Amit Kumar vs Panjab University, Chandigarh

N.C. Khichi, J.—The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue Roll Numbers to the petitioners for annual examination of B.A. Part-I by treating their admissions as regular and for the quashing of letters dated 24.2.1995 (Annexure P-5 & P-6).

Both the petitioners look admission in B.A. Part-I on 30.7.1994 and 1.8.1994 in the college (respondent No. 2) on the basis of their result of 10+2 examination. They were placed under compartment in the subject of Business Statistics of 10+2 examination. They deposited the requisite fee and remained depositing further fee upto the end of April, 1995 and also attended their classes regularly. They cleared their house-tests in January, 1995 to make them eligible to appear in the annual examination of B.A. Part-I. It is further the case of the petitioners that they cleared their compartment paper of 10+2 examination in September, 199-4, in the first attempt. The annual examination of B.A. Part-I class were to start w.e.f. 15.4.1995, but on 2.3.1995 letter dated 24.2.1995 was displayed on the notice board of the college declaring both the petitioners ineligible to take admission in B.A. Part-I on the ground that they had secured less than 33 per cent marks in aggregate of all the subjects including the marks obtained by them in the subject of compartment of 10+2 and respondent No. 2 was directed to remove the names of the petitioners from the roll of the college-respondent No. 2. The action of the respondents is undesirable being at a belated stage i.e. on 2.3.1995 whereas the forms for admission were submitted in July, 1994. It is further alleged by the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before passing the impugned order and if the impugned order is allowed to sustain, they will suffer an irreparable loss.

Respondent No. 1 filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that the petitioners have no cause of action to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioners were not eligible to take admission to B.A. Part-I because they had failed to secure at least 33% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects taken up by them at the 10+2 examination, including the marks obtained by them in the subject of compartment, as laid down in Regulation 4.2. of the Panjab University Regulations. The circular has been issued by the competent authority and the delay in passing the impugned order was not on the part of respondent No. 1 as the registration forms of all the students including the petitioners were received by the University on 8.11.1994 and that too without the requisite original documents/certificates. The University wrote reminders to the respondent No. 2 to send the requisite documents which were ultimately received by the University on 13.2.1995. It then came to the notice that both the petitioners had obtained less than 33% marks in the aggregate. Thereafter, immediately the impugned orders were sent by the University. No ineligible candidate is entitled to the admission to any University course. It is alleged that no opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the candidates while ascertaining their eligibility for admission on the basis of their own original certificates. It is further pleaded that the impugned action of the University in holding the petitioners ineligible for admission to B.A. Part-I is based upon Regulation 4.2, which has statutory force u/s 31 of the Punjab University Act, 1947 and is, therefore, fully legal and valid.

It is relevant to note here that on 15.3.1995 while issuing the notice of motion, operation of the impugned orders Annexure P-5 and P-6 was stayed. Again on 22.3.1995, the petitioners were permitted to appear in the annual examination of B.A. Part-I at their own risk and responsibility and subject to the result of the writ petition. It was further ordered that the result of the petitioners would not be declared without specific order from the Court. On 7.8.1995, this petition was admitted for regular hearing. It was also directed that the petitioners'' result of B.A. Part-I would be declared and they would be allowed to study further subject to the final decision of the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that both the petitioners sought admission to B.A. Part-I (Session 1994-95) in the GGS DAV Centenary College, Jalalabad (West) and at that time result cards of 10+2 examinations were submitted. Respondent No. 2 after scrutiny of the admission forms and eligibility conditions admitted both the petitioners on regular basis and, thereafter, deposited the necessary fee on 30.7.1994 and 1.8.1994. He further contended that at the time of admission, the petitioners showed the original documents to the respondent No. 2 and there was no mis-statement or concealment of any fact on the part of the petitioners. He also contended that the instructions dated 8.7.1994 are not sustainable because these are issued by the Assistant Registrar on behalf of the Registrar, who was not a competent authority. It is further contended that before cancelling the admissions of the petitioners, the doctrine of audi alteram partem has not been followed. It is further contended that since the petitioners have studied the B.A. Part-I class after attending regular classes, no purpose would be served by cancelling their admission.

Shri Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, argued that the Regulations framed by the University are statutory in character and they are binding on the University as well as the candidates, who seek admissions to the courses leading to the award of the degrees by the University and nobody can claim a right to be admitted in disregard to the conditions of eligibility incorporated in the regulations. He also argued that the petitioners were ineligible for admission to B.A. Part-I since they failed to secure 33% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects of 10+2 examination (including the marks obtained by them in the subject of compartment), in terms of Regulations 4.2 of the Punjab University Regulation. He further argued that Regulation 4.2 has statutory force u/s 31 of the Punjab University Act and that eligibility of candidates for admissions to various courses has always to be determined by the University in terms of the relevant regulations. Letter dated 8.7.1994 (Annexure R-1/1) was sent to all the Principals of the affiliated colleges laying down the guidelines and eligibility conditions for admission to various courses during the Session 1994-95. If the college admits the students even if they do not fulfil the eligibility conditions and in violation of the regulations, then it cannot be said that the petitioners should be allowed to continue their studies as they have deposited the fees and have studied for a long period. It was the duty of the petitioners to have made themselves sure about the conditions of eligibility. He further contended that the guidelines issued by the University vide letter dated 8.7.1994 contained nothing but is incorporation of the conditions of eligibility as per the regulations and the college-authorities were bound to give effect to those conditions while giving admissions to the candidates. He relied upon the judgments rendered in Punjab University v. Sub-hash Chander and others AIR 1984 SC 1451 and Nupur (minor) and others v. Punjab University 1996(1) RSJ 576 : 1996(3) SCT 293 (P&H)(DB).

Regulation 4.2 reads as under :-

"A student who has been placed under compartment in the +2 examination conducted by a Board/Body/Council/University in one subject only shall also be eligible to seek admission to the first year of B.A./B.Sc. course under the 10+2+3 system of education provided that-

(i) A candidate joining the B.A. First Year class should have obtained at least 33% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects (including the marks obtained by him in the subject of compartment, theory and practical/s taken together) taken up by him at the +2 examination.

(ii) A candidate joining the B.Sc. First Year class should have obtained at least 40% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects (including the marks obtained by him in the subject of compartment, theory and practical/s taken together) "taken up by him at the +2 examination."

A perusal of Regulation 4.2 contained in the Punjab University Calendar would show that a candidate joining B.A. First Year Class should have obtained atleast 33% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects (including the marks obtained by him in the subject of compartment, theory and practical/s taken together) taken by him at the +2 examination. From the persual of the detailed Marks-Card (Annexures P-1 and P-2) of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. respectively, it is clear that petitioner No. 1 obtained 6 marks out of 75 marks in Business Statistics whereas petitioner No. 2 obtained 5 marks out of the 75 marks. If the total marks obtained by the petitioners in all the subjects are taken into consideration, they definitely are less than 33% marks in the aggregate of all the subjects and, therefore, the petitioners were not eligible to take admission in B.A. Part-I, as they did not fulfil the eligibility condition regarding admission to that class. On the face to Rule 4.2, the petitioners preferred to obtain admission in B.A. Part-I, which clearly disentitled them to take admission and now this does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners that they should be allowed to continue their studies. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have passed the compartment examination by obtaining 53 and 43 marks out of 75 marks, they are eligible to take admission in B.A. Part-I, is without force. Even though the petitioners have passed compartment subject in the supplementary examination that will not make the petitioners eligible for admission to B.A. Part-I because the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility condition of obtaining 33% marks in the aggregate including the subject of compartment at the time of initial admission in B.A. Part-I.

The petitioners cannot contend that the eligibility conditions incorporated in the Regulations should not be applied since the petitioners are not at fault and they did not conceal any fact at the time of taking the admission as original marks-sheets were attached with the admission forms. The right of the petitioners to be admitted to B.A. Part-I depended on their fulfilling the conditions of eligibility. Since the petitioners did not fulfil that eligibility, they cannot be allowed to continue their studies. All that the University has done by prescribing the requirement of 33% marks in the Regulation is to bring about uniformity in the requirement of minimum marks which a candidate must secure for the purpose of admission to the University course and for being allowed to continue studies in the next class, if the University has thought it proper to lay down a particular condition of eligibility, it will be wholly improper for the Court to substitute different opinion for the one expressed by the Syndicate in the form of Regulations. It will have to be held that since the petitioners do not satisfy the condition of eligibility as laid down in the regulations, the respondent-University and the college, which are required to make admission, could not have diluted the condition of eligibility in order to accommodate the petitioners. The guidelines issued by the University (Annexure R-1/1, dated 8.7.1994) require the college authorities to enforce the condition of eligibility as incorporated in the Regulations of the University.

The contention of Mr. Khunger that the respondents are estopped from cancelling the admissions of the petitioners on the principles of equitable/promissory estoppel, is also without substance. Firstly, this principle cannot be invoked for the purpose of directing the public authority to act in violation of the statutory provisions; secondly, by issuing prospectus for the year 1994-95, respondent-University cannot be deemed to have made promise to the petitioners that they would be admitted to the course even though they do not satisfy the conditions of eligibility. No such promise could not have been held out either by the college or the University and in fact no such promise can be treated as implicit in the contents of the prospectus and the relevant Regulations contained in the Punjab University Calendar. Thus, it is held that no promise was ever made to the petitioners by the University that they would be admitted to B.A. Part-I course de hors of the Regulations. Petitioners cannot invoke the principle of equitable estoppel against the University because grant of admission to one candidate in violation of the Regulation would lead to the making of similar claim by other ineligible candidates and the whole scheme of admissions would be jeopardised. Even otherwise, it will be detrimental to the public interest to direct the University to admit candidates who do not fulfil the condition of eligibility.

I also do not find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners that at this juncture when the petitioners have appeared in B.A. Final examination, their admission to B.A. Part-I should not be cancelled as the career of the petitioners would be ruined and their studies of three years would go waste. The petitioners cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong because they were not fulfilling the eligibility conditions at the time when they obtained admission to B.A. Part-1 class. While admitting the writ petition vide order dated 7.8.1995, it was made clear that the petitioners would be allowed to study subject to the final decision of the petition and also on their own risk and responsibility. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench on 7.8.1995, the petitioners cannot be permitted to say that they have completed their B.A. Final examination in spite of the fact that they did not fulfil the eligibility condition at the time of taking initial admission to B.A. Part-I. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla and others 1994(1) SLR 257 : 1994(1) SCT636 (SC), has held that the High Court or Supreme Court should not be generous or liberal in issuing directions either interim or final which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations in respect of admission of students.

On the basis of the above discussion, I hold that the petitioners did not acquire a right to be admitted to B.A. Part-I course. Before concluding I may take notice of an additional plea raised by Shri Khungar that the petitioners have subsequently passed examination of compartment subject in the supplementary examination conducted by the Punjab School Education Board. However, me mere fact that the petitioners have not (now ?) passed the examination cannot confer upon them the eligibility which was required to be determined by the University in terms of the Regulations at the time of initial admission in B, A.Part-I.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.