JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner calls in question the office order dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure-6) of Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya, Puri, cancelling the petitioner’s result of Shastri Examination, 2003 for involvement in mal prac¬tice during the examination. 2. The petitioner was a student of Government Sanksrit College, Baripada and prosecuted Shastri Course under Shri Jaga¬nnath Sanksrit Viswa Vidyalaya. It is stated that the petitioner after completing the Part-I of Shastri Course of two years dura¬tion appeared at the Part-I Shastri Examination in the year 2002 and had done well in the examination without adopting any unfair means and passed the said examination. He also completed and passed the Part-II examination held in 2003 and was placed in the Second division. While prosecuting the Acharya Course under the University, he was told by the Head of the Department that his Part-I. Shastri Examination has been cancelled by the University on the ground of adoption of unfair means. The petitioner claims that since he was declared to have passed the Shastri Part-I Examination in 2002 and was allowed to take the Shastri Part-II examination 2003 and was declared pass, the result of Part-I Shastri Examination, 2002 could not have been cancelled, that too after passing of Shastri Part-II Examination. 3. The opposite party-University has filed a counter affidavit refuting the claim of the petitioner. It is the case of the University that the petitioner appeared at the Shastri Part-I Examination, 2002 but the result was not declared. Final result of Shastri examination was declared after Part-II examination taking into consideration the marks secured by the candidates in both Parts - I and II examination. Result of the Part-I examination, 2002 in respect of the peti¬tioner along with some other candidates was kept withheld since he was reportedly involved in mal practice. A copy of the notifi¬cation of the University keeping the petitioner’s result withheld along with some other candidates for adopting unfair means is Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The result was withheld on the basis of the report dated 10.4.2002 of the Supervisor. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 26.12.2002 vide Annexure-C calling upon him to show cause and appear for personal hearing on 18.1.2003. The result was withheld on the basis of the report dated 10.4.2002 of the Supervisor. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 26.12.2002 vide Annexure-C calling upon him to show cause and appear for personal hearing on 18.1.2003. The report of the Supervisor indicated that the petitioner was found adopting mal practice and the incrimi¬nating material which was being used by him was seized by the Supervisor which contained the signature of the petitioner. The incriminating material has also been annexed along with Supervis¬or’s report as Annexure-B. The Conducting Board on scrutiny of the incriminating material and the answer scripts of the peti¬tioner found that the petitioner has utilized the incriminating material in answering the questions and the said report has been annexed as Annexure-D. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause and appeared on 18.1.2003 before the Examination Committee. The Examination Committee having considered the relevant materi¬als including the report of the conducting board that he had utilized the incriminating materials in answering the questions recommended that the result of the petitioner relating to Shastri Examination, 2002 be cancelled and he be debarred from appearing at the next examination in 2003. A copy of the attendance-sheet of candidates who appeared at the personal hearing before the Examination Committee has been filed as Annexure-E. The recom¬mendation of the Examination Committee was considered and ap¬proved by the Syndicate on 31.1.2003 and the Syndicate cancelled the result and debarred the petitioner from appearing at the next examination by notification dated 24.3.2003 annexed as Annexure-H. However, it is stated that though the petitioner was debarred from appearing at the examination, 2003 by mistake he was allowed to appear at the Shastri Part-II Examination as because the application of the petitioner was wrongly recommended by the Institution where the petitioner was studying along with several other applications. The mistake could not be noticed while allow¬ing him to appear at the examination but it was detected subse¬quently and, as such, the result of the petitioner was cancelled by notification dated 19.12.2003 Annexure-6. It is the contention of the University that the petitioner had himself known about the mal practice since he was issued with a show cause notice and offered an opportunity of hearing. It is the contention of the University that the petitioner had himself known about the mal practice since he was issued with a show cause notice and offered an opportunity of hearing. The opposite party No.4 college has also filed a counter affidavit wherein the Head Pandit appears to have pleaded no knowledge about the mal practice adopted by the petitioner. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was allowed to take the Part-II Shastri Examination, 2003 which he had taken and his result was published, the University could not have cancelled this examination on the ground that his result in Part-I Examina¬tion was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at the next examination, 2003. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Uni¬versity however submits that since the petitioner was aware of the fact that he was involved in mal practice, his result was withheld, he was given show cause notice, he replied to show cause notice and appeared for personal hearing before the Exami¬nation Committee, he could not have taken the advantage of ap¬pearing at the Part-II Shastri Examination. In any event, the petitioner having adopted mal practice during the Part-I of Shastri Examination and his result having been cancelled, neither he could appear at the Part-II Examination nor the result of Shastri Examination could be declared in respect of the petition¬er. 5. Annexure-A is the notification dated 5.8.2002 of the University wherein the result of the petitioner along with some other candidates who had resorted to mal practice had been with¬held. Annexure-B is the report of the Supervisor who had visited Baripada Government Sanskrit College on 10.4.2002 during the examination where the petitioner was an examinee. He reported that the candidates bearing Rol No.260IMJJ011 and 260IMJ012 were adopting mal practice during the visit of the Supervisor. The petitioner was found with a booklet and the said booklet was seized by the Supervisor and the petitioner had signed on the relevant page during the seizure. The petitioner had been issued with a show cause by letter dated 26.12.2002 of the Controller of Examinations, he had submitted his reply to the show cause and attended the hearing before the Examination Committee on 18.1.2003. The petitioner had been issued with a show cause by letter dated 26.12.2002 of the Controller of Examinations, he had submitted his reply to the show cause and attended the hearing before the Examination Committee on 18.1.2003. The attendance-sheet of candidates booked under mal practice who appeared at the hearing before the Examination Committee on 18.1.2003 has been annexed as Annexure-E. The peti¬tioner’s name appears at Sl. No.32 and he has signed the said attendance sheet along with others who attended the hearing. The Examination Committee on consideration of the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner and on hearing the petitioner found him guilty of mal practice for having used the incriminating material in answering the question. The Examination Committee recommended that the result of the petitioner of Shastri Examina¬tion, 2002 be cancelled and he be debarred from appearing at the next examination in 2003. The Syndicate accepted the recommenda¬tion of the Examination Committee and in resolution dated 31.1.2003 decided that the petitioner’s result of Shastri Exami¬nation, 2002 be cancelled and he be debarred from appearing at the examination in 2003. The notification of the University pur¬suant to the resolution of the Syndicate is Annexure-H dated 24.3.2003. 6. The assertion of the petitioner in the writ application that after completing Part-I of Shastri Course of two years duration, he appeared at the Part-I Shastri Examination in the year 2002, did well in all papers without adopting any unfair means and was declared pass, is belied by the fact that the peti¬tioner’s result in the Part-I examination was withheld by notifi¬cation of the University dated 5.8.2002, copy of which is Annex¬ure-1, he was issued with a show cause notice dated 26.10.2003 (Annexure-C), he appeared before the Examination Committee on 18.1.2003 as evident from Annexure-E, the atten¬dance-sheet where the petitioner has put his signature in token of his presence before the Examination Committee. The petition¬er’s specific stand that he had never adopted any mal practice or that he was not aware of any allegation of mal practice is, therefore, false on the face of it in view of the aforesaid documents filed by the University along with its counter affidavit. The petition¬er’s specific stand that he had never adopted any mal practice or that he was not aware of any allegation of mal practice is, therefore, false on the face of it in view of the aforesaid documents filed by the University along with its counter affidavit. The Universi¬ty has, however, taken a stand that even though the petitioner’s result of Part-I examination was withheld, he was allowed to appear at the Part-II examination by mistake which he appeared and the result was also published erroneously and inadvertently. In view of the clinching materials on record that the petitioner was booked for mal practice, his result was withheld by notifica¬tion of the University, he was asked to show cause, he replied to the show cause and appeared before the Examination Committee which found him guilty of adopting mal practice in the examina¬tion, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner was aware of the fact that he was being charged for adopting mal practice in the examination and his result was withheld. Statute 214 of the Orissa Universities First Statute deals with unfair¬means in the examinations by the students. If under the Universi¬ty Statutes, the University has taken a proceeding against the petitioner for having adopted unfairmeans in the examination and ultimately has cancelled the examination of the petitioner and debarred him from appearing at the next examination in 2003 and by mistake he was allowed to appear at the next examination, the University cannot be estopped from taking any corrective steps in rectifying such error or mistake. Rules of estoppel has no appli¬cation against the provisions of a Statute. The petitioner was found to have adopted mal practice during the examination and the Board of Conducting Examiners on scrutiny of his answer scripts and the incriminating materials having found him guilty of using the incriminating materials for answering the questions, recom¬mended for imposing penalty and on that basis, the University has imposed the penalty in accordance with Statute 214 of the Orissa Universities First Statute 1990. In such view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. In such view of the matter, we find no merit in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. However, before parting with the case, we feel it appro¬priate to record a note of caution to the opposite party-University that mal practice cases should be dealt with promptly and the matter should be disposed of sufficiently before the next examination so that the students involved in cases of unfairmeans /mal practice in the examinations know their fates and eligibility to appear at the subsequent examinations in time. Student should not suffer for the mistake or delay caused by the examining bodies. J. P. MISHRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.