JUDGMENT P. Patnaik, J. - The petitioners, students of Class-VI in Odisha Adharsha Vidyalaya (hereinafter referred to in short OAV), Jamudiha, Nilgiri, Balasore being represented by father-guardians have sought for quashing of the letter No.9064 dated 17.11.2020 passed by Opposite Party No.3-State Project Director, Odisha Adharsha Vidyalaya Sangathan, Bhubaneswar, vide Annexure-5 pertaining to direction to conduct reentrance examination in OAV Jamudiha, Nilgiri in the district of Balasore. 2. The facts as delineated in the writ petition in a nut shell is that the O.P. No.3 vide notification (Annexure-1) decided for opening of 250 Adarsha Vidyalaya wherein it has been decided for admission of students of Class-VI for Odia and English Medium Entrance Examination would be held on 01.03.2020, as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the said notification 546 students applied to take admission in OAV, Jamudiha, Nilgiri, Blasore and out of which 540 candidates appeared in the examination. The students appeared in the examination with proper supervision and guidance by the authorities. The merit list along with waiting list was prepared for Class-VI of the school in question as evident from Annexure-3 series. It has been averred that as per the letter No. 4721 dated 12.06.2020, Annexure-4, O.P. No.3 issued a notice for admission of students of the concerned school and admission in all respect was to be completed by 15.07.2020. 3. It has been averred that pursuant to the selection, all the petitioners were admitted in Class.VI and the authorities distributed books to them and they are on the verge of completion of Class-VI course as their admission was held in the month of June, 2020. While the matter stood thus, all of a sudden like a bolt from the blue O.P. NO.3 as per letter No. 9064 dated 17.11.2020 directed the Principal, Odisha Adharsha Vidyalaya, Jamudiha, Nilgiri, Balasore (O.P. No.6) for re-examination/entrance examination to admission of Class-VI and in the said letter, it has been pointed out that merit list prepared on the basis of Entrance Examination held on 01.03.2020 is treated as cancelled. In the said letter the date of re-entrance test for Class-VI has been fixed to 29.11.2020 and date of admission has been fixed to 08.12.2020 to 11.12.2020, copy of impugned letter is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. 4. In the said letter the date of re-entrance test for Class-VI has been fixed to 29.11.2020 and date of admission has been fixed to 08.12.2020 to 11.12.2020, copy of impugned letter is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. 4. It has been further averred in the writ application that the petitioners have completed their course and now preparing for the examination. At this juncture, during the mid-academic session, since their admission has been cancelled, the student-petitioners have been seriously prejudiced and the cancellation of the merit list after a long gap of time is illegal and not tenable in the eye of law. It has further been alleged that the cancellation has been done because of the exertion of political pressure. Having no other efficacious remedy, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court involving Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Controverting the averments in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by O.Ps.1 & 2. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit, inter alia, that Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Sangathan (OAVS), Bhubaneswar is an autonomous society constituted and registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 under School & Mass Educaton Department for implementation of new scheme, Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya Yojana. The Odisha Adarsha Vidyalayas being special type of English Medium CBSE affiliated schools provide quality education at secondary level to the rural children who are unable to afford to it. In order to ensure quality result, Odisha Adharsha Vidyalayas have followed a selection process through an approved general guideline for admission of students in Class-VI, a copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-A/2. It has been submitted in the counter affidavit that category wise merit list was submitted to the Collector and Chairman, OAVs, Balasore through the District Education Officers, Balasore. After it is being approved, on 18.03.2020 by the Collector, Balasore, intimation was issued to the selected candidates and 57 students took admission from the merit list. Further it has been submitted that on 29.06.2020 it was published in Prameya Odia daily that a lot of irregularities have been made in the selection of students for admission in OAV, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-B/2. A petition was also received from Sri Chittaranjan Sadangi, Ex-M.L.A., Nilgiri explaining different irregularities enclosing the paper clipping on 04.08.2020 through the office of Honble Minister, School & Mass Education Department, Odisha, vide Annexure-C/2. A petition was also received from Sri Chittaranjan Sadangi, Ex-M.L.A., Nilgiri explaining different irregularities enclosing the paper clipping on 04.08.2020 through the office of Honble Minister, School & Mass Education Department, Odisha, vide Annexure-C/2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Balasore was requested to conduct an inquiry through a Committee taking District Education Officer as a Member and two other officers as decided by him and submit a report urgently, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-D/2. The Committee conducted inquiry on 07.08.2020 and the findings of Joint Inquiry Committee with the views of the inquiry officers have been submitted to the State Project Director vide letter No.6563 dated 17.08.2020. The findings of the inquiry states as follows : (i) On dated 15.07.2020, the Sub-Collector, Nilgiri has seized 532 no. of question cum answer booklets and handed over to IIC, Nilgiri for forensic test at Bhubaneswar laboratory; (ii) Due to non-availability of answer papers, the revaluation of answer papers may not be possible; (iii) On inquiry it has been noticed that, the BEO, Nilgiri shifted the question-cum-answer booklets from examination centre to his office unnecessarily. 6. It could have been a better evaluation, if the said answer booklets were remained in the examination centre. The Joint Inquiry Committee suggested vide letter dated 17.08.2020 to conduct reexamination and entire cost of examination is to be recovered from the then Principal in charge (BEO, Nilagiri), all invigilators, Chief Examiner, Supervisor and Examinors who are involved in the said irregularities, copy of the said inquiry report is annexed as Annexure-E/2. On receipt of the inquiry report of the Committee constituted by the Collector & District Magistrate & Chairman, OAVs of the district, the Government in the School & Mass Education Department was requested vide letter dated 24.09.2020 to accord permission for conducting the re-entrance examination of Class-VI in the school in question, vide Annexure-F/2. Permission to conduct re-examination in the School was accorded by the Government vide letter dated 12.10.2020 with a direction to frame disciplinary charges and initiate proceedings against BEO, Nilagiri and incharge Principal of the OAV for his negligence in duties and gross irregularities in conducting the entrance examination, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-G/2. Permission to conduct re-examination in the School was accorded by the Government vide letter dated 12.10.2020 with a direction to frame disciplinary charges and initiate proceedings against BEO, Nilagiri and incharge Principal of the OAV for his negligence in duties and gross irregularities in conducting the entrance examination, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-G/2. It is further submitted that the intimation for conducting entrance examination to the Principal, OAV, Jamudiha, Nilagiri and DEO, Balasore could not be communicated immediately due to implementation of code of conduct of bye election in Balasore. After lifting of the code of conduct of bye election, vide letter dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-H/2), the date for the re-entrance examination was scheduled to be held on 29.11.2020. Therefore, it has been submitted that the letter No.9064 dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure-5) issued by O.P. No.3 is just and proper and the petitioners are not entitled to get relief as claimed in the writ petition. 7. Rejoinder on behalf of the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by O.Ps.1 & 2 has been filed wherein it has been submitted that the entrance examination was held on 01.03.2020 in a transparent manner. On the basis of a written petition made by Ex-MLA on 30.06.2020 due to the alleged news publication under Annexure-B/2, Opposite Party No3 directed the District Collector to cause inquiry on 06.08.2020 and just on the next date, i.e., on 07.08.2020 the alleged inquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioners, particularly when the students of Class-VI after being selected in the Entrance Examination have already taken admission and are prosecuting their studies after receipt of books from the OAV. Thus it transpires that the authorities with an oblique motive have acted in an irresponsible manner thereby playing with the future of small children in a clandestine manner. 8. Further it has been submitted that the decision to conduct re-entrance examination in Class-VI in OAV in question pursuant to the direction given in Annexure-F/2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. The petitioners have been duly selected through entrance examination and have been meticulously prosecuting their studies for last 5-6 months and aspiring for their next class promotion, at this stage the Opposite Parties should not have taken bald decision for re-examination/entrance examination proposed to be held on 29.11.2020. The petitioners have been duly selected through entrance examination and have been meticulously prosecuting their studies for last 5-6 months and aspiring for their next class promotion, at this stage the Opposite Parties should not have taken bald decision for re-examination/entrance examination proposed to be held on 29.11.2020. It would not be fair at this stage to treat the merit list on the basis of entrance examination held on 1.3.2020 as cancelled and direct them to face re-entrance examination during the mid-academic session. 9. From the rival contentions of the parties, the question which falls for consideration by this Court are as follows : (i) whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction for re-examination/entrance examination pursuant to the letter under Annexure-5 at this distance of time would be legally permissible ? (ii) whether the belated decision by the opposite parties for re-examination/entrance examination would in fact adversely affect the career of the petitioners ? 10. Mr. S.B.Jena, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted with vehemence that the petitioners after being successful in the entrance examination in Class-VI, are continuing their studies in Odisha Adarsha Vidyalaya, Jamudiha, Nilgiri, Balasore as per their merit list. After their admission, the school authorities have distributed books to them. In the meantime several months have elapsed and the State Project Director has issued direction for conducting re-entrance examination by cancelling the entrance test held on 01.03.2020 which is not only illegal but also arbitrary. The career of the small children are going to be seriously affected and for no fault of them a one year career is going to be spoiled. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that neither the petitioner nor their parents have any inkling with regard to inquiry conducted at the instance of the Ex-MLA and the order dated 17.11.2020 directing re-examination of the small petitioners will cause irreparable loss to them. 11. Mr. P.K.Panda, learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department on the otherhand vociferously submitted that basing on the Joint Inquiry Report the Government was requested to accord permission for conducting re-entrance examination vide letter dated 24.09.2020 by the State Project Diector, OAVS. 11. Mr. P.K.Panda, learned Standing Counsel for the School & Mass Education Department on the otherhand vociferously submitted that basing on the Joint Inquiry Report the Government was requested to accord permission for conducting re-entrance examination vide letter dated 24.09.2020 by the State Project Diector, OAVS. Accordingly the Government vide letter dated 12.10.2020 accorded permission for conducting re-entrance examination and to frame disciplinary charges and initiate proceedings against the Block Education Officer, Nilagiri and In-charge Principal of the OAV in question for negligence in duties and gross irregularities in conducting the entrance examination. It is further submitted that basing on the report of the Joint Enquiry Committee, the Government allowed re-entrance examination for selection of students for admission in Class-VI. Therefore, the merit list prepared on the basis of entrance examination held on 01.03.2020 is treated as cancelled and the date of re-entrance examination was scheduled to be held on 29.11.2020. Further Mr. Panda, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department submitted that as some meritorious students were not selected due to the activities of the BEO staff, Annexure-5 was issued which is legal, justified and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly the writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 12. In order to dwell upon the issues as formulated, the undisputed facts which emanated from the pleadings are that the petitioners having been successful in the entrance examination, took admission and they have studied the books supplied by the school authorities and they have completed almost seven months in the meantime. In the instant case, the due to extraneous allegations levelled by a political person, enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the decision of the Joint Enquiry Report, decision has been taken for reexamination. The decision for re-entrance examination at this distance of time is certainly going to cause immense mental agony, shock and harassment and the career of the petitioners who are small children, is going to be marred., 13. Needless to say that the petitioner-students have right to prosecute their study with dignity and the impugned decision for reentrance examination will have serious repercussion in the minds of the students and the career of the petitioners cannot be lost sight of. The clock cannot be put back after lapse of considerable length of time. 14. Needless to say that the petitioner-students have right to prosecute their study with dignity and the impugned decision for reentrance examination will have serious repercussion in the minds of the students and the career of the petitioners cannot be lost sight of. The clock cannot be put back after lapse of considerable length of time. 14. The moot question which hinges on the hunch of the Bench is as to how loss of one year can be compensated by virtue of the Government notification for re-entrance examination under impugned letter vide Annexure-5. This Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that petition having been found successful in the entrance examination and more than six months having studied the books, again if the petitioners would be called upon to appear the entrance examination, that would put them into a state of uncertainty. This Court being alive to the such eventuality can not but disapprove the impugned decision vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 15. Moreover, this is an entrance examination of Class-VI. Had the authorities taken decision at the earlier point of time, then certainly this Court would not have stepped in to tinker with the decision under Annexue-5 for conduct of the re-entrance examination in the OAV in question. The observation of the Court is fortified by the decisions of the Honble apex Court in (1981) 4 SCC 542 (Smita Johnbhai Master and others v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 10 SCC 233 (Monika Ranka and others v. Medical Council of India and others) and (2012) 3 SCC 430 (Deepa Thomas v. Medical Council and others). 16. In the decision in (1981) 4 SCC 542 (Smita Johnbhai Master and others v. State of Gujarat and others, the Honble apex held at paragraphs-4 & 5 as follows : '4. Undoubtedly, a grievance is being made now that those who benefit by the Court's interim Order should not be allowed to take any advantage of it if the petition in which interim Order was made is liable to be rejected. Another grievance equally meritorious is that those who secured admission which is found to be unjustified but continued to receive training under the interim orders of the Court, would enjoy an unfair advantage over those who failed to get admission because of the invalid admissions of the first mentioned persons. Another grievance equally meritorious is that those who secured admission which is found to be unjustified but continued to receive training under the interim orders of the Court, would enjoy an unfair advantage over those who failed to get admission because of the invalid admissions of the first mentioned persons. Conversely if interim arrangement is not directed what an oppressive out-come it would be if the challenge initially made in the petition to the Court turns out to be effective and valid. These are some unavoidable consequence of the system which howsoever one may disapprove, cannot be wished away. Even if we do not grant any relief to the petitioners whose petition is being dismissed, those who could not secure admission would not get to be better off, because their loss of one year cannot be compensated or restored by any process known to law. Clock cannot be put back howsoever one may ardently desire. 5. Therefore, with a view to mitigating the harshness of law blended by the fairness of equity, we direct that all those who secured admissions under the aforementioned five orders of the Director of Education and have completed first year course and have also appeared at the examination held at the end of first academic year should be treated as admitted for the limited period of first year. Their results should be declared. However, it is made distinctly clear that on this account they would not be entitled to claim, even if they have passed the examination, admission in the second year course. They will have to seek admission in the second year course in case they are declared successful in the first year examination on merits and at the discretion of the management of the institutions.' In the decision in (2010) 10 SCC 233 (Monika Ranka and others v. Medical Council of India and others) the Honble Apex Court held in paragraph-5 as follows : '5. In the Regulation published it was stated that the candidates should have secured more than 50% marks in the entrance examination. There is nothing on record to show that these appellants were informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance examination. As these appellants have already completed one year of their course, equities are in favour of the appellants. There is nothing on record to show that these appellants were informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance examination. As these appellants have already completed one year of their course, equities are in favour of the appellants. But however, we maintain the judgment of the High Court, as regards the principle laid down, but we direct that these appellants may be allowed to continue their M.B.B.S.Course as a special case and their results of the 1st year M.B.B.S.Course may also be declared so that they may continue with their studies.' In the decision in (2012) 3 SCC 430 (Deepa Thomas v. Medical Council and others) the Honble Supreme Court held at paragraph-32 as follows : '32. This Court in (2011) 3 SCC 617 (Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai v. State of Gujaratcase upheld the decision of the High Court observing that the qualification requirements prescribed by the State cannot be lower than those prescribed by the MCI. However, this Court also found that the admissions of the appellantstudents took place due to the fault of the rule-making authority in not making the State Rules in conformity with the MCI Regulations and that if the appellants are discharged from the MBBS course for the fault of the rule-making authority, they will suffer grave injustice. This Court further found that the appellants were not to be blamed for having secured admission in the MBBS course and that the fault was entirely on the rulemaking authority in making the State Rules. Even though the appellants were not eligible for admission under the MCI Regulations, considering that the appellants had gone through the pains of appearing in the common entrance test and had been selected on the basis of their merit and admitted into the MBBS course in accordance with the State Rules and had pursued their studies for a year, this Court, for the purpose of doing complete justice in the matter, directed that the admissions of the appellants should not be disturbed. Though this Court observed that the said direction was not to be treated as a precedent, we find sufficient justification for giving a similar direction in the case of the appellants before us.' 17. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the decisions cited supra, the issues framed are decided against the opposite parties. 18. Though this Court observed that the said direction was not to be treated as a precedent, we find sufficient justification for giving a similar direction in the case of the appellants before us.' 17. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with the decisions cited supra, the issues framed are decided against the opposite parties. 18. On the cumulative effect of facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement coupled with peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned decision vide Annexure-5 cannot sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. The writ application accordingly stands allowed.