JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who had appeared in B.A. Part-III examination of 1994 in the back papers of Economics subject conducted by the respondents-University, as would be clear from Annexure-4 to the writ petition, which is a photocopy of the verification form wherein it has been verified that the petitioner had appeared in back papers of Economics subject of B.A. Part-III examination and that the "petitioner was' permitted to appear in the said examination. According to the petitioner's assertion in the writ petition, the result of her back papers of Economics subject of B.A. Part-III of the year 1994 has not been declared by the University as yet. The respondents-University has filed counter-affidavit sworned by S.C. Gupta, Superintendent Legal Cell, Kanpur University, Kanpur, in which in Paragraphs 5 and 6 it has been stated that since answer books and other records have been weeded out and no record is available in the office of answering respondents, except the counter-affidavit which has been filed, which does not disclose that the petitioner has been awarded marks, the possibility cannot be ruled out that either the petitioner has not appeared at all in the 1st and IIIrd paper or she had appeared in those papers but the marks could not be incorporated in the counter files but at this stage when the entire answer books are weeded out and it is not possible for answering respondents to trace out or to make out any correction in the marks awarded to the petitioner.
2. In view of the aforesaid observation and in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court dealing with the similar matter reported in (1985) 1 UPLBEC 734, Kumari Renu Sharma v. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad and Anr., has held that 'the benefit of the mistake, if any, on the part of the University or the centre must go to the petitioner and petitioner must be awarded marks in back papers on average as enumerated by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment with which I am in full agreement and in this view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner's back papers of Economics subject of B.A. Part-III examination of the year 1994 on the basis of the principle laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
3. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed. Order accordingly. However, parties shall bear their own costs.