Bobby Cyriac and Others vs The Principal, Mar Athanasius College

Chettur Sankaran Nair, J.—Contentions raised and reliefs claimed in these petitions are similar, and so, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

Petitioners passed the Higher Secondary School Examination held by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education. Respondent Mahatma Gandhi University, by Ext. P-17, dated 20th July 1990 declared that the said examination "has been recognised as equivalent to the Pre-degree Course of this University" (reference is made to the exhibits in O.P. 8100/90). On the basis of this, Petitioners were admitted in different colleges, parallel colleges and course of private registration, for Degree Courses under the Mahatma Gandhi University.

By Ext. P-13 the University went back on Ext. P-17, stating that "the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 10 + 2 correspondence course conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal has not been recognised by this University". Later by Ext. P-14, the Respondent University took the stand that its earlier decision had "only provisional validity till a final decision is arrived at by the University". The students continued their instructions in the courses aforesaid. Thereafter, the University appears to have taken a decision by Ext. P-16, to cancel admissions granted on the basis of Ext. P-17. That brought Petitioners to this Court.

Petitioners submit that admissions obtained by them on the strength of Ext. P-17, cannot be cancelled after they joined the courses and underwent instruction. They would also submit, that the Certificate issued by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education is recognised by the Bangalore University, Bharatheeyar University and Association of Indian Universities by Exts. P-10, 11 and 12, in that order. It is also averred that many who had passed the Higher Secondary Examination held by Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education and consequently admitted to Degree Courses, have obtained Degrees from Mahatma Gandhi University. One such person, it is stated, is a member of the Senate of the University.

According to Petitioners doctrine of promissory estoppel, stands in the way of the University from going back on the decision taken by them in Ext. P-17. Rules of fair procedure and fairplay in action, require that a public authority like the University, should not be permitted to unsettle the state of affairs once settled, submit Petitioners.

The question whether the certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education should be considered equal to the certificate issued by the Mahatma Gandhi University to those who have passed its Pre-degree examination, is a question to be decided by an Academic Body like the University, with reference to relevant concerns. But, the further question whether the University can go back on the decision taken by it, after the students have ordained their course of studies on the basis of a promise or decision held out by the University, is a matter to be decided on the touchstone of restrictive legal principles.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel, rooted deeply in principles of equity grew slowly, but steadily in its various applications "carrying the pack of the past on its back" since Hughes v. Metropolitan Rly. Co. (1877) 2 A.C. 439. At a time it was doubted in England, whether estoppel would run against the Crown. Then, in the words of Justice Cardozo:

Half truths of one generation tend at times to perpetuate themselves in law, as the full truths of Anr. generation.

That was the case with this doctrine. Over the years, the picture became clear, after the Misty dawn. In Robertson v. Minister of Pensions 1949 (1) K.B. 227, the law was enunciated, that the ''Crown cannot escape by saying that estoppels do not bind the crown, for that doctrine has long been exploded''. In Combe v. Combe 1951 (2) K.B. 215, it was held that promissory estoppel could be a part of cause of action. From then on, it was no longer a matter of doubt, whether estoppel would stand in the way of Crown or state Action what was once regarded passive equity, became a vibrant reality. The initial doubts were clearly dispelled. For that matter.

When a great question is first stated, there are very few even of the greatest minds, which suddenly and intutively comprehend it, in all its consequences.

(John Adams)

By a long line of decisions from Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay AIR 1952 S.C. 469 to Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora Vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, , the principle has been recognised in this country. Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 S.C. 718 Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, etc., are some of the other landmark decisions of the apex court.

Like in equity, in Administrative Law also many patterns have been woven on the still roaring loom of time. Many new principles like rationality, proportionality, and fairplay in action, entered the controlling jurisdiction of certiorari. In Rathi Alloys and Steel Ltd., Alwar Vs. Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, , the Supreme Court held that state of things once settled, cannot be unsettled arbitrarily. Again, in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , the Court stated:

Non arbitrariness in substance, is fairplay in action. Every action of state and instrumentalities of State must adhere to this requirement.

Such adherence must be enforced.

If a body whether it be the Minister or advisers has acted unfairly, then the courts can review the proceedings to ensure, as far as may be, that justice is done.

R. v. Secretary, Home Dept. 1977 (3) All E.R. 452.

Tested by these principles, the action of the Respondent-University is liable to be interdicted.

On the promise held out, the students underwent instructions in Degree Courses and chartered their course of life. The University cannot thereafter, go back on what it held out in Ext. P-17, or act unfairly or arbitrarily.

Where fortunes of young students are involved, academic bodies hold great responsibility, and they cannot be permitted to act in an arbitrary manner. This principle finds affirmation in the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, Students who had passed the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajastan were permitted to undergo studies by the Karnataka University, in the view that a pass in that examination qualified them for higher studies. Later, the authorities changed their mind. The Supreme Court held:

Blame for wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering Colleges which granted admission than upon the Appellants...fault lies in the Engineering Colleges which admitted the Appellants.... We do not see why the Appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these Engineering Colleges.

The decision in Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, also strikes the same note, though in a slightly different fact situation.

It may be open to the University to consider the matter afresh and reach an appropriate decision for future years. But, Petitioners and those who were admitted to Degree Courses pursuant to Ext. P-17 will be permitted to continue their studies and take their examinations. Results of those who have taken final year examinations will be published.

Writ Petitions are allowed. Parties will suffer their costs.