ORDER : Shri. Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. Since pleadings are complete, therefore, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally. 3. By the instant petition, the petitioner has not assailed any specific order, but requested for issuing appropriate direction to the respondents for giving the B.Ed. Degree to him as the petitioner appeared in the examination of B.Ed. for the session 2012-13 and successfully qualified the same with third division securing 74.33% marks in practical exam and 38.14% marks in theory papers. 4. As averred by the petitioner, a mark-sheet dated 14-8-2014 (Annexure- P/1) for B.Ed. examination for the session 2012-13 was issued to him by the respondent University showing him pass with third division in theory papers and pass with first division in practical exam. The petitioner in pursuance to his mark-sheet, got selected as a teacher in Rajasthan Education Department and has to submit the degree of B.Ed. within the stipulated time otherwise his appointment would be cancelled. The petitioner submitted an application before the respondent for issuing the B.Ed. degree, but nothing was done by the respondent, therefore, a notice was issued to them on 29-10-2017 (Annexure-P/2) for issuance of B.Ed. degree, but nothing was done and even no reply to said notice has been given, ergo having no other option but to approach this Court, this petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. The respondent No. 1 submitted its reply stating therein that the degree of B.Ed. cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner as he did not clear the examination, but due to typographical mistake, the mark-sheet showing him pass in the said examination was issued. As per the respondent, in view of the Ordinance No. 87, the petitioner had to secure minimum 40% marks in both the parts i.e. theory as well as practical and as the petitioner has not secured minimum 40% marks in theory part, therefore, he could not have been declared pass. They have also relied upon the syllabus of B.Ed. (Annexure-R/2), which prescribes minimum passing marks i.e. 40%. Since the petitioner secured 267 out of 700 marks in theory part, whereas it should have been minimum 280 out of 700. They have also relied upon the syllabus of B.Ed. (Annexure-R/2), which prescribes minimum passing marks i.e. 40%. Since the petitioner secured 267 out of 700 marks in theory part, whereas it should have been minimum 280 out of 700. Accordingly, the mark-sheet which had been issued to him, should not have been issued, but due to typographical error, incorrect mark-sheet has been issued. But factually the petitioner has not cleared the examination, therefore, degree of B.Ed. cannot be issued to him. The respondent in its reply further submitted that as per the report of Standing Committee met on 14-12-2017, it is resolved that along with the present petitioner, two other candidates have been given the incorrect mark-sheet showing them pass though they did not secure minimum 40% marks in both the parts of the examination, mistake committed to be rectified by issuing correct mark-sheet. 6. The respondent has also filed the additional reply stating therein that the notice was issued to ‘Rooprah Computers and Commtech Engineers’ on 21-5-2018 for mistake committed by them not only in respect of the petitioner but also about result of total five students had wrongly been processed showing them “pass” though they were failed. As per the respondent, the work of processing of mark-sheet is assigned to Rooprah Computers and Commtech Engineers. It is also stated by the respondents that the mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner long back but he made an application at a belated stage for supply of degree, therefore, his request could also not be accepted for this reason as well. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 had also been asked to apprise this Court as to whether the answer-sheets of the petitioner are still available with them or not. The counsel informed that the answer-sheets are preserved only for a period of six months but not later than that and thus the same is not available. 8. Arguments heard. 9. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact and information but it is respondent No. 1 which has issued the mark-sheet (Annexure-P/1) on 14-8-2014 showing the petitioner “pass” in the B.Ed. examination for the session 2012-13 in both the parts i.e. theory as well as practical. 10. 8. Arguments heard. 9. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact and information but it is respondent No. 1 which has issued the mark-sheet (Annexure-P/1) on 14-8-2014 showing the petitioner “pass” in the B.Ed. examination for the session 2012-13 in both the parts i.e. theory as well as practical. 10. From the mark-sheet, it is clear that the petitioner had secured 267 marks out of 700 in theory subjects and has been declared pass in IIIrd division securing 38.14%. Likewise, he has secured 223 marks out of 300 in practical exam securing 1st division as secured 74.33% in the same. The mark-sheet (Annexure-P/1) also contained a note ‘Passing Individual subject and Agg. passing both in Part-I and Part-II’. Thus, there was no confusion about the status of the petitioner in the examination of B.Ed. for the session 2012-13. 11. As per the petitioner, on the basis of the said mark-sheet, he secured employment in the School Education Department of State of Rajasthan and if the degree of B.Ed. is not produced before the respective department, his appointment would be cancelled. It is further submitted that the respondent has decided to cancel his mark-sheet and to amend the same only after filing this petition by him before the High Court. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a fault of the respondent University that they have issued the mark-sheet declaring the petitioner pass despite knowing about their Ordinance and even though, for considerable long time, they have not realized that incorrect marksheet has been issued to the petitioner and to some other candidates. He submits that the petitioner cannot be penalized at this stage as he has not suppressed any fact and information from respondent No. 1 and also secured an employment on the basis of the mark-sheet issued to him, therefore, such mark-sheet cannot be cancelled or modified declaring the petitioner fail and the respondent cannot refuse to issue degree of B.Ed. in favour of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment passed by Singh Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh and others vs. Board of Secondary Education, M. P., Bhopal, 2004(1) MPJR SN 40 so also the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Maurya vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a judgment passed by Singh Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh and others vs. Board of Secondary Education, M. P., Bhopal, 2004(1) MPJR SN 40 so also the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Maurya vs. Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University and Principal, Sarojini Naidu Medical College, (2008) 6 All WC 6492 saying that under the similar circumstances, the Court has found that for the fault of the authority, a candidate cannot be penalized and in the interest of justice, the mark-sheet issued in favour of the petitioner cannot be modified converting the same declaring the candidate ‘fail’ instead of ‘pass’. 13. In the case of Anil Kumar Maurya (supra), the Court has observed that the mark-sheet issued in favour of the candidate though incorrect, but after such a long time, when candidate has not suppressed any fact, the said mark-sheet would be treated as correct and on the basis of the same, the candidate is entitled to get degree from the University. 14. As per learned counsel for the respondent admitting the fact that the mistake has been committed by them while issuing the incorrect mark-sheet in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that in view of the Ordinance No. 87 (Annexure-R/1) and in view of syllabus of B.Ed., since the petitioner has not secured minimum marks to be declared pass, respondent No. 1 is helpless to issue the degree in favour of the petitioner. 15. As per admitted facts, the petitioner appeared in the examination of B.Ed. for the session 2012-13 and mark-sheet issued to him in the year 2014 declaring him “pass” and on the basis of the same, he secured an employment, no degree was issued to him despite demand made by him even in the year 2017 despite issuance of legal notice to respondent No. 1. The respondent realized the mistake committed by them only when the petitioner filed this petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no fact was suppressed by the petitioner and he has not given any incorrect information to the respondent, therefore, he cannot be penalized at this stage by the University refusing to issue degree of B.Ed. The respondent realized the mistake committed by them only when the petitioner filed this petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no fact was suppressed by the petitioner and he has not given any incorrect information to the respondent, therefore, he cannot be penalized at this stage by the University refusing to issue degree of B.Ed. and to cancel his mark-sheet, which would result in cancellation of his appointment which he had secured in the State of Rajasthan. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of this petition, this Court vide order dated 16-7-2018 directed the respondent-University to file an affidavit giving undertaking in respect of strict compliance of the provisions of the Regulations of the UGC by pre-notifying the period of the course, the date of examination, date of declaration of the result and the date of issuance of the degree before commencement of the course itself. This Court has also quoted the relevant provision of the Regulations of 2008, issued by the UGC which binds every University following the UGC regulations not just to declare the result but also to issue degrees on yearly basis. In response to the order passed by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the University on 1-10-2018 giving an undertaking to follow the UGC regulations. 18. Apparently, in the present case, the University has not followed the UGC regulations and has not issued the degree in favour of the petitioner within time, otherwise this mistake could have been noticed by the University and also would have been in the knowledge of the petitioner within the reasonable time. Since this mistake has been committed by the University, the petitioner should not suffer for the same. 19. Since this mistake has been committed by the University, the petitioner should not suffer for the same. 19. In this regard, we relied upon a view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 740, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the case in which some of the students who were not eligible to be granted admission in the first year of Engineering degree course in State of Karnataka, due to not possessing the requisite qualification, but the University has granted admission and allowed them to pursue the course for considerable length of time and at a later stage, their admission was disapproved although the students were allowed to continue their studies by interim order of the High Court and also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the students cannot be punished for the fault of the college and the students have been directed to be allowed to continue their studies. 20. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are also of the opinion that when mark-sheet was issued in the year 2014 and no steps have been taken by the respondent University for correcting the same for considerable long time, they cannot refuse to issue degree of B.Ed. in favour of the petitioner by taking shelter of Ordinance saying that the petitioner has not secured minimum marks to be declared pass. 21. It is purely a fault of the University for which the petitioner cannot be punished for no fault of him. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is directed to treat the mark-sheet issued by them in favour of the petitioner in the year 2014 as correct and also issue degree of B.Ed. on the basis of said mark-sheet within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order. 22. The respondent University is also directed to comply with the undertaking given by them on affidavit regarding strict compliance of the University Grants Commission (Grant of Degree and other awards by University) Regulations, 2008, issued by the UGC and in future to issue the entire academic programme including the scheduled dates of examination, etc. 22. The respondent University is also directed to comply with the undertaking given by them on affidavit regarding strict compliance of the University Grants Commission (Grant of Degree and other awards by University) Regulations, 2008, issued by the UGC and in future to issue the entire academic programme including the scheduled dates of examination, etc. and also take immediate steps to ensure that the student is given the degree within the time frame mentioned and stipulated in the Regulation of 2008. 23. It is made clear that in case the respondent University fails to comply with its undertaking as well as the directions issued by this Court in the case of Ku. Himani Bansal vs. State of M. P., W. P. No. 13226/2017 decided on 10-11- 2017, any person aggrieved would be at liberty to inform this Court about the breach of undertaking and in such an eventuality, this Court would contemplate initiating proceedings against the respondent University for non-compliance of the undertaking given by them as well as the direction issued by this Court. 24. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of. Parties shall bear their own costs. Certified copy as per rules. Petition allowed.