JUDGMENT ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought following reliefs :- "(a) to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination scheduled to be held in the first week of October, 2010; (b) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing quashment of any adverse communication which has not been disclosed to the petitioner relating to refusal to appear in the examination, by summoning the same by this Hon'ble Court; (c) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents to allow petitioner to complete the New Course of (BHMS) PAHUT Examination; (d) To issue direction for cost of petitioner amounting to rupees 50,000/- against respondent; (e) To call for the relevant records, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; (f) Any other reliefs deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the instant case." ( 2. ) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner had undertaken admission in R.K.D.F. Homeopathic Medical College and Research Centre at Bhopal in the year 2008 and she had studied for 1 1/2 years. THE petitioner also submitted requisite examination-form and it was informed to her that the roll number will be given at the time of examination. However, when she appeared in the examination, the roll number was not provided to her and it was informed that she is not having essential qualification to appear in the examination and hence she was not permitted to appear in the examination. THEreafter, this petition was filed and on 10-8-2010 an interim order was passed by this Court permitting her to appear in the examination. In this manner, she appeared in the examination but her result has not yet been declared because there was a specific order of this Court not to declare her result. The contention of Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that for no fault of her, petitioner cannot be deprived for appearing in examination, who had already undergone her studies for 1 1/2 years. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner did not conceal any material fact which was required to be submitted and she also disclosed her age and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of from appearing in the examination. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner did not conceal any material fact which was required to be submitted and she also disclosed her age and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of from appearing in the examination. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the two decisions of the Supreme Court, they are Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 and Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others, AIR 1989 SC 823 . ( 3. ) ON the other hand, Shri Dey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that under section 33 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 since the petitioner did not complete 17 years of age when she took admission in the Institution of respondent No. 2, therefore, rightly she had been debarred and hence, there is no substance in the petition and the same be dismissed. ( 4. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. Specifically the petitioner has pleaded in the petition that without concealing any fact, she submitted requisite admission form in the Institution and also filled the examination form. Her examination form was duly sent to respondent No. 1 and if that would be the position, she cannot be made liable or allowed to suffer. The factum that petitioner did not conceal any fact has not been controverted in the return. Specifically, it has been stated that petitioner has disclosed her age and in that regard necessary documents were filed along with the examination form as well as while taking admission in the Institution. Therefore, according to me, even if she was below 17 years when she took admission in the Institution, she cannot be deprived from appearing in the examination. The point in hand was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad (supra) wherein in para 8 this type of situation was dealt by the Apex Court and ultimately it was held that because students did not conceal any material fact they should not be allowed to suffer. This decision was later on followed in another decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Chand (supra) and para 17 of that judgment is quite relevant. ( 5. This decision was later on followed in another decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Chand (supra) and para 17 of that judgment is quite relevant. ( 5. ) FOR testing the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad (supra) and Ashok Chand (supra) on the touchstone and anvil of the present factual scenario, according to me, since petitioner did not conceal anything and took admission and undergone her studies for 1 1/2 years, she cannot be deprived of from appearing in the examination and therefore, she is also entitled for declaration of her result, since this Court as an interim relief permitted her to appear in the examination. ( 6. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondent No 1 Barkatullah University is hereby directed to declare result of the petitioner. Needless to say, petitioner shall be permitted to undergo her further studies in the Institution. No costs. Certified copy today. Petition allowed.