JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J. - Petitioner Deepak Kaushal sought and was granted admission in Three Years Degree Course in Physical Education, for a Bachelors Degree in Physical Education ("BPE" for short) by the Himachal College for Physical Education, Shogi, Shimla. He deposited his fees with the College-respondent No. 2 for the first year of the Course and attended classes. The College sent enrolment form of the petitioner along with other candidates to the H.P. University-respondent No.l for approval. The form of the petitioner was returned back with the following observations: "Returned with the remarks that the above candidate has passed Prabhakar only and not 10+2 exam. As such this form is required to be routed through Academic Branch of the H.P. University to confirm whether Prabhakar is equivalent to 10+2 or not". 2. The Principal of the College sent detailed comments about the eligibility of the Petitioner for admission to BPE Course. The respondent University on March 29, 2005 informed the petitioner that he was not eligible for the Course as he has not passed the 10+2 examination (Annexure-P9). 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner is in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents for the following reliefs: (i) That Annexure-P9 being illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, ultra vires, unconstitutional and void is quashed; (ii) Directing the respondent University to issue roll number card to the petitioner and to allow him to sit in the annual 1st Year examination of Bachelor in Physical Education Course; (iii) Directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as 10+2 pass on account of his having passed the B.A. 1st year examination from the respondent University; (iv) Directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his three years course of Bachelor in Physical Education; (v) Directing the respondents to produce the record of the case for the perusal of this Honble Court; (vi) The cost of the petition may kindly be allowed in favour of the petitioner; (vii) Any other writ, order or direction deemed fit and proper by this Honble Court in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned herein above may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents". 4. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for admission to BPE Course in accordance with the prospects to the college-respondent No. 2. He was subjected to rigorous physical test and was selected by the Selection Committee. He possesses the minimum eligibility qualification for admission to the BPE Course as he had passed Prabhakar examination (in Hindi) and has also cleared two additional subjects in B.A. Part-I conducted by the H.P. University and therefore, the petitioner possess the minimum eligibility academic qualification of 10+2 examination. The B.A. 1st year course, according to the petitioner, would be thirteenth Class whereas, on passing 10+2 class, he would have under gone only twelve years of education. 5. The University in its return has taken the stand that the petitioner is not eligible to be admitted to three years Degree Course of BPE as he has not passed "10+2" examination as per the provisions of the Ordinance and the Regulations of the University. The Prabhakar examination is not equivalent to 10+2 examination of the H.P. Board of School Education which has so been clarified by the H.P. Board of School Education. 6. Heard Mr. M.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.D. Khidta learned counsel for the respondent University. 7. The Prospects of the Himachal College for Physical Education, Shogi Shimla, under the heading General Eligibility Conditions, clearly stipulates that the minimum educational qualifications for admission to the College for BPE (Three years course) is plus two pass from any recognized Board/ University with minimum of 35% marks. 8. The question which arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner possesses minimum educational qualification when he was admitted to B.P.E. Course. 9. Apart from the fact that the H.P. University by its letter dated April 26, 2005 addressed to the Principal of the College (Annexure Rl/D) categorically informed that the Prabhakar and B.A.I examination passed by the petitioner is not eligible to seek admission to the Course where the qualifying examination is 10+2, the University also sought explanation from the Principal that under what circumstances in-eligible candidate was admitted to the Course. The letter Annexure Rl/D reads: "No. 3-34/2003-HPU (Acad) Himachal Pradesh University "Academic Blanch" Dated : Shimla-5, the 26th April, 2005. To The Principal, Himachal College for Physical Education, Shogi, Shimla, H.P. Subject: Submission of Registration form of Mr. The letter Annexure Rl/D reads: "No. 3-34/2003-HPU (Acad) Himachal Pradesh University "Academic Blanch" Dated : Shimla-5, the 26th April, 2005. To The Principal, Himachal College for Physical Education, Shogi, Shimla, H.P. Subject: Submission of Registration form of Mr. Deepak Kaushal of B.P.E. Sir, I am to refer your letter No. HCPE-l/2002/Admn/290 and 311 dated 12-1-2005 and 6-1—5 respectively on the subject cited above and to inform you that Prabhakar and B.A.-I examination passed candidate under OT/ MIL stream are not eligible to seek admission in the course where qualifying examination is 10+2. It is not understood that how you have admitted the Prabhakar passed candidate (Under OT/MIL stream) for B.P.E. course whereas as per norms prescribed in the Prospectus under Column General Eligibility Conditions Page 3-4, the Prabhakar passed candidate is/are not eligible to seek admission in B.P.E. course. It is also informed to you that 10+2 examination falls ivithin the purview of Board of School Examination Dharamshala and the equivalences of Prabhakar examination to that of 10+2 examination has already been stand clarified and you must have obtained such clarification/information earlier before admitting the in-eligible candidates. You are also directed to intimate the circumstances under which such in- eligible candidate have been admitted within fortnight before further action is initiated against your institution as per provisions of ordinances/rules of the University," Yours faithfully, P&DO (Incharge) (Academic) H.P. Shimla-5. (emphasis given) 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties before us, we are of the considered view that the petitioner did not possess the minimum educational qualifications for admission to BPE Course for three reasons: 11. Firstly, the University Ordinance and Regulation for BPE three years Course (Annexure-Rl /A) clearly provides that the candidate must have passed +2 examination of H.P. Board of School Education or any other Examination as equivalent thereto. The relevant regulation reads: ELIGIBILITY ; (i) Candidate has passed +2 Examination of H.P. Board of School Education or any other examination as equivalent thereto. (ii) Preference will be given to those candidates who are sportsman are participated in Co-Curricular Activities. 12. This is also the eligibility criteria as given in the Prospects of the College under the heading "General Eligibility Conditions" it is stated that the candidate should be +2 passed from any recognized Board/University with minimum 35% of marks. (ii) Preference will be given to those candidates who are sportsman are participated in Co-Curricular Activities. 12. This is also the eligibility criteria as given in the Prospects of the College under the heading "General Eligibility Conditions" it is stated that the candidate should be +2 passed from any recognized Board/University with minimum 35% of marks. The relevant condition reads: "General Eligibility Conditions: According to the rules and regulations of the HPU, a candidate seeking admission in Himachal College for Physical Education. Shogi (Kadaur) is eligible only if he/she has passed the qualifying examination as under: (a) For B.P.E. (3 years course) The candidate should be +2 passed from any recognized Board/University with minimum 35% marks. Should be +2 with 35% marks for outstanding spots, performance having represented State/National level and obtained a certificate" (Emphasis given) 13. Now reading of the Ordinance and the eligibility criteria in the Prospects makes it clear that a candidate in order to get admission in BPE three years degree course should have passed +2 examination of the H.P. Board of School Education or any other examination equivalent thereto. 14. The question arises whether a candidate who has passed Prabhakar examination, i.e. proficiency examination in Hindi and cleared Part-1 of three years pass in B.A. course can be said to have passed an equivalent examination to 10+2. 15. The equivalency, in our view, has to be seen and certified either by the University or by the Board of School Education. Both the University and the Board of School Education have, after considering the matter, held that Prabhakar examination plus Part-I of B.A. pass cannot be equated with 10+2 examination. The Board has also clarified that +2 examination of the Board involves three subjects apart from English from a recognized Board or University, whereas, the petitioner has passed his +1 examination in one subject apart from English and Sociology. We see no reason to differ with the view taken by the H.P. Board of School Education and the University. In order to pass +2 examinations, a candidate must have taken up and passed in three subjects apart from English, whereas, the petitioner has passed at best in Hindi and sociology apart from English. For this reason alone, the petitioner cannot be said to have passed an examination equivalent to 10 + 2. 16. In order to pass +2 examinations, a candidate must have taken up and passed in three subjects apart from English, whereas, the petitioner has passed at best in Hindi and sociology apart from English. For this reason alone, the petitioner cannot be said to have passed an examination equivalent to 10 + 2. 16. Secondly, the petitioner admittedly sought and was granted admission in the month of October, 2004. In fact, in para 1 of his petition he categorically declares that he has been attending classes and undergoing the course since October 29, 2004 having passed his Prabhakar examination in addition to english and sociology of B.A. Part-I. Petitioner says in para 6 of his petition that: "6. That the petitioner on having qualified the Prabhakar Examination appeared in B.A. Part-I Examination of the H.P. University in two subjects i.e. English and Sociology and in 2003 he passed in English but failed in Sociology which he cleared subsequently getting 48 marks and was awarded the certificate of having passed the B.A. I Examination in the year 2004. The copies of these certificates are attached as Annexures PS and P-6." 17. The petitioner has misled this Court on this aspect of the case. Petitioner indeed passed Prabhakar examination in May 2002 as is apparent from his Result-cum-Detailed Marks Certificate (Annexure-P3). The petitioner then appeared for his B.A First Year in Mach, 2003 but was declared fail in Sociology and scored 36 marks out of 100 marks in English. It appears, the petitioner again appeared in September, 2004 and was declared pass. His result was declared in January, 2005 as is apparent from his Result-cum-Detailed Marks Certificate (Annexure-P4). Now this shows that when the petitioner was admitted to BPE three years Degree Course, he had not even qualified B.A. Part-I examination. The College admitted him in October, 2004 when the petitioner had not passed in B.A. Part-I and his only qualification was Prabhakar in english language after having passed matriculation. The very foundation of the case of the petitioner that he had passed Part-I of B.A. Pass examination of the University as also the Prabhakar is non-existent. For this reason, the petitioner of his own plea was ineligible for admission to BPE three years Degree Course. The petitioner having concealed the material fact is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 18. For this reason, the petitioner of his own plea was ineligible for admission to BPE three years Degree Course. The petitioner having concealed the material fact is not entitled to any relief from this Court. 18. Thirdly, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Prabhakar with a pass in B.A. Part-I examination of the three years degree course of the H.P. University is equivalent to +2 examination under para 8.81 of the First Ordinance of the University is fallacious. A careful reading of ordinance 8.81 shows that a person who has qualified in the Prabhakar examination, i.e. language examination in Hindi would be eligible to sit in B.A. pass three years degree course. There is nothing in this Ordinance which suggests even remotely that a B.A. Part-I examination in two subjects along with Prabhakar would be equivalent to +2 examination. 19. Even the Principal of the College vide communication Annexure-P9 intimated the petitioner that he has not been found eligible for BPE Course by the University as he is not plus two pass. 20. As a last resort, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rupa Jaret v. H.P. Board of School Education, 2003(3) Shim. L.C. 287, contended that the petitioner having been admitted in the College for three years degree Course now cannot be thrown out. The ratio in Rupa Jaret is not applicable to the facts in the present case. 21. In Rupa Jaret, the petitioners having passed their matriculation examination were admitted in 10+1 class by the concerned School. This School, for the purpose of 10+1 class was affiliated to H.R Board of School Education. At the end of the academic session, the petitioners appeared for 10+1 examination conducted by the Board. The result of the petitioner was with held on the ground that their admission to the School and consequent appearance in 10+1 examination was irregular as under Regulation 5 of Senior Secondary Certificate (10+1) Examination Regulations 2002 of the Board, the petitioners were in-eligible for admission to Class-XI of Senior Secondary School, i.e. 10+1 Examination because they had not passed their matriculation examination with mathematics. It is in this context that this Court relying upon the Apex Court judgment in Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 and Sanatan Gauda v. Behrampur University and others, (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 23, took note of the fact that concerned School gave admission to the petitioners on the basis of their ICSE certificates which indicated that the petitioners had not passed their matriculation examination in the subject of Mathematics, yet they were not only admitted in the School but the Board permitted them to appear in the examination under the roll numbers issued by the Board itself and therefore, took a view that once a candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly and the petitioners having not concealed anything, it was not open to the Board to cancel or with-held the result. The petitioners in such circumstances could not be allowed >to suffer for the remissness, negligence or callousness of the Board. In that case, the Board had admitted the petitioners to the Course. In the present case, the petitioner at the earliest was informed by the University that he is not eligible for admission to this Course. 22. The ratio in Rupa Jaret is of no assistance to the petitioner. 23. No other point is urged before us. 24. In result the petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.