JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a student of LL.B. course at Rourkela Law College, has filed this application to quash the notification No. 5445/C.C.IV dated 20.12.2012 in Annexure-4 issued by Assistant Controller of Examinations penalizing him for taking recourse to unfair means at the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2011 by canceling his result of the examination and debarring him from appearing in any examination prior to examination of 2013. He further seeks for a direction to the opposite parties to publish his result of 1st semester LL.B. Examination 2012 and allow him to appear in the last 6th Semester Examination of LL.B conducted by the Sambalpur University. 2. The short fact of the case in hand is that the petitioner enrolled himself into LL.B. Course in Rourkela Law College in the year 2009. He appeared in the 1st Semester LL.B. Examination in 2009-2010, but could not succeed. Therefore, he appeared in 1st semester LL.B Examination of 2011 having Roll No. 0509NLLB036. His result of 1st Semester Examination 2011 was withheld on the ground that while appearing in paper-II of the said examination on 14.01.2012 he had adopted unfair means. When the result remained withheld and no action was taken by the University authority till filling up the form for 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012, he filled up the form on 13.10.2012. Then a notice dated 09.11.2012 was issued to him to show-cause why action shall not be taken against him for violating the rule of examination to which he replied denying all the charges and also appeared before the inquiry committee. When the enquiry process was going on the Assistant Registrar/C.O.E. of Sambalpur University issued Admit Card to him authorizing him to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the examination which started on 08.12.2012 and finished on 22.12.2012. After completion of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 he received the impugned letter under Annexure-4 dated 26.12.2012 on 20.12.2012 after the said impugned letter, the petitioner was penalized with remark that his result of the examination has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing in any examination prior to 2013. After completion of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 he received the impugned letter under Annexure-4 dated 26.12.2012 on 20.12.2012 after the said impugned letter, the petitioner was penalized with remark that his result of the examination has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing in any examination prior to 2013. The petitioner along with other three students namely, Kumar Vivek, Ajit Toppo and Sushil Kumar Sahoo to whom notices were issued to explain why disciplinary action will not be taken against them for violation of examination rules while appearing in Paper-II of the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011. So far as Ajit Toppo and Sushil Kumar Sahoo as mentioned above in the said impugned letter are concerned it was mentioned that they were penalized earlier with remarks against their name as “Result of the Examination is cancelled”. The said examinees also had appeared in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 along with the petitioner and both of them cleared their paper whereas the result of the petitioner again was withheld. But, subsequently opposite party nos.2 and 3 claimed that the petitioner was in possession of incriminating materials while examination of Paper-II of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011 was in progress. No signature of the petitioner had been obtained nor such incriminating materials had been recovered from the petitioner and no endorsement was obtained from the petitioner. The petitioner has completed 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Semester during his study period. As he has not cleared his 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011, he has not been allowed to appear in 6th Semester LL.B Examination. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14292/2014 which was disposed of by order dated 06.08.2014 directing to consider the representation filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. After expiry of the said period since no action was taken Contempt Petition No.1027/2014 was filed and notice was issued to the contemnor/opposite party. In any case finding no other way, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the reliefs as mentioned above. 3. Mr. After expiry of the said period since no action was taken Contempt Petition No.1027/2014 was filed and notice was issued to the contemnor/opposite party. In any case finding no other way, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the reliefs as mentioned above. 3. Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner filled up the form to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and rightly or wrongly if the petitioner has been permitted to appear in the examination then in that case the Statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature as worked itself out and the candidature cannot be refused subsequently for any infirmity which should not be looked into before canceling to appear in the examination. It is further urged that the plea of mistake in permitting the petitioner to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 is not also permissible once the petitioner is permitted to appear in the examination rightly or wrongly by the authority. More so, the procedure as envisaged under the Statute 214 of the University First Statute 1990 has not been followed nor the allegation against the petitioner for using incriminating materials has been established nor those materials have been produced at the time of inquiry nor the same has been signed by the candidate while appearing in the examination. Non-supply of incriminating materials amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is stated that the printed materials have been utilized for imposition of all penalty but that itself cannot be construed to be an incriminating materials to be used against the petitioner for imposing so called penalty. It is urged that once the petitioner has been permitted to fill up the form to appear in all the subjects for 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and consequently he appeared in the examination, non-publication of result is hit by the principle of estoppels. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for a direction to publish his result of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and also to allow him to appear in 6th Semester LL.B Examination as he has already passed 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Semesters Examination during currency of the course. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 , Kamalendu Prasad Padhi v. The Sambalpur University and Ors. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 , Kamalendu Prasad Padhi v. The Sambalpur University and Ors. AIR 1976 Orissa 134 and Arjit Kumar Patra v. Vice Chancellor, Sambalpur University and Others, AIR 2003 Orissa 34. 4. Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the opposite party-Sambalpur University strenuously urged that the result of the 1st Semester LL.B. Examination 2011 of the petitioner having been withheld, the petitioner could not have filled up the form for the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012. On the basis of the recommendation of the institution from which the petitioner appeared in the examination, the University accepted the form for the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012 and allowed the petitioner to appear in the said examination. Ultimately, it appeared that the University has committed mistake and that mistake was rectified by not publishing the result of 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2011 and as such the University has not committed any illegally or irregularity. As the petitioner could not clear his 1st Semester LL.B Examination, he has not been permitted to appear in the 6th Semester LL.B Examination which is in consonance with the provisions of law. It is further urged that the petitioner had taken admission in LL.B. Course in the year 2008-2009 and he appeared at the 1st semester LL.B Examination in 2009 as a regular candidate but failed. As per the regulation, the petitioner had two chances to clear his 1st semester papers by appearing the examination in 2010 and 2011, but he could not clear the papers. Due to mistake committed by Rourkela Law College by allowing the petitioner to fill up the form to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012, the University permitted him to appear in the examination. Therefore, the University has now rectified the mistake by not publishing the result of 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012 of the petitioner. So far as other candidates are concerned which have been referred by the petitioner they have been penalized by cancellation of their result as both of them found with incriminating materials but they did not use the same which has been done in fulfillment of requirements of the examination rules of the University. 5. So far as other candidates are concerned which have been referred by the petitioner they have been penalized by cancellation of their result as both of them found with incriminating materials but they did not use the same which has been done in fulfillment of requirements of the examination rules of the University. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, it is the admitted fact that the petitioner has prosecuted his studies in LL.B course in Rourkela Law College under the Sambalpur University by taking admission in the year 2008-2009 and as he could not pass 1st Semester LL.B Examination in the year 2009-2010 therefore he appeared the said 1st Semester LL.B Examination in 2011. Though he was permitted to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2011, his result was withheld on the allegation of using incriminating materials in Paper-II of the said examination. But, by the time he was considered for using of incriminating materials, he had already been permitted to fill up the form for the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 in all subjects. Accordingly, he was issued admit card and consequentially, he appeared in the said examination in December between the period 08.12.2012 and 22.12.2012. But, in the meantime time letter dated 20.12.2012 has been issued to him by the Assistant Controller of Examination, Sambalpur University which he received on 22.12.2012 intimating him that his result has been cancelled and he has been debarred from appearing any examination prior to 2013. By the time he received such letter he had already appeared in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012 in all subjects and the examination was over by 22.12.2012. 6. In Shri Krishna mentioned (supra), the apex Court held that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination, rightly or wrongly, then the Statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should not have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. 7. In the present context, if the petitioner has indulged in using incriminating materials in Paper-II of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011, it was the duty of the University authority to find out whether actually such incriminating materials have been used in paper-II for which the result of the petitioner has been withheld. 7. In the present context, if the petitioner has indulged in using incriminating materials in Paper-II of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011, it was the duty of the University authority to find out whether actually such incriminating materials have been used in paper-II for which the result of the petitioner has been withheld. Instead of causing an inquiry by following due procedure of law, keeping the students in hanging position in the name of inquiry and subsequently after permitting the petitioner to appear in the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 in all subjects, the University authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the result of the petitioner which was communicated to him after the 1st Semester LL.B Examination 2012 was concluded. If the University authority acquiesced in the infirmities and allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination by force of University Statute, the University has no power to withheld 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 conducted by it. 8. In Kamalendu Prasad Padhi mentioned (supra), this Court categorically held that while conducting inquiry, the authority should act fairly and reasonably by affording opportunity of hearing in compliance to the principles of natural justice. If it is the contention of the University authority that some incriminating materials have been recovered from the petitioner in Paper-II of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011, then in that case the authority should have obtained the signature of the petitioner at the time of seizure of such incriminating materials and more so the same should have been produced at the time of inquiry. On the basis of such so called incriminating materials which has been utilized against the petitioner to come to such a conclusion. No penalty could have been imposed against the petitioner without proving same. No material has been placed before this Court with regard to consideration of the plea of mistake which has been taken in the counter affidavit. Merely stating that a mistake was committed by the authority that ipso facto cannot allow the University authority to withheld the result of the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012. It must be assumed that the result of the examination of the petitioner was published in due course unless it is established that the result of the petitioner was vitiated by mistake. It must be assumed that the result of the examination of the petitioner was published in due course unless it is established that the result of the petitioner was vitiated by mistake. Where the mistake is mutual, the position may be different but where one of the parties, particularly a statutory authority which functions in accordance with a set of rules and to whose acts presumption of correctness attaches, wants to resile from its own action, must establish that the action was the result of a mistake. Merely stating in the counter affidavit that the mistake has been committed by the University is not sufficient unless the same is established on the basis of the materials available. By merely calling the mistake an unfortunate event, the responsibility could not be discharged. 9. In Arjit Kumar Patra (supra), this Court referring to Statute 214(5)(ii) in pargraph-12 held as follows:- “Statute 214(5)(ii) provides that for possession(but not use) of unauthorised or incriminating material the punishment is cancellation of the result of that examination. Statute 214(5)(iv) provides that for use of unauthorised or incriminating material, the punishment is cancellation of result of that examination and debarring the candidate appearing at the next examination. For cancelling the result of a candidate under Statute 214(5)(ii) the Examination Committee has to come to the conclusion that the candidate was in possession of unauthorised or incriminating material and it is not necessary for the said Examination Committee to further come to a conclusion that the candidate used unauthorised or incriminating material in the examination. The object of different provisions of Statute 214 is to punish a candidate resorting to “unfair means in the examination”. Statute 214(5), in particular, states that if the Examination Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been “resort to unfair means” it may recommend to the Syndicate that any of the penalties mentioned therein may be imposed on the candidate. The Committee can reach this conclusion only if the material found in possession of the candidate was relevant to the subject in which the candidate was taking the examination in the examination hall and not otherwise. Thus, unless the material that is found in possession of the candidate is relevant to the subject in which the candidate is taking the examination, it cannot be held that the candidate had resorted to unfair means in the examination.” 10. Thus, unless the material that is found in possession of the candidate is relevant to the subject in which the candidate is taking the examination, it cannot be held that the candidate had resorted to unfair means in the examination.” 10. Taking recourse to regard being had to the aforesaid provisions laid down by this Court, if the Examination Disciplinary Committee has come to a finding that a piece of paper has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner in the examination hall containing some writings, applying the provisions contained in Statute 214, the Committee cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner has taken resort to unfair means unless the writings on the piece of paper recovered from the possession of the petitioner have relevance to the subject in which the petitioner was taking the examination in the examination hall. It is not for the High Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to find out as to whether the writings in the piece of paper recovered from the possession of the petitioner have relevance to the subject in which the petitioner was taking the examination in the examination hall. 11. Nothing has been produced in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party to that extent. Apart from the same, keeping the result of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2011 withheld, the University permitted the petitioner to fill up the form in 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination and after completion of examination, debarring the petitioner from appearing the examination till the examination 2013 at such belated stage is itself hit by the principle of estoppels waiver and acquiescence. 12. This Court in (Dr.) Smt. Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University and others, 2014 (1) OLR 226 applying the principle of estoppels waiver and acquiescence has quashed the notification canceling the examination in M.A. Odia Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991. 13. 12. This Court in (Dr.) Smt. Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University and others, 2014 (1) OLR 226 applying the principle of estoppels waiver and acquiescence has quashed the notification canceling the examination in M.A. Odia Non-Collegiate Examination, 1991. 13. Similarly, in Rajanikanta Priyadarshy v. Utkal University represented through its Registrar and others, 2015 (1) OLR 212 , this Court has already held that due to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice before cancellation of result since no notice has been given to the petitioner and once the result has been published on the basis of which the petitioner had already acquired higher qualification, the same cannot be changed subsequently which is hit by the principles of promissory estoppels. 14. Considering the law laid down by this Court as discussed above, applying the same to the present case, since the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity of hearing before the impugned action was taken, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Once the petitioner has been permitted to fill up the form for 1st first semester LL.B Examination, 2012 and appeared the said examination, under no circumstances his result could be withheld by the University authority. 15. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the notification issued under Annexure-4 so far as it relates to the cancellation of the result of the petitioner and debarring him from appearing in any examination prior to 1st Semester LL.B Examination of 2013 is quashed and the opposite parties are directed to publish the result of 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012 in all subjects with a further direction that if the petitioner would qualify the 1st Semester LL.B Examination, 2012, he may be permitted to appear the 6th Semester LL.B. Examination of the University.