Order In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to publish his result of All India Trade Test 2003-05. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was a student of Don Bosco Industrial Training Centre, Kokar. Ranchi in Turner Trade. He was duly registered by the concerned authorities for the said Examination Test 2003-05. He filled the examination form and paid examination fee. His form and examination fee was accepted. After necessary verifications, the admit card was issued to him for the said examination. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in the examination. Result of the said examination was published, but the petitioner's result was not published. The petitioner was subsequently informed that his result was withheld because of shortage in the percentage of his attendance. 2. It has been stated by the petitioner that he was suggested by the Assistant Director of the Board of Examination Controller to make up the shortage in percentage of attendance by attending extra classes/additional classes. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner attended the additional classes in Don Bosco Industrial Training Central, Kokar for about one and half months in the year 2006. The petitioner thereafter made representation to the Examination Controller through his Principal requesting him to publish his result, but the same has not been considered and the result has not been published till date. 3. According to the petitioner, when the examination authorities accepted the examination fee and form filled up for examination and issued the admit card to appear in the examination and allowed him to complete the examination, they cannot withhold his result on the ground of the shortage of attendance which was to be verified before allowing him to appear in the examination. It has been further stated that that there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in appearing in the examination. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it is now well settled that once a student is allowed to appear in the examination, his result cannot be withheld on the ground of deficiency of attendance. Even in case of any deficiency in attendance, the examination authorities having allowed him to appear with full knowledge of the facts are estopped from withholding his result. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim. Even in case of any deficiency in attendance, the examination authorities having allowed him to appear with full knowledge of the facts are estopped from withholding his result. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contesting the petitioner's claim. It has been stated that the Institute from which the petitioner appeared was a private Institute and that on recommendation of the Institute, the examination authorities allowed the students of the Institute to appear at the said examination. Subsequently, finding some deficiency, the result of the Institute was withheld. On enquiry it was found that the petitioner had no required percentage i.e. 80% of the attendance and on that ground his result has been withheld. 6. Learned J.C. to G.P.-III submitted that if a student appears in the examination by misrepresenting facts either by him or by the Institute and if the deficiency in the prescribed requirement is found, the examination authority has every right to withhold the result of the erring students. It has been submitted that in such cases the principle of estoppel has no application and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. The facts of the case attract the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University [ AIR 1976 SC 376 ] and in Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur . University [ AIR 1990 SC 1075 ]. The Supreme Court has held that the University once having permitted a student to appear in the examination, refusal to declare his result on the ground of ineligibility or deficiency is barred by estoppel. The Apex Court further held that the ground that the principal wrongly assured the University that he had verified the position of all the students and they all were eligible, is not tenable as it is the bounden duty of the University to scrutinize the matter thoroughly before permitting the students to appear in the examination. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner made any misrepresentation or played fraud or suppressed the deficiency deliberately. It is also not the case that such facts were not known to the examination authorities before filling up his form. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner made any misrepresentation or played fraud or suppressed the deficiency deliberately. It is also not the case that such facts were not known to the examination authorities before filling up his form. The respondents having accepted the examination form and fee after due verification have issued the admit card and allowed the petitioner to appear in the said examination. Such circumstance is wholly unjustified and hit by the principle of estoppel. The said action of the respondents is against the aforesaid law established by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and is wholly arbitrary. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to publish the petitioner's result, who admittedly has appeared in All India Trade Test, 2005, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.