appearing in two examinations simultaneously for the same year is violation of the Regulations of the Board, this reason given by the High Court is clearly unsustainable inasmuch as no such Regulation is shown by the Board which prohibited any such candidate to appear in two examinations in the same year. The learned senior counsel further argued that the impugned order passed by the respondents for confiscating his Certificate of Intermediate exam was, otherwise also, contrary to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no show cause notice and opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before passing such an order, which was passed belatedly after a period of nine years from the passing of the said examination by the appellant. 7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned senior counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was 'contrary to the Regulations'. However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to this effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation or any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976 framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing Regulations. Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant's intermediate examination and result thereof was not in question before the U.P. Board. No illegality in the admission in that class has been pointed out by the respondents. The alleged charge of simultaneously appearing in two examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of the Sanskrit Board, was with respect to Class X and equivalent examination which did not relate to admission in intermediate course. The only provision for canceling the said admission is contained in Regulation (1) of Chapter VI-B. It details the procedure for passing the order of punishment canceling intermediate results and, inter alia, prescribes that a committee consisting of three different members is to be constituted and entrusted with the responsibility of looking into and disposing of cases relating to unfair means and award appropriate penalty as specified in the Regulations itself. However, there is no allegation of any unfair means adopted by the appellant in the instant case and, therefore, that Regulation has no applicability. Even otherwise, no such committee was constituted. Therefore, having taken admission in Intermediate on the basis of past certificate issued by a separate Board, which was recognised, and not on the basis of the result of Class X of the U.P. Board, the appellant derived no advantage from his examination of the U.P. Board while seeking admission in Intermediate course. Thus, from any angle the matter is to be looked into, the impugned orders dated April 20, 2011 and May 10, 2011 passed by the respondents are null and void, apart from the fact that they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs by quashing the aforesaid impugned orders and reversing the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appellant shall, accordingly, be entitled to all consequential benefits.

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11   OF 2016
                  (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 2964 OF 2015)


|KULDEEP KUMAR PATHAK                       |.....APPELLANT(S)            |
|VERSUS                                     |                             |
|STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS                   |.....RESPONDENT(S)           |



                               J U D G M E N T


A.K. SIKRI, J.

                 Leave granted.  Matter  is  finally  heard  at  this  stage
itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2.     The  appellant  herein  appeared  in  the  Intermediate   Examination
conducted by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad in  the  year  2002
and successfully cleared the said examination.  On that  basis,  he  pursued
the Graduation and  passed  Bachelor  of  Arts  (B.A.)  in  the  year  2005.
Thereafter, he even successfully completed his Post-Graduation  course  i.e.
Masters of  Arts (M.A.) in the year 2007 with a  desire  to  pursue  further
studies.  He  even  joined  LL.B.  course  and  successfully  cleared  LL.B.
examinations also in the year 2011.  He had  the  ambition  to  get  himself
enrolled as an Advocate so as to  pursue  the  legal  profession.   However,
before he could do that, respondent-authorities inflicted  upon  him  a  big
blow in the form of canceling his intermediate  results  of  the  year  2002
which examination was conducted by Madhyamik  Shiksha  Parishad,  Allahabad.
Order to this effect, without  putting  the  appellant  to  any  notice  and
without affording any opportunity of hearing, was passed  nine  years  after
the said exam with the direction to confiscate his Certificate.  The  effect
of the aforesaid action of the respondent was not only take away the  result
of the Intermediate Examination,  but  it  also  nullified  further  courses
which he had pursued and passed in the meantime.

3.    The  reason  for  canceling  the  said  examination  by  the  Regional
Secretary,  U.P.  Board  of  High  School   and   Intermediate   Examination
(hereinafter referred to  as  the  'U.P.  Board'),  Varanasi  was  that  the
appellant had simultaneously appeared in two examinations, one of  the  U.P.
Board and other of Sanskrit Board with respect to  Class  X  and  equivalent
examination and it was not permissible for the appellant to  appear  in  two
examinations conducted by two different Boards simultaneously.

4.    The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated April 20,  2011
passed by the Regional Secretary,  Intermediate  Education  Board,  Varanasi
(respondent No. 3), preferred a representation dated  May  10,  2011  before
the Director,  Education  (Secondary),  Lucknow  (respondent  No.  2).  This
representation was also addressed to respondent No. 3. Request was  made  to
both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allow him to present his case and  give  him
an  opportunity  of  hearing.   However,   nothing   was   heard   on   this
representation and instead consequential orders  dated  May  18,  2011  were
passed giving effect  to  earlier  orders  dated  April  20,  2011,  thereby
confiscating the Certificates of Award in favour of the appellant.

5.    The aforesaid actions of  the  respondents  forced  the  appellant  to
challenge the said orders dated April 10, 2011 and May 18, 2011  before  the
High Court of Judicature at  Allahabad  by  filing  a  writ  petition  under
Article 226 of the Constitution.  The  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High
Court, however, dismissed the writ  petition  vide  orders  dated  July  08,
2013.  Intra-court  appeal  filed  against  the  said  judgment  before  the
Division Bench also met the same fate inasmuch  as  vide  impugned  judgment
dated January 22, 2014, the appeal of the appellant has  been  dismissed  by
the Division Bench of the High Court, thereby affirming the  orders  of  the
Single Judge.  A perusal of the orders of the Single Judge as  well  as  the
Division Bench would reflect that the courts below have  gone  primarily  by
the fact that since the appellant admitted that he appeared in  two  streams
in two different Boards in the year 2000, this action on  the  part  of  the
appellant was  contrary  to  the  Regulations  and,  therefore,  the  orders
canceling the exam were rightly passed by the respondents.

6.    Before us, Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the  appellant
has made a neat  legal  argument.   He  submits  that  though  the  impugned
judgment  proceeds  on  the  basis  that  appearing  in   two   examinations
simultaneously for the same year is violation  of  the  Regulations  of  the
Board, this  reason  given  by  the  High  Court  is  clearly  unsustainable
inasmuch as no such Regulation is shown by the Board  which  prohibited  any
such candidate to appear in two examinations in the same year.  The  learned
senior counsel  further  argued  that  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the
respondents for confiscating  his  Certificate  of  Intermediate  exam  was,
otherwise also, contrary to the principles of natural  justice  inasmuch  as
no show cause notice and opportunity of hearing was given to  the  appellant
before passing such an order, which was passed belatedly after a  period  of
nine years from the passing of the said examination by the appellant.

7.    We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned  senior
counsel are valid in law and have to  prevail.   The  High  Court  has  been
influenced by the argument of the respondents that  simultaneous  appearance
in two examinations by the appellant in the same year was 'contrary  to  the
Regulations'. However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either  by  the
learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.  Curiously, no  such  Regulation
has been pointed out even by the respondents.  On our specific query to  the
learned counsel for  the  respondents  to  this  effect,  he  expressed  his
inability to show any  such  Regulation  or  any  other  rule  or  provision
contained in the U.P. Intermediate  Education  Act,  1921  or  Supplementary
Regulations of  1976  framed  under  the  aforesaid  Act  or  in  any  other
governing Regulations.  Therefore, the entire  foundation  of  the  impugned
judgment of the High Court is erroneous.

8.    It is  also  pertinent  to  note  that  the  appellant's  intermediate
examination and result thereof was not in question before  the  U.P.  Board.
No illegality in the admission in that class has been  pointed  out  by  the
respondents.  The  alleged  charge  of  simultaneously  appearing   in   two
examinations, one of the U.P. Board and other of  the  Sanskrit  Board,  was
with respect to Class X and equivalent examination which did not  relate  to
admission in intermediate course.  The  only  provision  for  canceling  the
said admission is contained in Regulation (1) of Chapter VI-B.   It  details
the procedure for passing the order  of  punishment  canceling  intermediate
results and, inter alia, prescribes that a  committee  consisting  of  three
different  members  is  to   be   constituted   and   entrusted   with   the
responsibility of looking into and disposing of  cases  relating  to  unfair
means and award appropriate penalty as specified in the Regulations  itself.
However, there  is  no  allegation  of  any  unfair  means  adopted  by  the
appellant in the  instant  case  and,  therefore,  that  Regulation  has  no
applicability.   Even  otherwise,  no  such   committee   was   constituted.
Therefore, having taken admission in  Intermediate  on  the  basis  of  past
certificate issued by a separate Board, which was  recognised,  and  not  on
the basis of the result of Class X of the U.P. Board, the appellant  derived
no advantage from his examination of the U.P. Board while seeking  admission
in Intermediate course.  Thus, from any angle the matter  is  to  be  looked
into, the impugned orders dated April 20, 2011 and May 10,  2011  passed  by
the respondents are null and void, apart from the  fact  that  they  are  in
violation of the principles of natural justice.

9.    The appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed  with  costs  by  quashing  the
aforesaid impugned orders and reversing the impugned judgment  of  the  High
Court.  The appellant shall, accordingly, be entitled to  all  consequential
benefits.


                             .............................................J.
                                                                (A.K. SIKRI)



                             .............................................J.
                                                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)


NEW DELHI;
JANUARY  05 , 2016.