Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalita Rani vs Registrar on 13 January, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No. 27635 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 27635 of 2013
Date of decision: 13.01.2014
Lalita Rani ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Registrar, M.D.U. Rohtak and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral)
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 for the class of B.Ed. under Roll No. 1040110871 for the session 2010-11 and for quashing order dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure P-5) whereby, the respondents have refused to declare the result of the petitioner.
The pleaded case of the petitioner is that she had passed the entrance exam for B.Ed. and was selected for admission in respondent no. 2- institute and appeared in all the exams as per the prescribed schedule of the university. However, when the results were declared, her result was not declared and she gave an application that she had studied regularly and after verification of all the certificates, college had given her admission and she had not done any mistake. Thereafter, legal notice dated 07.08.2012 (Annexure P-2) was served on the university for declaration of result. A communication was addressed by the university to respondent no. 2- Gupta Shivani 2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 2 institute after receiving the legal notice that the result of the petitioner had not been declared due to non receiving of grading certificate and the institute was directed to submit the grading certificate at the earliest so that the result be declared. The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2938 of 2013 with a prayer to declare the result of the petitioner, which was disposed of by making following observations:-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, Principal, Sant Roshan Lal Women B.Ed. College-respondent No. 2 is directed to send the grading of the petitioner forthwith, if not already sent, to the respondent-University, if there is no legal hitch in this regard. If respondent No. 2 finds anything objectionable with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, it shall be duly intimated to her within a period of two weeks from today.
The Registrar, Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak-respondent No. 1, is directed to declare the result of petitioner within a period of 30 days from the receipt of grading from the respondent- College. If respondent No. 1 finds any legal hitch, petitioner shall be intimated, by passing a speaking order. The petitioner shall be entitled to lay challenge to such an order, in appropriate proceedings.
With the observations made above, the present with petition stands disposed of."
In pursuance of the same, the speaking order dated 25.06.2013 has been communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure P-5), which is a subject matter of consideration. Vide the said order, the Registrar of respondent-university noted that the petitioner had scored only 48% marks in Graduation whereas the eligibility condition Gupta Shivani 2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 3 required minimum of 50% marks in the Bachelor degree or in the Masters degree to seek admission, as per the prospectus. The records had been received from the college and it was mentioned against her name that she was having less marks and the college concerned had been intimated through the outsourcing agency NYSA about the ineligibility of the candidate and her admission was not cleared. In spite of that, the college did not cancel her admission and rather did not delete her name and a roll number was also issued by the outsourcing agency of the university and the college obtained her roll number in spite of her deficiency and resultantly, she gave the said examination, result of which was not being declared. Accordingly, the decision was taken that the result could not be declared as it is against the rules of the eligibility conditions of the university and the candidate had been admitted even though she was not entitled to and had denied a meritorious student of his seat. It was further mentioned that disciplinary proceedings would be taken against the said institute and the processing agency NYSA.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others, 1990 (3) SCC 23 to contend that it was a bounden duty of the authorities to scrutinize the documents before allowing the admission and they were not justified in refusing to declare the results. Similarly, reliance has also been placed upon Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 (SC) 376 and Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Others, 2013 (3) PLR 128.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact and not denied by the petitioner that the minimum requirement for taking Gupta Shivani 2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 4 admission in the course is 50% marks in the Bachelor degree. The said fact being mentioned in the prospectus, in spite of which, the petitioner applied having only 48% marks in the qualifying examination for reasons best known to her while knowing that the prospectus has a force of law, as has been held by three Full Benches of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993(2) PLR 212, Raj Singh Vs. Maharashi Dayanand University 1994(2) SLR 581, Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(5) SLR 163 and another Full Bench in case of Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) RSJ
667. Thereafter, she also gave the examination and is now seeking the benefit of her own wrongs and the wrongs which have been committed by respondent no. 2, where she studied. The judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner are in peculiar facts and circumstances.
In the first case in Sanatan Gauda's case, the appellant had been allowed to be promoted to the third year law course and his results of the previous years were not being declared on the ground that he had secured less than 39.5% marks in his M.A. degree examination and was not liable for admission of law course. The Apex Court came to the conclusion that the requirement was for passing the examination of B.A. by securing 40% marks or more in the qualifying examination and, therefore, his marks in the M.A. examination which were less than 39.5%, could not be held against him. It was in such circumstances it was held that he had pursued his studies for two years and had been permitted to appear in the said examinations and at the stage of declaration of his results of Pre-Law and Inter-Law, university has raised objections and was estopped from refusing to declare the results.
Gupta Shivani2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 5
Similarly, in Shri Krishan's case (supra), reference was made to the Statute in question and it was factually noticed that the student had never written to the university that he had attended the prescribed number of lectures and in spite of shortage, he had been allowed to attend classes and there was ample time and opportunity for the university authorities to find out the defect and they had permitted him to give the examination and then could not deny him the benefit of the result. It was recorded that no fraud was proved in that case.
On the reading of Jaswinder Singh's case (supra), it appears that the dispute was that the petitioner had appeared in two major examinations in the same calendar year, which was not permissible and it was in such circumstances that the direction was issued to issue the detailed mark sheet on the ground that action of the university was not justified once it had let the student appear in the examination. In the present case, as noticed above, the facts are totally different. The petitioner was not eligible at the first instance and, therefore, could not have taken admission in the said course. She cannot be allowed to take benefit of her own misrepresentation and the wrongs committed by respondent no. 2.
That the Apex Court, in Central Airman Selection Board vs. Surender Kumar Das, 2003 (1) SCC 152 held that where person has misled the authorities, cannot invoke the principle of promissory estoppel. The relevant paragraphs read as under:-
"The question, therefore, is whether in a case of this nature the principle of promissory estoppel should be invoked. It is well known that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who has himself misled the authority by making Gupta Shivani 2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 6 a fake statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he had passed the Intermediate examination. As we have found above, this finding of the High Court is erroneous, contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained.
A Division Bench of this Court followed the said view in Manmeet Sharma vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) SLR 498 and dismissed the writ petition filed seeking the quashing of the cancellation of the petitioners admission on the ground of ineligibility by noticing that once 50% marks were required, the petitioner being ineligibile, could not have Gupta Shivani 2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 7 been given admission. The relevant portion reads thus:-
"6. In the prospectus, it has been clearly laid down that only candidates having 50% marks in English and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together will be eligible for the Entrance Examination. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have 50% marks as required. In these circumstances, the petitioner being ineligible could not have been given admission.
7. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that the petitioner having made no misrepresentation and having paid the fee, the admission could not be cancelled. Reliance was placed on a DB judgment of this Court in Ashu Singla vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and another, 2004 (2) RSJ 720.
8. We are unable to accept the submission. The petitioner was clearly ineligible and was aware about his ineligibility. No estoppel could arise in such a situation. The judgment relied upon is distinguishable. The University never approved the admission of the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to appear in examination, as was the case in Ashu Singla (supra). As per the impugned order, admission of the petitioner was provisional and was never approved by the University. Equitable principle of promissory estoppel could not be invoked when a candidate was himself aware about his ineligibility. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cental Airmen Selection Board and another v. Surender Kumar Das, AIR 2003 SC 240.
9. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed."
Gupta Shivani Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner under 2014.01.22 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 27635 of 2013 8 Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.
13.01.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani
2014.01.22 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh