presence of counsel representing all the parties, they are in know of the order of this Court. 9. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.