JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioner took admission in the four-year course of Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (for short DHMS) in the Utkalmani Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela in the academic session 1978-79. He appeared in the Final DHMS, Part-II Examination in the year, 1983, but could not clear the same in two subjects, i.e. Practice and Medicine; and Obstetrics and Gynaecology. In consonance with the Homoeopathic Regulations, 1972, he again appeared in examination of the aforesaid two subjects in June, 1984 and was declared to have passed the same. Thereafter he completed the six months' mandatory houseman-ship training and was issued certificate to that effect. After obtaining the Diploma, he registered his name as a Homoeopathic Practitioner, in consonance with the Orissa Homoeopathy Act, 1956 and was assigned the registration number C/859 and was also granted a licence as a registered Homoeopathic Practitioner. Thereafter he applied for being engaged at the Cuttack Homoeopathy College & Hospital. After facing the inter¬view he was selected and appointed as a Lecturer in the said college on temporary basis. He joined the said post and performed his duties as such. 2. While matter stood thus, a writ application was filed before this, being OJC No.5700 of 1994, seeking direction of this Court to the Orissa State Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, to issue appropriate licence to the petitioner in that Writ applica¬tion, so as to enable him to start his practice in Homoeopathy. It was averred in that Writ application that licence to practise in Homoeopathy had been refused to many candidates in view of pendency of certain Vigilance Inquiry which had been ordered to be conducted by the Government on coming to know that by malprac¬tice adopted by some employees of the Board false mark-sheets and certificates had been issued to about 392 candidates showing them to have passed the Diploma Examination. The said OJC No.5700 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to issue provisional certificates to the candidates on the basis of their undertaking that if on inquiry it would be revealed that they had not cleared any particular subject of examination, they would appear in fresh examination on the same subject(s). 3. The said OJC No.5700 of 1994 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to issue provisional certificates to the candidates on the basis of their undertaking that if on inquiry it would be revealed that they had not cleared any particular subject of examination, they would appear in fresh examination on the same subject(s). 3. On inquiry/investigation, it was revealed that about 392 cases were there where false and fabricated mark-sheets had been issued showing the candidates who had in fact failed to have passed and the petitioner in the present case as also one Dr. Bhikari Charan Maharana were among those candidates. Said Dr. Bhikari Charan Maharana thereafter filed OJC No. 11014 of 1996 before this Court challenging such finding and the direction of the Board to him to appear in the examination afresh. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment delivered on 8th April, 1997 disposed of OJC No. 11014 of 1996 holding that the authorities were justified in requiring the petitioner in that case to appear in the examination afresh in the following terms: “The submission of the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that the Board having issued a mark-sheet showing the petitioner to have passed, cannot subsequently issue another mark-sheet showing him to have failed cannot be accepted in view of the facts set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. From the tenor of the argument advanced, it appears as if the learned’ counsel is raising a plea of estoppel against the Board, but if it be so, it is misconceived. This is not a case where it can be said that by issuing earlier mark-sheet the Board had made what can be termed as unqualified, unambiguous and unconditional promise nor can it be said that acting thereon the petitioner has done something which if required to be undone will cause serious prejudice to him. On the contrary this is a case, where in all probability the petitioner and some of the employees/officers of the Board entered into an unholy alliance resulting in issuance of false and fabricated mark-sheets. Unless there was some sort of unholy alliance between the petitioner and some of the employ¬ees/officers of the Board, there would not be any reason for manipulating the marks obtained by the petitioner showing him to have passed whereas in fact he had failed. Unless there was some sort of unholy alliance between the petitioner and some of the employ¬ees/officers of the Board, there would not be any reason for manipulating the marks obtained by the petitioner showing him to have passed whereas in fact he had failed. Thus if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it will not only entitle a person who has actually failed to commence practice, but would also amount to giving benefit to the peti¬tioner of the fraud, if we term it so, naturally in connivance with some officers/employees of the Board, which we refuse to do. We, therefore, see no substance in the contention raised.” 4. In consonance with the said judgment, opposite party No.2-Board published a provisional list of plucked candidates, vide Annexure-4, wherein the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl.No. 26 and called upon present opposite party No.3- Princi¬pal of the Homoeopathic College concerned to take steps for forms being filled up by the concerned plucked candidates for their fresh examination which was scheduled to be held on 25th of August, 1997. The petitioner has filed this Writ application inter alia praying to quash the said provisional list of plucked candidates, Annexure-4. According to the petitioner, the Board authorities having declared him to have passed are estopped from subsequently declaring that he had in fact failed and has to appear in the examination afresh. 5. After receiving the Rule, a counter-affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2-Board. It has been specifically averred therein that the case of the petitioner was identically the same as Bhikari Charan Maharana, the petitioner in OJC No. 11014/96, and this Court having directed fresh examination of the plucked candidates, the stand taken by the petitioner is not tenable. It is categorically averred that on inquiry by the Vigilance Department many irregularities, manipulations, malprac¬tice, fraud, bungling of records, etc. committed during examina¬tion/publication of results were unearthed. Even fabricated and manipulated mark-sheets were issued to some failed candidates showing them to have passed. After proper enquiry and receiving the report of the Vigilance Department, the Board found that in fact the petitioner had failed in the Final Part-II DHMS Examina¬tion held in June, 1984 in two subjects, such as, Practice and Medicine, and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, and he had not completed the course successfully. After proper enquiry and receiving the report of the Vigilance Department, the Board found that in fact the petitioner had failed in the Final Part-II DHMS Examina¬tion held in June, 1984 in two subjects, such as, Practice and Medicine, and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, and he had not completed the course successfully. In consonance with the direction of this Court in OJC No. 11014/96 a list of plucked candidates was pub¬lished by the Board and the Board directed the authority of the concerned colleges to conduct fresh examination. The action of the Board being most diligent and in consonance with the Regulations in question, any submission made to the contrary is unfounded. 6. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner more or less repeating the stand taken in the Writ application and repudiating the allegations of the Board. It has been averred that as the petitioner was not a party to the earlier Writ appli¬cation filed before this Court any judgment/order passed in the said Writ application is not binding on him and the said judg¬ment/order does not have any precedence value. 7. I have heard Mr. A.R.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.S.Panda, learned counsel for the Board-oppo¬site party No.2. Mr.Das forcefully submitted that the petitioner had abso¬lutely no role in any alleged manipulation or forgery. He had appeared in the examination conducted by the Board and had been declared to have passed. A certificate was accordingly issued to him and on that basis he registered himself as a Homoeopathy Practitioner and obtained a licence for that. In fact he is now serving as a Lecturer in a Homoeopathic College. The belated direction to the petitioner to appear in examination afresh is unjust, contrary to the Regulations besides violating the princi¬ples of natural justice and equity, and it is a fit case where the impugned direction should be quashed. He further submitted that the petitioner having been already declared to have passed and granted a certificate to that effect, opposite party No.2-Board is estopped from taking a contrary decision lateron. In support of such submission, Mr.Das has relied upon a number of decisions. Mr. He further submitted that the petitioner having been already declared to have passed and granted a certificate to that effect, opposite party No.2-Board is estopped from taking a contrary decision lateron. In support of such submission, Mr.Das has relied upon a number of decisions. Mr. M.S.P.Panda, learned counsel for opposite party No.2-Board, at the other hand forcefully submitted that by the unholy combination of some candidates like the petitioner, the authori¬ties of the Board and the College found that about 392 candidates who had in fact failed were favoured with false and fabricated mark-sheets declaring them to have passed. It was further emphat¬ically submitted that the petitioner was one among those candi¬dates. On scrutiny it was found that the petitioner had not passed in two subjects. This fact having been brought to the notice of the State Government, the latter directed an inquiry to be conducted by the Vigilance Department and on such enquiry it was revealed that there was a large scale of bungling in tabula¬tion and issuance of mark-sheets making certain failed candidates passed. Mr.Panda submitted that as the petitioner had failed in two subjects, the Board was justified in cancelling the earlier mark-sheet issued in his favour and issuing fresh mark-sheet showing him to have failed. It is submitted that as the petition¬er had failed, he was required to appear in fresh examination. According to Mr.Panda, out of those 392 candidates most of them appeared in the fresh examination, but the petitioner rushed to this Court with false and frivolous allegations and it is a fit case where the Writ application should be dismissed in limine. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties pa¬tiently, noted their submissions carefully, perused the materials on record meticulously and considered the entire case diligently. There is no quarrel with regard to the legal proposition advanced by Mr.Das that under given circumstances after a mark-sheet is issued to a candidate showing him to have passed, the authority concerned is estopped from declaring him to have failed after lapse of a considerable time. But then such proposition cannot be accepted universally. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. But then such proposition cannot be accepted universally. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the case at hand, there are materials which clearly reveal that the employees of the college as also that of the Board with an avowed oblique motive of showing favour to the petitioner and similar others manipulated the records and got false and fabricated mark-sheets issued to them. Unless such unholy alliance is dealt with sternly, the entire examination system will be a mockery. If the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted, failed candidates being declared to have passed will carry on their practice as doctors, which will be a menace to the society and threat to the populace. All these aspects were duly considered by the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of OJC No.11014/96 and directing the Board to conduct fresh examination of the plucked candidates. The reasonings and conclusions arrived at by the Division Bench in the said earlier Writ application squarely apply to the present case and are also binding on this Court. Accordingly I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the Board. 9. In the result, this Writ application is disposed with direction to the Board-opposite party No.2 to conduct a special examination for the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that in the event the petitioner comes out successful in the said examination he will be deemed to have passed the examination in the year 1984-85. Application disposed of.