( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Vice-Chancellor, Ravishankar university. Raipur, cancelling the provisional admission granted to the petitioner for appearing at the final LL. B Examination held by the University in April 1065, the petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish his result for the said examination for which he was allowed to appear and his admission was subsequently cancelled.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a student of final LL. B. in the College of Arts and Commerce. Janjgir, District Bilaspur. The final law examination was held from 15-4-1965 to 29-4-1965. The petitioner had duly filled in the examination form which was forwarded by the Principal to the University. It appears that though the Principal of the College had received the admission card of the petitioner, it was not issued to the petitioner till the morning of 15-4-1965. presumably for the reason that according to the Principal of the College the petitioner had not attended the prescribed number of lectures and was. therefore, not eligible to appear for the examination. On the request of the petitioner the Principal, however issued to him the admission card marking it 'provisional', on the undertaking given by the petitioner that he would secure the condonation of deficiency in attendance from the Vice-Chancellor and that in case the same was refused, he would not press his claim for declaration of result. On issuance of the admission card the petitioner appeared for all the papers. In the meanwhile, he had also sent his representation to the Vice-Chancellor. That representation was rejected by the Vice-Chancellor and accordingly the petitioner was informed of the said decision by Memo, dated 29th May 1965 (Ex. P-4 ). This memo contains the decision of the Vice-Chancellor to the effect that the provisional admission to the examination granted by the Principal is cancelled. As a result of this decision of the Vice-Chancellor, the petitioner's result also was not declared.

( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the issuance of the admission card by the University raised a presumption that the attendance of the petitioner was as required by the rules or, in any ease, the shortage in attendance was condoned by the Vice-Chancellor. The Principal had no authority to withhold the admission card received from the University, nor had the Vice-Chancellor any authority to revise the decision already taken. The refusal of the Principal to issue the admission card will have deprived the petitioner of the opportunity of appearing for the examination and he was, therefore, forced to give the undertaking. Inasmuch as the Principal had no authority to withhold the admission card, the undertaking given by the petitioner could not be used against him.

( 4 ) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the Principal of the Articles and Commerce College, Janjgir, it is alleged that the petitioner had attended only 38 per cent of the lectures when the minimum percentage required was 75 and that the petitioner was as such a 'detained student' of the College. It was alleged that on a representation by the petitioner on the morning of 15-4-1965 the provisional admission card was issued. The Principal also asserted that he never recommended the petitioner's case for condonation of shortage in attendance. It was further alleged that under the relevant rules a provisional certificate is granted by the Principal when the application forms are forwarded; but if a candidate fails to attend the requisite number of lectures before the end of the term, the Principal is entitled to withdraw such certificate. On the basis of the provisional certificate issued along with the application forms, the University had sent the admission cards to the Principal. The Principal, however, while finally issuing the admission card to the