ORDER.-During March, 1962 the petitioner joined as an Audit Clerk of the Local Fund Audit Department. He was promoted as Senior Stock Verifier in the Stock Verification Organisation which is a wing of the Local Fund Audit Department. In November, 1976 the petitioner took the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination, which Examination consists of three parts, (a), (b) and © of Part II. Part II (a) is to be taken without the aid of books while Parts II (b) and © could be taken with the aid of books. In Part II (a), he obtained 64% while in Parts II (b) and © 17% and 26% respectively. By reason of his securing 64%, he obtained the necessary exemption with reference to that Part II (a). The results of this examination were published in the Gazette and they were confirmed. Thereafter the petitioner took Parts II (b) and ©. 2. An anonymous letter was received by the Service Commission, which I am extracting in fall (though the English therein can be pardoned). “ Sas — Exam — Malpractices Sir, One Ramamurthy Iyer gave exemption to one Rajagopalan who is also a brahmin. It is told that his entire service is in Stock Verification. When full of L. F. service are unable to get pass marks it is doubtful how this man was able to secure exemption. If investigation is made real things will come to light. By giving exemption to a person who is having no knowledge in the field of Audit a shameful result was happened which is never in the history of the Service Commission. The Examiner who knows things well is not in a position to avoid these. To make an end we appeal that the provision of rule 14 of notification published with application every year is given effect to. If the rule is enforced there will be moral fear in everybody’s mind and misuse of power avoided to certain extent, will the Commission do this in the interest of public service ? Hope the Commission will raise up to the occasion to prevent malpractice, by revoking rule 14 in This case. By giving exemption to this man Ramamurthy rubbed charcoal in the face of Examiner! For this exemption the influence of D.E. Rajagopal and Chief Auditor Marimuthu were stated to have been used. If this time paper goes to this people, they won’t hesitate to encash. By giving exemption to this man Ramamurthy rubbed charcoal in the face of Examiner! For this exemption the influence of D.E. Rajagopal and Chief Auditor Marimuthu were stated to have been used. If this time paper goes to this people, they won’t hesitate to encash. Hence we request before giving paper the Commission should think well off the pros and eons. We expect the Commission to act in a suitable manner, at least in this aspect. The only exemption is a surprise to all. If the marks in another paper Accounts and Audit (Practical) with books, if this candidate is considered his ability will be proved beyond doubt. When he is unable to get even pass in a paper with books, how can he be, able to get exemption who any practical knowledge in a paper without books. This itself prove there is something wrong. Neither investigation nor any explanation is necessary to doubt this result, because everybody knows the real position. If the examiner of L.F.Accounts is a true muslim, and such interested in his departments efficiency, above all his hands are also clean, he won’t hesitate to initiate action against, this result. IF he fails, the aiming” ALLAH “ will definitely punish him for approving such grave malpractices. Yours sincerely, * * *” , 3. This set the Service Commission in motion and actually the Service Commission sent a true copy of the answer book of the petitioner in Part II (a) for revaluation by another examiner. On revaluation he obtained 48½% which was totalled to 49%. Thereupon, a memo came to be issued to the petitioner on 18th August, 1977, calling upon him to show cause why the exemption granted in this favour for Part II (a) examination should not be cancelled, since 48i% would not make him eligible for the exmption. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30th August, 1977. On 12th October, 1977, this exemption was cancelled which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges two points before me. (1) The results of the examination taken by the petitioner in November, 1976 having been confirmed, a right would accrue in his favour and therefore it cannot be cancelled after nearly 1½ years. Further, in such a case, the principle of equitable estoppel would apply. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges two points before me. (1) The results of the examination taken by the petitioner in November, 1976 having been confirmed, a right would accrue in his favour and therefore it cannot be cancelled after nearly 1½ years. Further, in such a case, the principle of equitable estoppel would apply. In support of his submission reliance is placed on the decision in Shri Krihnan v. Kurukshetra University1 , Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. Ulhasnagar Municipality2 and the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1977. When the matter came up for admission on 9th January-1978, I directed the Government Pleader to produce the records and get the necessary instructions to argue the case. Accordingly, records have been produced before me and it is from those records I extracted the anonymous letter received against the petitioner. It is the submission of the Government Pleader that it is not a case of equitable estoppel, because it would be clear from the effect of revaluation that there was a difference of 15% between the marks as originally obtained and the marks obtained on revaluation. It also stands to reason that if a person with the aid of books would get only 17% and 26% in Parts II (b) and © it will be impossible for him to get 64% in Part II (a) without the aid of books in which the petitioner got exemption: Hence malpractice could be legitimately presumed. Where therefore the result has been obtained as a result of this malpractice, certainly no rights can flow from out of that and the doctrine of equitable estoppel will have no application. The cases cited on the side of the petitioner related to situations wherein the original entries were made by mistakes ; but it was not a case of malpractice by fraud as in the instant case. 5. For reasons more than one, I am unable to hold that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. No doubt, if the petitioner was directly responsible for this fraud, he would be facing, for aught we know, criminal proceedings. Be that so. But what requires to be noted here is that the order clearly proceeds upon the marks obtained by the petitioner in the revaluation. No doubt, if the petitioner was directly responsible for this fraud, he would be facing, for aught we know, criminal proceedings. Be that so. But what requires to be noted here is that the order clearly proceeds upon the marks obtained by the petitioner in the revaluation. Certainly, when doubts were cast having regard to the various circumstances in that the petitioner was unable to secure a percentage of pass marks in Parts II (b) and © even with the aid of books and further having regard to the fact that he was a singular person to obtain exemption, the Commission was well justified insending a true copy of the answer book in Part II (a), for revaluation, if they were entitled to show having regard to the large disparity of marks that it can be presumed that a malpractice had taken place. It has to be remembered in this connection that it is not possible to prove malpractice directly. As otherwise, the consequences would be what I had stated above. 6. Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University,1was a case in which the University Regulations clearly prevented taking up further action as will be seen from the following passage: “If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in Part I Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University has no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.” 7. The decision in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. Ulhasnagar Municipality2, does not afford any assistance to the petitioner. That was a case in which rights had inhered in favour of the petitioner. Nor can the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2 of 1977 apply to this case as the lapse therein had occurred owing to the mistake on the part of the University. 8. It also requires to be noted that the decision in University of Madras v. Sundara Shetty3, makes this doctrine of equitable estoppel inapplicable to cases of malpractice. 9. But in this case, if malpractice had been established, the irresistible conclusion is that no rights will inhere in favour of the petitioner and consequently if is not open to him to found his case upon the principle of equitable estoppel. 9. But in this case, if malpractice had been established, the irresistible conclusion is that no rights will inhere in favour of the petitioner and consequently if is not open to him to found his case upon the principle of equitable estoppel. Merely because 1½ years have passed before the discovery of the malpractice, it does not in any way enable to the petitioner to contend that rights have inhered in his favour. Nor am I impressed with the argument that the results have been confirmed and therefore no action could be taken. The fraud would vitiate every action and no rights will flow from out of such fraudulent action. Consequently, I am of the view that no exception could be taken to the. Impugned order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. But, however, there will be no order as to costs.