ORDER Arun Mishra, J. Petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by the action of respondent/Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Bhopal of cancelling the examination of the petitioner of diploma in education two years course held in 2001-2002. The petitioners submitted that they are working as Teachers in Education Department in different schools in District, Damoh; pursuant to departmental permission admission was given to petitioners in diploma in education two years correspondence course. Name of the petitioner was registered for the first year in academic session 2000-2001; petitioner appeared in final examination in session 2001-2002, admission cards (P/1) were issued, registration number and roll number were also issued by the Board, after completion of the examination, the Board has not declared the result in spite of petitioners' submitting the representation. Petitioners submit that result has been withheld without any valid reason/authority. Return has been filed by the respondent/Board of Secondary Education. In the return it is contended that Center Superintendent, has not been arrayed as respondent. The directions R/1 relating to course issued by the Board in clause 13 provides that students who are doing diploma in education through correspondence course have also to participate in Student Contact Programme and it is mandatory that the students have 65% of attendance in Student Contact Programme otherwise they will be "debarred from appearing in the examination". The Board has written to the Center Superintendent to issue admission cards only to those students having attendance more than 65%; reminder was also sent in that regard. The attendance sheet was forwarded on 3-8-2001. Petitioner No. 1 has 58.33% attendance, petitioner No. 2 58.33%, petitioner No. 3 55.55%, petitioner No. 4 55.55% and petitioner No. 5 41.66% attendance. The action of allowing the petitioners to appear in examination was illegal. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that once the petitioners were allowed to appear in the examinations there is no power with the Board to cancel the examinations there is no power with the Board to cancel the examination on the ground of attendance. Board ought not to have issued the registration number and the admit card in case attendance was short in any manner, no suppression was made by petitioners. Board ought not to have issued the registration number and the admit card in case attendance was short in any manner, no suppression was made by petitioners. Learned counsel for respondents has supported the action and contends that petitioners' attendance is less than 65% and as per instructions R/1 as per Clause 13 action is proper, thus, action taken by the Board of cancelling examination is proper. Clause 13 of Instructions R/1 indicates that students can be "debarred from appearing in examination" in case attendance is not 65%. The clause 13 of instructions R/1 is to be invoked before the student is allowed to appear in the examination. It was the duty of the Board to ascertain the attendance first and then to issue the admit card. Having accepted the examination form, fees and issuing admit cards after registration for the examination, it is clear that Board has acquiesced in the matter and there is no provision shown that Board can later on cancel the examination on the ground of shortage of attendance. Board could have debarred a student from appearing in exam but power to cancel exam has to be specifically conferred. Clause 13 is to be invoked before the issue of admit card and before a student is allowed to appear in the examination, then only he can be said to be debarred. In similar facts of shortage of attendance, in Shri Krishnan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, , the Apex Court held that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. The Apex Court further held that it was the duty of the University authorities to scrutinise the admission form filled by the student in order to find out whether it was in order. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements. Equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the University to see that the form complied with all the requirements. If neither the Head of the Department nor the University authorities took care to scrutinise the admission form, then in not disclosing the shortage of percentage in attendance the question of the candidate committing a fraud did not arise. If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. In Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, , the Apex Court held that the candidate while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre Law and Inter Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The University was, therefore, held to be clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. It was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results. The decision of Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others (supra) is clearly attracted to fact situation. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the declaration of result. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent/Board is directed to declare the result of petitioners within one month. Costs on parties. Final Result : Allowed