JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The petitioner, being a student of Shastri-II Examination, 2016, has filed this application seeking for a direction to opposite party No. 1 - Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya to publish her result of Shastri-II Examination held in the year 2015 and allow her to appear in the examination as back paper/improvement, which was scheduled to be held on 21.04.2016. 2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was prosecuting her studies in Shastri as a regular student in Baldevjew Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Kendrapara, which is affiliated to Shri Jagannath Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya, Puri. The petitioner has also registered her name with the University bearing registration No. SO7KP022/11'. The petitioner initially took admission in the year 2011 and appeared at the examination in the year 2012 in one paper, but could not attend the other examination papers due to her ill health. Even in the year 2013, she could not appear on the said ground. Consequentially, the petitioner preferred to repeat the said examination Shastri-I in the year 2014 vide Roll No. 1807KP11022, the result of which was published on January, 2015. The petitioner also could not appear the Shastri-II Examination, 2015 due to her illness. Therefore, she preferred to repeat the said examination in the year 2015, along with other students, but one of the papers, namely, Palli Prakuta Bhasa Vigyan (P.P.B.V.) was scratched on the allegation of mass copy. As such, the result of the college was published on 07.12.2015 with a star mark like "**" against the said scratched paper. Request was made for publication of the result of the Shastri-II Examination, 2015 so that it will enable the petitioner to fill up the form for Shastri-II Examination 2016. But result of six candidates, out of seven, were published, whereas the result of the petitioner was not published, and the petitioner also appeared the Shastri-III Examination in the year, 2016 and the opposite party No. 1 - University issued notification on 30.03.2016, published in daily newspaper "The Samaj" on 01.04.2016, where programme for Annual Shastri-II (Regular/Back/Improvement) Examination was given, with a schedule of dates, which was to be commenced from 21.04.2016 till 28.04.2016 in respect of all the papers. As far as scratch paper of the petitioner is concerned, same was scheduled to be held on 25.04.2016. As far as scratch paper of the petitioner is concerned, same was scheduled to be held on 25.04.2016. Since the result of the petitioner for Shastri-II Examination, 2015 was not published, the petitioner was not allowed to fill up the form. Hence the petitioner approached this Court seeking for aforesaid relief. 3. Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Shastri-II Examination held in the year 2015 has been cancelled due to scratch of one paper for the centre. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to fill up the form and to allow her to appear in the said paper, which was scratched by the authority. Subsequently, she was not permitted to fill up the form to sit in the examination, as the result was not published. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this application. This Court on 19.04.2016 passed the interim order directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to appear in the Shastri-II Examination, 2016, but the result thereof shall not be published without leave of this Court. Consequentially, the petitioner filled up the form and appeared the test, but the result thereof has not been published. To substantiate his case he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in *Pritam Chand v. The Director, State Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training and Others (W.P.(C) No. 28027 of 2013, disposed of on 26.08.2015) and Shishir Satpathy v. Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University, (1996) 81 CLT 638 . 4. Mr. S. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 1 - University contended that Shastri-II Examination, 2015 was cancelled as because some students were indulged in malpractice and the paper was scratched. As such, none has challenged such decision. Therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of getting result published. In any case, since the petitioner was not permitted to appear in the Shastri-II Examination 2016, which was scheduled to be held on 21.04.2016, she approached this Court by filing this writ application and this Court passed the interim order directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to appear in the Shastri-II Examination, 2016, but the result thereof shall not be published without leave of this Court. It is further contended that the petitioner even though appeared in the examination by virtue of the interim order, but the result has not been published, as because that interim protection cannot give any right to the petitioner to claim for publication of result. However, pursuant to interim order passed by this Court, if the petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination, even though she is not otherwise eligible as there is no provision under the regulation to allow her to appear in the examination, as her previous result was not declared due to scratch of a paper of the centre, due to impermissibility of regulation, the petitioner could not be permitted to appear at the examination and claim for publication of result in the subject for which a paper of the centre was scratched. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Saurav Maharana v. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations and others, 2007 (II) OLR-595. 5. This Court heard Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 - University and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 6. Admittedly the petitioner prosecuted her studies in Shastri course and as such, she appeared. Shastri-I Examination and thereafter. Shastri-II Examination 2015. But the result of Shastri-II Examination 2015 was not published due to scratch of a paper of the centre. When the result was not published, because one paper was scratched, she wanted to appear in the said paper in subsequent examination i.e. Shastri-II Examination, 2016, but she was not permitted to do so because of the fact that the result was not published earlier. Thereby, she approached this Court by filing this present application, in which this Court passed an interim order on 19.04.2016 to the following effect. "As an interim, the opposite party No. 1 is directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the Shastri-II Exam, 2016, but the result thereof shall not be published without leave of this Court. Thereby, she approached this Court by filing this present application, in which this Court passed an interim order on 19.04.2016 to the following effect. "As an interim, the opposite party No. 1 is directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the Shastri-II Exam, 2016, but the result thereof shall not be published without leave of this Court. The result of the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the writ petition." Consequentially, she was allowed to appear in the examination but the result was not to be published due to continuance of interim order. 7. In view of the judgment cited above, which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that though this Court has expressed leniency to the candidates to appear in the examination but that itself should be within the framework of law. But the petitioner in the instant case cannot and should not have taken advantage of those judgments passed by this Court in Pritam Chand and Shishir Satpathy (supra) which have been decided on their own facts and circumstances. More particularly, in those cases results were published and thereafter the petitioner therein was permitted to appear in the examination. But in the present case, the fact is different. Meaning thereby, the petitioner in the instant case appeared in the Shasti-II Examination 2015, but the result was not published because a paper of the centre was scratched, and such scratching of centre was not challenged either by the present petitioner or any other candidate. In that view of the matter, since the centre was scratched and result could not be published and consequent upon direction given by this Court, by virtue of the interim order; the petitioner was allowed, to appear the examination, is absolutely unwarranted. 8. In Saurav Maharana (supra), cited by Mr. S. Nayak, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, where the Division Bench of this Court has already held that the interim order passed in a special circumstance cannot be taken into consideration because equity cannot prevail over law and do not permit a Court to pass an order contrary to law. It is contended that since regulation does not permit to allow such type of students to appear in the examination, even if this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to do so, the result could not be published. 9. It is contended that since regulation does not permit to allow such type of students to appear in the examination, even if this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to do so, the result could not be published. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner though appeared in the Shastri-II Examination 2016, pursuant to interim order passed by this Court, but the law does not permit that, as it cannot supersede the equity. Thereby, the result of the petitioner cannot be published. Consequential relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. 10. The writ petition thus merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed.