JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Hridai Narain Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mehul Khare and Mr. Jai Vardhan Narain, learned counsels for the respondents. 2. Since common questions of law arise, these three appeals, with the consent of parties, are taken up for disposal together. 3. The Central Board of Secondary Education [CBSE] has instituted these three appeals aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge on 28 February, 2018. In terms of the judgment impugned in these appeals, three writ petitions preferred by the respondents herein came to be allowed and the appellant was commanded to declare the results of the original petitioners of the CBSE Class XII Examination 2017. 4. As is evident from the facts noted by the learned single Judge and on which there is no dispute, all the original petitioners were studying in the St. Xavier's Inter College, Jaunpur. The controversy itself arose on account of they having appeared in the Class XII examination conducted both by the U.P. Board as well as CBSE simultaneously. The appellant asserts that out of the 53 students of the institution who were registered to appear in the Class XII examination conducted by it, 36 were also sponsored to appear in the examination conducted by the U.P. Board. Out of these 36, the appellant further asserts that 22 candidates appeared in the examinations conducted by both the Boards. The appellant refused to declare the results of the 22 candidates and it is this which led to the filing of the writ petitions in question. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it was not open for the original petitioners to appear simultaneously in the examinations conducted by the two Boards. The appellants contend that such conduct was clearly prohibited and that therefore, the result of the original petitioners is not liable to be declared. On a pointed query of the Court of the specific Rule, Regulation or Bye-law, which may prescribe such a prohibition, learned counsel for the appellant rests his case only on Clause 13 (8) of the Affiliation Bye-laws, which was also noted by the learned single Judge while considering the challenge laid in the writ petitions. 6. On a pointed query of the Court of the specific Rule, Regulation or Bye-law, which may prescribe such a prohibition, learned counsel for the appellant rests his case only on Clause 13 (8) of the Affiliation Bye-laws, which was also noted by the learned single Judge while considering the challenge laid in the writ petitions. 6. As we read clause 13 (8), which is duly extracted in the judgment impugned, all that the said provision prescribes is that an institution affiliated to the Board shall not "in general" send candidates for examination of any other Board/University. On a plain reading of this clause, we find ourselves unable to hold or recognise it to contain a mandatory prohibition against candidates appearing in two different examinations conducted by separate Boards. In any view of the matter, this provision does not contemplate a cancellation of the result of the candidates, who have appeared in the examinations conducted by two different Boards. Bearing in mind the serious consequences which stand attached to a cancellation of the result of the candidates, we are not persuaded to stretch the plain language of clause 13 (8) to such an extent. 7. Even otherwise, we note that the injunction embodied in Clause 13 (8), quite apart from the clause not being couched in imperative terms, the same on a plain construction thereof, operates against the institution rather than the candidates. 8. The issue even otherwise stood answered against the Board in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P., (2016) 3 SCC 521 : ( AIR 2016 SC 251 ). Dealing with a similar controversy, the Court in Kuldeep Kumar Pathak observed, thus: "We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was "contrary to the Regulations". However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the learned single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. The High Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was "contrary to the Regulations". However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the learned single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976 framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing Regulations. Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous." 9. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the challenge laid to the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. 10. The special appeals consequently fail and are dismissed. All interim orders shall stand discharged.