Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkiat Singh vs Guru Nanak Dev University & Another on 1 May, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.6196 of 1994 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6196 of 1994 Date of decision:01.05.2012 Malkiat Singh .....Petitioner Versus Guru Nanak Dev University & another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for respondents.
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner in respect of Ist and IInd semester examination of Diploma in Labour Laws and Labour Administration course conducted by respondent no.1 and to further issue certificate to the petitioner and for issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit.
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent no.2-the Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar vide advertisement inserted in the Tribune dated 11.7.1986 invited applications in the prescribed form in its prospectus for admission to 'Diploma in Labour Laws and Labour Administration'. The minimum qualification as per advertisement was that the candidates desiring to do the said diploma must hold Bachelor of Arts/Commerce/Science or have any other higher qualification and accordingly the petitioner being fully eligible applied for admission and attached all the certificates and documents and no fact was ever CWP No.6196 of 1994 -2- **** suppressed by the petitioner in any manner at any stage. The petitioner was called for interview and duly selected and deposited the requisite fee on 1.9.1986 and joined the course. The petitioner appeared in Ist semester examination held in December, 1986 and in the second semester examination held by respondent no.1 in May, 1987 and the petitioner appeared in the same but could not clear the 2nd paper of the Ist semester and the petitioner was allowed to appear in first paper of the second semester. The result of the petitioner was not declared on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to join the course because the petitioner did not possess 45% marks in his degree examination and no notice was issued to the petitioner before cancelling his examination. Petitioner made two representations but the respondents did not take any action. Accordingly, the writ petition has been filed.
3. In the written statement filed by the university, it was pleaded that the cause of action was of 1986 and the representations were filed on 3.10.1992 and 21.4.1993 and as such there was delay. It was also pleaded that the record had been destroyed and the petitioner was not eligible to join the course as he did not possess 45% marks in the degree examination as per Regulation No.14 relating to the ordinance for examination and contained in Guru Nanak Dev University's Calender Volume II, 1992. Accordingly, the dismissal of the writ petition was prayed for.
4. Replication was filed in which it was pleaded that the University had never informed the petitioner about the cancellation of the candidature till date and he had been approaching the University personally from time to time and there was no lack of diligence on his part. It was further pleaded that the record had not been destroyed since the petitioner CWP No.6196 of 1994 -3- **** deposited Rs.20/-as migration fee on 7.9.1988 at the university counter and that the petitioner had been allowed to appear in all the semesters by the University and he had even been allowed to reappear in second paper of first semester and petitioner is not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the University should have scrutinised the matter before permitting the petitioner to appear in the examination and now the University is estopped from raising such a plea by its act and conduct.
5. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 13.2.1995 by a Division Bench of this Court and a direction was issued to the University to declare the result of the petitioner subject to decision of the writ petition.
6. That an affidavit dated 24.12.2002 was filed by Sh. R.S.Bawa, Registrar, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar on 20.1.2003 wherein certain additional points were brought to the notice of this Court. It was alleged that the petitioner after passing B.A. Examination in September, 1974 from the University had migrated to Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla on 14.2.1978 for prosecuting higher studies and his lien with the University was terminated when he sought migration certificate from the University. His lien with the University could only be restored only if he had either returned the migration certificate issued by the University or submitted the migration certificate of the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla. It was pleaded that the admission forms were submitted to the University by the Principals prior to the commencement of the examinations and the provisional roll numbers were issued to the students enabling them to appear in the examination and the petitioner was supposed to submit migration certificate before appearing in the Ist CWP No.6196 of 1994 -4- **** semester examination but he failed to do so. It was clarified that the record relating to the admissions and also the related record for academic sessions 1986-87 had already been destroyed under the provisions of the University Rules, however, record pertaining to the examination was not destroyed being part of permanent record of the University. It was further averred that result had not been declared as petitioner had failed to submit the migration certificate from Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla and failed to satisfy the requirements of the ordinances relating to the eligibility.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 i.e. University and College to assist this Court. During the pendency of the writ petition on 14.9.1994, the petitioner had placed on record the original migration certificate dated 24.5.1988 issued by the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for no fault of the petitioner, he is being penalised and there was nothing to show in the advertisement that 45% marks were required in graduation before one could join the diploma course. A perusal of the admission notice Annexure P-1 shows that there is no such condition of 45% marks. The admission notice also talks about the prospectus and details which could be obtained from the diploma courses office on any working day. Admittedly, the petitioner filled in his admission form on the basis of the said prospectus. The respondents have not averred that there was any condition in the prospectus as such whereby petitioner could be put at guard that he was required to have a minimum of 45% marks in the graduation before he could give the examination of Diploma course. The admission was done in the month of July, 1986. Thereafter, examination of CWP No.6196 of 1994 -5- **** Ist semester was held in December, 1986 and the University had sufficient time to scrutinise the papers of the petitioner but it did not do so and allowed the petitioner to sit in the examination of the Ist semester. Thereafter, to compound the issue, they again allowed the petitioner to give the examination of the 2nd semester examination held in May, 1987 and withheld his result. This action of the University cannot be appreciated. It was the duty of the University to scrutinise the admission form before issuing the roll number to the petitioner in December, 1986 and he could have been denied the said roll number. There is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376 in which it has been held that the University authorities were required to exercise proper diligence and care by scrutinising the admission form and once the candidate had been allowed to appear in the examination the respondents had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in Sanatan Gauda Vs. Behrampur University and others 1990(2) Recent Services Judgments 55 wherein it has been held that "it is a serious matter if a student who acts upon one interpretation of a rule and spends a considerable period of his youth, is later threatened by a possible alternative construction, which may cost him several years of his life." In the said case also, the appellant therein had appeared for "Pre-Law- Course" and "Intermediate-Law-Course" examinations and the result was not declared on the ground that the appellant has secured less than 45% Marks in M.A. Degree and was not entitled to admission for the law course. The Apex Court found that once he had pursued his studies for two years, CWP No.6196 of 1994 -6- **** the University is clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course.
9. Similarly this Court in Usha Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and others 1992(2) Services Law Reporter 472 has held as under:-
"Even on merits, this case deserves to be allowed. As per the advertisement, various eligibility qualifications were required to be fulfilled for applying for admission. Petitioner submitted all the requisite certificates and documents with her application on the basis of which she claimed herself to be eligible for being selected. At the time of interview she produced original certificates before the interviewing authorities. She continued to study in the Training Course for a period of two years without any break. It was the duty, of interviewing committee to have scrutinised the matter before permitting admission to the course. It was not open to the authorities to expel the petitioner after the petitioner had completed 2/3rd of her course. Moreover, the advertisement Annexure P-1 was issued on July 12, 1988 which prescribed the qualifications. As per this advertisement read with Annexure P-5, any candidate who had passed the relevant examination from some other Board which was treated to be equivalent to Haryana Education Board (in any five subjects during at least 35% marks in each subject). Even a cursory look on Annexures P-4 and P-5 would indicate that petitioner fulfilled these qualifications. Petitioner had passed High School Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate CWP No.6196 of 1994 -7- **** Education, U.P. in the year 1986 in five subjects securing nearly 50% marks. Thus, the requirement of qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement Annexure P-1, issued in the year 1988 was fulfilled. Therefore, on merits also the expulsion of the petitioner from the training course was not justified."
10. The writ petition, thus, being covered by the above cited judgments deserves to be allowed in view of the principle of estoppel which has to be prevailing against the University due to their act and conduct. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 13.2.1995 had directed the University to declare the result of the petitioner subject to the decision of the writ petition. A period of more than 17 years has elapsed at this point of time.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and interim order dated 13.2.1995 directing declaring the result of the petitioner is confirmed. The University is directed to declare the result of Ist semester and 2nd semester examination of Diploma in Labour Laws and Labour Administration of the petitioner and issue necessary certificate to him.
01.05.2012 (G.S.Sandhawalia) Pka JUDGE