JUDGMENT Surendra P. Tavade, J. - Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of both the parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges the cancellation of her result of class 12th (Science) examination held in the month of February 2020 by Respondent No. 2- Board. 3. In the month of March 2018, the Petitioner appeared for her class 12th (Science) examination, for the first time; she did not score requisite marks for pursuing Medical Education Course. The Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulation, 1977, permits students to attempt improvement of marks secured at previous examination by making two further attempts. The Petitioner appeared for class improvement in 12th examination held in February 2019 but she did not succeed in securing the necessary marks to pursue the Medical Education Course. It is further contended that the Petitioner appeared for the second time to improve her marks in the 12th examination held in February 2020. This time she secured the necessary marks for pursuing Medical Education Course. The result was declared in the month of July 2020. Respondent No. 2 declared such result and marks obtained by the Petitioner were displayed on internet. 4. It is contended that the Petitioner was admitted to 12th examination held in February 2020. She had been issued a hall ticket and appeared for the same and was declared successful by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 refused to hand over original/physical marksheet and withheld the result. The Petitioner met officers of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on several occasions but nobody gave any response. As the matter was crucial and as the Petitioner's entire education and career was at stake, the Petitioner's father along with the Petitioner has been running from pillar to post to get the physical/original marksheet of the result of the Petitioner declared by Respondent No. 2. The registration for counselling round for securing a seat for medical education at All India Level, had started from 26 October 2020 and the same was in process till 2 November 2020. The physical marksheet of the Petitioner in respect of the results declared by Respondent No. 2 was necessary for registration for the medical course, failing which the Petitioner would have been disqualified. Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court by fling Writ Petition No. 5333 of 2020 seeking reliefs as more particularly prayed therein. The physical marksheet of the Petitioner in respect of the results declared by Respondent No. 2 was necessary for registration for the medical course, failing which the Petitioner would have been disqualified. Hence, the Petitioner approached this Court by fling Writ Petition No. 5333 of 2020 seeking reliefs as more particularly prayed therein. The said petition was heard and on the date of hearing of the above writ petition, Respondent No. 2 had circulated a compilation of documents to be relied upon by the Respondent. In the said compilation, Respondent No. 2 had circulated a letter dated 4 September 2020 contending that the Respondent had cancelled the result of the Petitioner. The letter dated 4 September 2020 is a show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1 and the same had never been communicated to the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner withdrew Writ Petition No. 5333 of 2020 with the leave of the Court to file a fresh petition, impugning the illegal cancellation of her result and/or the examination of the Petitioner for February 2020. The Petitioner thereupon filed the present petition, wherein this Court by an interim order allowed the Petitioner to participate in the counselling round subject to the decision of this petition. 5. It is contended that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have thoroughly and miserably failed to perform their respective duties and for the said reason, the Petitioner was being subjected to undue and uncalled for harassment and admonishment. It is submitted that the action by Respondent No. 2 allegedly cancelling result of the Petitioner in respect of examination conducted by it for class 12th is illegal, void, high handed, malicious, and not binding upon the Petitioner. 6. It is contended that Rule 92(6) of the Regulations of the Board states that the examinee can appear for class improvement examination twice as per amended rules, within the next academic year, however, the rules are silent on the aspect of the student appearing for the class improvement examination beyond the period of one academic year. It is contended that Boards Rules do not provide for cancellation of the declared results. It is further contended that once the student is allowed to appear for the examination and the result with respect to the same is declared by Respondent No. 2, it is not open for Respondent No. 2 to cancel the said declared result. It is contended that Boards Rules do not provide for cancellation of the declared results. It is further contended that once the student is allowed to appear for the examination and the result with respect to the same is declared by Respondent No. 2, it is not open for Respondent No. 2 to cancel the said declared result. It is contended that the forms for appearing in the examination have been filled in the month of October 2019 and the examinations were held in the month of February 2020 and Respondent No. 2 had ample time to scrutinize the examination form and find out if the same was in order. 7. It is submitted that equally, it was the duty of Respondent No. 1 before submitting the form to Respondent No. 2 to see that the form complied with all the requirements of law. It is contended that neither Respondent No. 1 nor Respondent No. 2 took care to scrutinize the examination form of the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not commit any fraud or misrepresentation. 8. It is contended that Respondent No. 2 had granted the Petitioner's Admit Card/Hall ticket and thereafter published her result in respect of the examination on their official website. It is only at the stage of procuring a physical copy of her result of the said examination that Respondent No. 2 raised the objection of her so-called ineligibility to appear in the said examination; Respondent No. 2 is, therefore, clearly estopped from cancelling the Petitioner's result and refusing to hand over the physical copy of marksheet of the Petitioner. It is contended that Respondent No. 2 has not followed proper procedure. Hence, it is prayed that directions may be given to Respondent No. 2 to issue physical marksheet/result to the Petitioner in respect of the examination conducted by it in the month of February 2020 of class 12th forthwith as a special case. 9. Notice of this application was served upon the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 has filed its reply. It is admitted by Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner appeared for her class 12th examination in the month of February 2018 as a regular candidate and thereafter, again appeared under Class Improvement Scheme (CIS) in the month of February 2019. She could not succeed in getting the requisite marks to pursue and apply for Medical Education Course. It is admitted by Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner appeared for her class 12th examination in the month of February 2018 as a regular candidate and thereafter, again appeared under Class Improvement Scheme (CIS) in the month of February 2019. She could not succeed in getting the requisite marks to pursue and apply for Medical Education Course. It is further contended that the Petitioner along with her father approached the College on 1 November 2019 and expressed the desire of the Petitioner to once again appear for the H.S.C examination to be held in February 2020 under Class Improvement Scheme. It is contended that the Principal of Respondent No. 1 informed the Petitioner and her father that Respondent No.1 was required to ascertain the eligibility of the Petitioner in this regard, to which the Petitioner and her father informed that they had been to H.S.C Board office, at Vashi and they were verbally informed that the Petitioner could appear for class improvement twice after the initial appearance in the H.S.C examination and accordingly, they insisted on filling H.S.C examination form, whereas Respondent No.1 did not immediately commence the process of filling H.S.C examination form. Respondent No.1 was trying to ascertain the Petitioner's eligibility to appear for H.S.C examination to be held in February 2020 from Respondent No. 2. It is contended that the Petitioner's father warned that if the school did not fill the H.S.C examination form of the Petitioner, they would approach the H. S. C Board and media with complaints. It is contended that after a clerk from the office of Respondent No. 1, Ms. Shabana Shaikh, made an inquiry in the office of Respondent No. 2, she was told by a lady officer, Mrs. Tara Narkar, that the Petitioner could appear for class improvement twice after the initial appearance in the H.S.C examination. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 obtained a printed form from the officer of Respondent No. 2, wherein it was stated that the candidate could appear for class improvement twice after initial appearance in the H.S.C examination. On being satisfied that the Petitioner could appear for class improvement twice after initial appearance in the H.S.C examination and being under tremendous pressure, Respondent No. 1 directed the concerned clerk to fill the online examination form of the Petitioner for February, 2020 H.S.C examination. On being satisfied that the Petitioner could appear for class improvement twice after initial appearance in the H.S.C examination and being under tremendous pressure, Respondent No. 1 directed the concerned clerk to fill the online examination form of the Petitioner for February, 2020 H.S.C examination. It is admitted that after filling the form, the Petitioner received Hall Ticket and accordingly, she appeared for the examination. 10. It is contended that Respondent No. 1 did not receive any circular or communication regarding the newly added Rule 92(6) in the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977. It is contended that the said Rules are not in public domain nor was there any other way by which such Rules could have been discovered by Respondent No. 1. The allegations made against Respondent No. 1 are denied. It is contended that Respondent No. 1 has not indulged in any wrong or illegal activity. 11. Respondent No. 2 filed its reply through one Sandeep Sanghave, Divisional Secretary of Respondent No. 2. It is contended that Respondent No. 2 is constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act, 1965; it is also governed by regulations known as Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Regulations, 1977. The said regulations have been framed under the provisions of the Act and have come into force on 15 June 1977. It is contended that the State Board, in consultation with the Standing Committee and the State government, issued Notification No. 4218 dated 5 June 2008 and implemented the Class Improvement Scheme. Under the said scheme, an option to S.S.C and H.S.C students was provided for reappearing in any one of the next continuous examinations held by the Board (in the next academic year) for improvement of their score at the examination. 12. It is contended that on the request of parents and students, the State Board, in consultation with the Standing Committee and the State Government, modified Regulation 92(6) whereby under the Class Improvement Scheme an option provided for reappearing in two continuous next examinations held by the Board (in the next academic year), i.e October and March examinations. Under the said scheme, the student has a choice to select either of the examination marksheets. The Notification to that effect was issued on 27 December 2012. Under the said scheme, the student has a choice to select either of the examination marksheets. The Notification to that effect was issued on 27 December 2012. It is contended that the student is accordingly eligible to opt for Class Improvement Scheme twice in continuous next two examinations conducted by the Board, i.e October and March; thereafter, the student is not eligible to reappear for the examination. It is contended that considering the academic career of the students from the year 2016, the Board is taking continuous examinations in the month of July and March. It is contended that the Standing Committee of the Board has power to cancel the results of the examinations under Regulation No.102 (3) which reads as under: "102(3)-In any case, where results of the examination has been ascertained and declared and it is found that such result has been affected by any malpractice, fraud or any other improper conduct whereby a candidate has, in the opinion of the standing committee, shall have power that any time, notwithstanding the issue of the Higher Secondary Certificate or the award of a prize of scholarship, to amend the result of such examination and to make such declaration as it may consider necessary in that behalf." 13. It is contended that each and every Rule and Regulation of the Board has been communicated to concerned Education Institutions at the time of affiliation granted by the Board. Any amendments to the Rules and Regulations are intimated by the Board, through, its official website to all Authorities and Institutions. It is contended that all amendments to the Rules and Regulations of the Board are widely published by the Board through the State Government in media. 14. It is admitted that the Petitioner is a student of Respondent No. 1- College and appeared for H.S.C examination for Science stream on February/March 2018. Respondent No. 2 declared the results of H.S.C examination sometime in the month of June, 2018, in which the Petitioner scored 368 marks out of 650, i.e 56.62%. The Petitioner applied for re-examination under the Class Improvement Scheme and accordingly, appeared for the examination held in the month of February/March 2019. The result of the Petitioner was declared in the month of June, 2019. The Petitioner scored 338 marks out of 650 i.e 52%. The Petitioner applied for re-examination under the Class Improvement Scheme and accordingly, appeared for the examination held in the month of February/March 2019. The result of the Petitioner was declared in the month of June, 2019. The Petitioner scored 338 marks out of 650 i.e 52%. As per the Rules, the Petitioner submitted an option form duly certified by Respondent No. 1 and accepted the results of the February/March 2018. It is contended that the Petitioner was entitled to appear for examination under Class Improvement Scheme in continuous two examinations, namely, July 2018 and March 2019 and her eligibility to appear for examinations under the said scheme came to end in March 2019 as per Regulation 92(6). It is contended that the Petitioner applied for an option under the said scheme in February/March 2020 under Class Improvement Scheme. It is contended that the results of February/March 2020 were declared in the month of July 2020 and the same were uploaded on the website of the Board. The Petitioner scored 403 marks out of 650 i.e 62%. As per the Board's Rule, physical marksheet of the student who appeared under Class Improvement Scheme is not issued to the Institution. As per Regulations, students are required to opt their choice. On or about August 2020, the Petitioner submitted the option form duly certified by Respondent No. 1 under the said scheme and accepted the result of February/March 2020; at that point of time the Board has come to know the improper conduct of the Petitioner that despite being ineligible under the scheme, she appeared for H.S.C examination in February/March 2020. It is contended that the Board does not have the power to release the improved marksheet of February/March 2020 examination to the Petitioner, and therefore, the Board has not issued the marksheet to the Petitioner. 15. It is contended that on inquiry, Respondent No. 1 intimated Respondent No. 2-Board by letter dated 18 August 2020 that Respondent No. 1 was not fling the application form but the parents of the student threatened them, and therefore, they filled up the form. 15. It is contended that on inquiry, Respondent No. 1 intimated Respondent No. 2-Board by letter dated 18 August 2020 that Respondent No. 1 was not fling the application form but the parents of the student threatened them, and therefore, they filled up the form. It is contended that by letter dated 4 September 2020 the Board intimated Respondent No. 1 that the result of the Petitioner for February/March 2020 was cancelled and also issued a show cause notice to Respondent No. 1 as to why the affiliation and index number given by the Board should not be cancelled. 16. It is contended that in February/March 2020, at the H.S.C examination in Mumbai Division approximately 3,14,449 students filled up application forms through their respective Institutions/Colleges and it is impossible for Respondent No.2-Board to scrutinize each and every application form received by it. It is the responsibility of the Institutions/Colleges to certify all details filled up in the examination forms including eligibility criteria of candidates. It is contended that the Petitioner claimed that, she was unaware of the Regulation 92(6) but it is well settled law that no one can justify that she was unaware of the law; ignorance of any law cannot constitute an excuse. It is contended that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case. Hence, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 17. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent. Admittedly, when the Petitioner appeared for class 12th (Science) examination held in month of March/February 2018 for the first time, she could not secure good marks and hence, she decided to reappear for 12th examination again under the Class Improvement Scheme as per Rule 92(6) of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Regulations. Students are permitted to appear for Class Improvement Scheme by making two attempts in the next academic year. The Petitioner appeared for 12th class examination first time in the month of February/March 2018, as she was desirous of pursuing a career in medicine, and was unable to secure adequate marks for pursuing the medical course, she opted for Class Improvement Scheme under the said Regulations. She made the first attempt in February 2019 but again did not secure the requisite marks. Under the scheme, two consecutive attempts are permissible after the initial examination. 18. She made the first attempt in February 2019 but again did not secure the requisite marks. Under the scheme, two consecutive attempts are permissible after the initial examination. 18. The Class Improvement Scheme was first time introduced in the year 2010 by amending original Regulations, wherein only one attempt was given to the students to appear for Class Improvement Scheme . Thereafter, the said Regulation was amended in the year 2013-2014. As per the said amendment, the option is available twice, and that too within the next academic year. Students appearing in March examination can, under the scheme, opt for re-examinations in July and March of the following academic year. In the present case, the Petitioner appeared for 12th examination for the first time in March 2018; so she was eligible to avail of the Class Improvement Scheme in the examinations to be held in July 2018 and March 2019. She made her first attempt under the scheme in February 2019 and thereafter, she appeared for examination in February/March 2020. Obviously, the Petitioner was not entitled to appear for 12th examination held in February/March 2020 under the Class Improvement Scheme. 19. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was not aware of the Regulations and was completely dependent on the information given by Respondent No. 1. The Respondent, however, has come up with the story that due to pressure from the Petitioner's parents, it allowed the Petitioner to fill up the form for 12th examination to be held in February/March 2020. Respondent No. 2 has also issued notice to Respondent No. 1, calling upon it to show cause how it had allowed the Petitioner to fill up the examination form. Respondent No. 1 has given a detailed reply to this notice, wherein this assertion has been made. It also appears from the reply of Respondent No. 1 that it had the knowledge that only two attempts within the next academic year were allowed under the Class Improvement Scheme. No doubt, Respondent No. 1 has taken a stand that the amendment in the Regulation was not communicated to the institution but we are unable to accept that stand, because the amendment was duly published on the website of Respondent No. 2 Board and even otherwise vide publicity was given to it on 1 January 2014. No doubt, Respondent No. 1 has taken a stand that the amendment in the Regulation was not communicated to the institution but we are unable to accept that stand, because the amendment was duly published on the website of Respondent No. 2 Board and even otherwise vide publicity was given to it on 1 January 2014. It was the duty of Respondent No. 1 to verify the eligibility of the Petitioner and only upon such verification, it should have allowed her to appear for the examination. 20. In the event, the amended regulations are a piece of subordinate legislation, duly published in public domain and it is not permissible for anyone to cite its ignorance with a view to get out of its rigours. 21. The results of students appearing under the Class Improvement Scheme are ordinarily declared along with the results of other students appearing at the particular examination. However, these former students do not get their marksheets on the date of the result. On announcement of the result, they have to give an option (in option form), disclosing which particular marksheet, whether of the earlier examination or of the new examination, is to be accepted, before asking the Board to issue marksheet of the examination given under this scheme. After declaration of the result, it was mandatory for the concerned School /Junior College to, thus, submit the Petitioner's option form regarding acceptance marksheet under the Class Improvement Scheme within one month. (If such demand is made within one month, marksheet is issued free of costs.) If she was to take a decision to accept the later result, it would be necessary for her to deposit her original marksheet (of earlier examination) along with her option form to the Board. Only thereafter, she could be issued the marksheet of the examination form under the said scheme. The above procedure has been laid down in the Regulations of the Board. On going through the said procedure, it cannot be said that Board had wrongly or illegally withheld the marksheet of the Petitioner. 22. In the present case, the Petitioner has filed on record a copy of her Option Form under Class Improvement Scheme. The said form was submitted after the declaration of the result of 12th examination held in March, 2019. 22. In the present case, the Petitioner has filed on record a copy of her Option Form under Class Improvement Scheme. The said form was submitted after the declaration of the result of 12th examination held in March, 2019. In the said option form, marks secured by her for first examination namely March 2018 and second examination March 2019 are mentioned. The Petitioner has categorically accepted the marks obtained by her in the 12th examination held in March 2018. It has also been mentioned in her option form that she scored less marks in her first attempt of Class Improvement Scheme, and therefore, requested for treating the examination in her attempt at Class Improvement as cancelled and she accepted the marksheet of class 12th examination held in March 2018. So as per the Regulations, the Petitioner could be said to have accepted the marksheet of February/March 2018 after appearing the Class Improvement Scheme in the month of February/March 2019. Thereafter, she has no further option to appear for the Class Improvement Scheme. As per the applicable Rules, the Petitioner could have made only two attempts to appear for Class Improvement Examination, in the immediately following academic year after passing of her original examination. 23. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not taken due care in scrutinizing the application form of the Petitioner, and therefore, her result cannot be cancelled after its declaration. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was not at fault but it was Respondent No. 1 who failed to perform its duty, and for which the Petitioner should not suffer. Learned Counsel relies on following Judgment ratio laid down in the case of Ms. Syeda Aufya Ahmad V/s. The Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj & Ors. {WP. No. 4863 of 2012}. On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 submits that it was incumbent upon Respondent No.1 to verify the eligibility of the Petitioner before submitting her form for Class Improvement examination. The Rules of Class Improvement Scheme are put on the website of Respondent No.2; similarly those were circulated to all institutions affiliated to Respondent No. 2. So Respondent No. 1 cannot say that it had no knowledge of the Rules of Class Improvement Scheme. The Rules of Class Improvement Scheme are put on the website of Respondent No.2; similarly those were circulated to all institutions affiliated to Respondent No. 2. So Respondent No. 1 cannot say that it had no knowledge of the Rules of Class Improvement Scheme. He also submits that lakhs of students appear for the 12th class examination every year, and it is difficult for Respondent No. 2 to verify each and every form submitted by the students. Learned Counsel also submits that the information submitted by Institutions/Colleges regarding students is accepted by Respondent No. 2 before examination. As far as Class Improvement Scheme is concerned, it is only when candidates fill up forms to opt for the marksheet at any particular attempt, does the Board make scrutiny of the said forms. It is contended that in the present case, the Petitioner submitted her option form, opting for marks of the examination of March 2020; at that point of time, on scrutiny, it was revealed that the Petitioner was ineligible. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 has not, accordingly, committed any wrong or illegality. He also submits that the Petitioner had the requisite knowledge about the scheme but concealed the real facts of the earlier examinations given by her; therefore, the conduct of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 1 is improper, and no fault can be found with respect to the action of Respondent No. 2. He relies on the ratio laid down in the cases of (i) A. P. Christians Medical Education Society V/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., (1986) 2 SCC 667 and (ii) Regional Officer, CBSE V/s. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 719 . 24. On going through the admitted facts and the Class Improvement Scheme, it is clear that the Petitioner was not eligible to appear for the examination held in the month of February/March 2020. The blame is put on Respondent No. 2, in view of the fact that the Petitioner was allowed to appear at the March 2020 examination by Respondent No. 2, who also declared her result. The judgments cited by the Petitioner's Counsel do not support his case as we shall presently point out. 25. The blame is put on Respondent No. 2, in view of the fact that the Petitioner was allowed to appear at the March 2020 examination by Respondent No. 2, who also declared her result. The judgments cited by the Petitioner's Counsel do not support his case as we shall presently point out. 25. The Apex Court in the case of A. Sudha V/s. University of Mysore and another, (1987) 4 SCC 537 was concerned with a candidate, who was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course of Mysore University, but who, relying upon the information supplied to her by the Principal of the Institute, had taken admission to the course. Though the Court dismissed her special leave petition, it nevertheless directed that the appellant should be allowed to prosecute her studies. Reference may be made to paragraph 18 of the said judgment, which reads thus: "18. The facts of the instant case are, more or less, similar to the Rajendra Prasad Mathur case. It has been already noticed that on the appellant's query, the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS course. It was, inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50 percent marks in the optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 54 percent marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS course. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalizing the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course. Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission to the MBBS Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to MBBS course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and specific. Be that as it may, following the decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur case while we dismiss the appeal, we direct that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS and that her result for the First Year MBBS examination be declared within two weeks from date." 26. The Apex Court in the case of Sanatan Gauda V/s. Berhampur University & Ors., (1990) 3 SCC 23 , was considering a similar situation. In the said case, application by the student for appearing in the examination was forwarded by the College. When the application by the student for appearing in the examination was forwarded by the College, the University asked the Principal of the College to send the student's mark list for the purpose of verification, but the Principal did not comply. However, the Principal sent a letter stating that the mark list of the student would be sent in a few days to the University for "your kind reference and verification", but it was never sent. In spite of this, the University Authorities had allowed the student to appear in the examination; but his result was withheld; and, therefore, he approached the Orissa High Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. The student went in appeal before the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Judges of the apex Court delivered separate judgments, both, however, held that the action of the University in withholding the result of the appellant was not justified. In the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Savant, it is observed in para 15, as follows: "15 This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his marksheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course." It is also relevant to refer to para 3 of the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharma, which reads thus: "3 Mr. P. N. Misra, the learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the University had informed the Colleges about the necessary condition for admission to the Law Course which, it appears, was not respected by the College. When the applications by the candidates for sitting at the examination were forwarded by the College, the University asked the Principal to sent the marks of the candidates for the purpose of verification, but the Principal did not comply. The letters Annexures 'F' and 'G' to the counter affidavit have been relied upon for the purpose. The learned Counsel pointed out that instead, the Principal sent a letter Annexure 'I' stating that the marks-list would be sent in a few days for "your kind reference and verification", which was never sent. The Principal wrongly assured the University authorities that he had verified the position and that all the candidates were eligible. In these circumstances, the argument is, that the appellant cannot take advantage of the fact that the University allowed him to appear at the examination. I am afraid, the stand of the Respondent cannot be accepted as correct. From the letters of the University, it is clear that it was not depending upon the opinion of the Principal and had decided to verify the situation for itself. In that situation, it cannot punish the student for the negligence of the Principal or the University authorities. It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had produced his marksheet before the College authority with his application for admission and cannot be accused of any fraud or misrepresentation. It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had produced his marksheet before the College authority with his application for admission and cannot be accused of any fraud or misrepresentation. The interpretation of the rule on the basis of which the University asserts that the appellant was not eligible for admission is challenged by the appellant and is not accepted by the College and my learned Brother accepts the construction suggested by him as correct. In such a situation, even assuming the construction of the rule as attempted by the University as correct, the Principal cannot be condemned for recommending the candidature of the appellant for the examination in question. It was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinized the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so, it cannot refuse to publish his results." 27. In the case of Shivanandam Vivekanand Babu and Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2005) 10 SCC 587 , minimum 50% marks were required as eligibility for being admitted to M.B.A. Course and relaxation of 5% marks was provided for reserved category candidates only from the State of Maharashtra. However, the Institute in the prospectus and advertisement had stated that the relaxation shall be granted to all reserved category candidates. The candidates who belonged to reserved category were from the State of Andhra Pradesh. They were possessing more than 45% marks, but less than 50% marks. Admissions were given to them and their results till the third semester were declared. However, their results of the fourth semester were not declared. The writ petition filed by them was dismissed by this Court. While allowing their appeal, the Apex Court observed in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment, as follows: "9) From a conspectus of the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellants cannot be accused of having played any trick, much less any fraud on any of the respondents. They stated the facts correctly. If ineligible, it was for the College to have refused admission to the appellants. On the material forwarded by the College to the University, the University permitted the appellants to take not one, but four examinations in sequence spread over a period of two years. They stated the facts correctly. If ineligible, it was for the College to have refused admission to the appellants. On the material forwarded by the College to the University, the University permitted the appellants to take not one, but four examinations in sequence spread over a period of two years. If the College has been guilty of any misdeed, it does not appear from the record that any action was taken by the University against the College. In such circumstance, we do not think that the appellants who come from a downtrodden class of community, can be made to suffer for no fault of theirs. 10) On the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the appellants could not have been denied relief sought for from the High Court. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Respondent No. 2 University is directed to declare the result of two appellants forthwith. By way of abundant caution, we make it clear that we have proceeded to decide these appeals on the facts and circumstances of this case as stated hereinabove. We have not in any manner decided the question of eligibility of the appellants or validity of the rule enacted by the University." 28. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University V/s. Sanjay Katwal and Anr., (2009) 1 SCC 610 , the qualification prescribed by the University was Bachelor's degree with not less than 45% marks or Master's degree. The candidate had appeared for competitive test for admission to L.L.B Course. He was declared successful and was admitted to St. Soldier Law College. After scrutinizing the record, the appellant University even registered the candidate and examination roll number was also given to him for the first semester. There was exchange of communications between the University and the College regarding the eligibility of the candidate, since he possessed M.A. Degree from Annamalai University through distance education. The University did not agree with the representation of the candidate and directed cancellation of his admission. Being aggrieved, the candidate approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The Petition was allowed. Being aggrieved, the University went in appeal before the Apex Court. The University did not agree with the representation of the candidate and directed cancellation of his admission. Being aggrieved, the candidate approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The Petition was allowed. Being aggrieved, the University went in appeal before the Apex Court. In the appeal, though the Apex Court found that the candidate was not eligible and as such, allowed the appeal of the University, the Apex Court observed in paras 18 and 19 of the judgment, which read thus: "18) However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first respondent is entitled to relief. The first Respondent was admitted through a common entrance test process during 2004-2005. He was permitted to take the first semester examinations by the University. He is not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there was some confusion in the appellant University itself as to whether the distance education course attended by the first respondent was the same as the correspondence course, which was recognized. 19) The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible only after he took the first semester examination. He has, however, also been permitted to continue the course and has competed the course in 2007. He has succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years of his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstance, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission, which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant University." 29. Relying on the Judgments of the Apex Court, similar views have been taken by Division Benches of this Court in various matters, including in the case of Arshdeep Vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Nagpur and others, (1991) 1 MhLJ 304 , Sunil s/o Gopalkrishna Tuvlare and another Vs. Principal, Sou. Vasudhatai Deshmukh Krishi Vidyalaya, Akola and others, (2004) 2 MhLJ 99 and Ganesh R. Baheti Vs. University of Pune and another, (2003) 4 MhLJ 140 . 30. What we notice from the judgments referred to above is that in all those cases, after admissions were wrongfully given to the concerned students, they pursued their education for a number of years, in some case having even completed the course. University of Pune and another, (2003) 4 MhLJ 140 . 30. What we notice from the judgments referred to above is that in all those cases, after admissions were wrongfully given to the concerned students, they pursued their education for a number of years, in some case having even completed the course. It was at that stage that the concerned Universities sought to withhold their results. In none of the cases, the Supreme Court accepted the eligibility of the students to be admitted to the courses undertaken by them. In fact, their SLPs or Appeals, as the case may be, were dismissed. The reliefs given to them, despite such dismissal and practically holding them to be ineligible, were on account of peculiar facts of their individual cases. In the first place, the students were not in the fault at all. Secondly, it was the Universities which were actually at fault in admitting them to the courses. Thirdly, after being admitted to the respective courses, the students had pursued the same for a number of years, some, as noted above, even having completed the courses. On these facts, the Supreme Court took the view that the Universities were estopped from withholding the students' results. In our case, the facts are entirely different. The student before us cannot be said to be unaware of the regulation concerning class improvement. Having actually applied for an opportunity to appear for re-examinations under the particular scheme, she could be said to be aware of the regulation or, in any event, could not feign ignorance of it. Neither the college nor the University, in our case, could be said to have misled the student in allowing her to submit her examination form at the examination held in March 2020 or to appear at it. At the very first opportunity, when the student submitted her option form, the Board scrutinized her case and declined to issue her the marksheet. (The Board could not be faulted for allowing her to appear, as there are lakhs of students appearing every year and the Board might well rely on colleges for the students' eligibility to appear at the examination.) Lastly, the student in our case has not prosecuted her further studies based on the Board's action in allowing her to appear at the 12th Class examination. She wants the Court to allow her to take advantage of her appearance at the examination for prosecution of further studies. In other words, she wants this Court to direct the authority to disregard its own regulation and that too without there being any mitigating circumstance or equity in her favour. In fact, the case of the present Petitioner can be likened more to the following cases decided by the Supreme Court. 31. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another, (1986) 2 SCC 667 , the College, in spite of not having affiliation, had published a prospectus and advertisement, inviting applications from students for being admitted to the MBBS course. Noticing this, the University had published a notification twice, informing the public in general and the student community in particular that Osmania University had neither permitted nor granted affiliation in the MBBS course of the above Institution, making it clear that "whoever seeks admission in the above Institution will be doing so at his/her own risk". In this factual background, the Apex Court observed the following in para 10 of the judgment: "10 Shri K. K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the students who have been admitted into the MBBS course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct or folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that students of the medical college established by the Daru-Salam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not by then been granted by the University. Shri. Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interest of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri. Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statue to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri. Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statue to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws. The case of the medical college started by the Daru-Salam Trust appears to stand on a different footing as we find from the record placed before us that permission had been granted by the State Government to the Trust to start the medical college and on that account, the University had granted provisional affiliation. We also find that the Medical Council of India took strong and serious exception to the grant of provisional affiliation whereupon the University withdrew the affiliation granted to the college. We are unable to treat what the University did in the case of the Daru-Salam Medical College as a precedent in the present case to direct the University to do something which it is forbidden from doing by the University Act and the regulations of the University. We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardizing their future careers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time. We are happy to note that the University acted watchfully and wakefully, issuing timely warnings to those seeking admission to the institution. We are sure many must have taken heed of the warnings issued by the University and refrained from seeking admission to the Institution. If some did not heed the warnings issued by the University, they are themselves to blame. Even so if they can be compensated in some manner, there is no reason why that may not be done. We are told that the assets of the institutions, which have sprung out of the funds collected from the students, have been frozen. If some did not heed the warnings issued by the University, they are themselves to blame. Even so if they can be compensated in some manner, there is no reason why that may not be done. We are told that the assets of the institutions, which have sprung out of the funds collected from the students, have been frozen. It is up to the State Government to devise suitable ways, legislative and administrative, to compensate the students at least monetarily. The appeal filed by the society is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs. 10,000/-. The writ petition filed by the students is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs." 32. In the case of Regional Officer, CBSE vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and others, (2003) 7 SCC 719 , since the student had failed to clear her Class IX examination, her form to appear for the X Standard examination was withheld by the School itself. However, the High Court by an interim order permitted the student to appear for the X Standard examination and by a subsequent order, the High Court had directed result to be declared. Subsequently, the petition came to be allowed. In this background, the Apex Court deprecated the practice of permitting an ineligible student to appear for an examination by an interim order. 33. As in those cases, in our case the concerned student wants this Court to permit her to undertake a particular course without being eligible to do so. She wants this Court to direct the Board to do something which is forbidden by its own regulation, namely, to allow the student to improve her original marks by means of a result in a forbidden examination, and then, on that basis, prosecute her further studies. That is clearly impermissible. In fact, if we were to direct the Board by our interim order to issue the marksheet for March 2020 examination to the student and allow her to prosecute her further studies on that basis, we would be doing exactly that, which is deprecated by the Supreme Court in Sheena Peethambaran's case. 34. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 35. We may add a note by way of a post script. We would expect the respondent Board to be more diligent hereafter and ensure that Colleges affiliated to it do not submit examination forms of ineligible students. 34. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 35. We may add a note by way of a post script. We would expect the respondent Board to be more diligent hereafter and ensure that Colleges affiliated to it do not submit examination forms of ineligible students. Instead of permitting the student to appear for the examination, without ensuring his or her eligibility, it would be in the interest of students as well as the respondent Board to prevent admission of such ineligible students at the examination at the threshold and avoid such unwarranted and unnecessary scenarios.