Rahul Sharma vs Punjab University

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.—Present writ petition has been filed, praying to allow the petitioner to take the examinations of B.A. 1st year Class, on the ground that the admission fees was taken by the respondent No. 2-College and his compartment examination had been declared in January, 2014. It is submitted that the University has also issued the roll number on the website but the hard copy has not been given to the petitioner on the ground that he has been placed in two compartments in the +2 examination. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that vide communication dated 29.03.2014 (Annexure P-5), the College had written to the University that the case of the petitioner may be considered for eligibility since the PUPIN (Registration number) had been issued. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat University and another v. Mukat Navnitlal Kapadia and others, 1993(2) G.C.D. 762 and the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Anirudh Sharma and Others Vs. H.N.B. Garhwal University and Others,

However, in the opinion of this Court, the said judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, the settled principle of law is that the prospectus has the force of law. As many as four Full Benches of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. The State of Punjab etc., , Raj Singh Vs. The Maharshi Dayanand University and Others, , Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University and Others, and Indu Gupta Vs. Director, Sports Punjab and Another, have held to the said effect. In the present case, the petitioner took admission in July, 2013 as per the prospectus for the year 2013-14 wherein it has been clearly provided under Clause 8A(i) that compartment candidates should be placed in compartment in one subject only at 10 + 2 level to be eligible for admission. Said clause reads as under:

"8. Compartment Candidates

a. A candidate who has been placed under compartment in the +2 examination conducted by a Board/Body/Council/University in India shall be eligible to seek admission to BA/Bsc/Bcom (General) - (I year) course under 10+2+3 system of education, provided he/she fulfills the following conditions:

i. He/She should have been placed under compartment in one subject only at +2 level......"

There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had got compartment in Chemistry and Mathematics in the +2 examinations of June, 2013 and he cleared the same only subsequently, in January, 2014 by way of giving supplementary examination. At the time of admission in July 2013, he was not eligible as per the abovesaid clause. Once the eligibility criteria itself was missing, the petitioner was well aware that the said clause existed in the prospectus under which he took admission and took a chance. Now, it does not lie in his mouth to rely upon the principle of promissory estoppel. The Apex Court in Central Airmen Selection Board and Another Vs. Surender Kumar Das, held that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles and a person who has misled the authorities cannot invoke the said principle. The observations read as under:--

"7. 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 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 judgment and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained."

In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Mahatma Gandhi University and Another Vs. Gis Jose and Others, the Apex Court has held as under:

"9. The misplaced sympathies should not have been shown in total breach of the Rules. In our opinion, that is precisely what has happened. Such a course was disapproved by this Court in Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others, In paragraph 6 of the Judgment, this Court observed as follows:

"6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases, it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions:"

In the present case, the college where the student was admitted, in breach of all possible rules allowed her not only to complete the course but also to write the examination which was totally illegal."

Reliance can also, be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5992 of 2012, titled The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore v. G. Hemtatha and others, decided on 23.08.2012 where it had been held that once the eligibility criteria is prescribed, it must be strictly adhered to and any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. In Civil Appeal No. 674 of 2013 titled Priyadarshini College of Computer Science and another v. Manish Kumar and others, the Apex Court held that every candidate applying for a particular course is required to go through the instructions thoroughly including the eligibility criteria and after fulfilling the required conditions, fill in the application form and cannot claim any benefit of his own wrong.

The Division Bench of this Court in Manmeet Sharma v. State of Haryana and others, 2008(4) S.L.R. 498 has held that where eligibility itself is not there, then the admission cannot be regularized. The relevant paras read as under:--

"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.

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 v. Punjabi University, Patiala and another, 2004(2) R.S.J. 720.

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 Central Airmen Selection Board and Another Vs. Surender Kumar Das,

The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in as much as in Gujarat University (supra), it was after a lapse of one year that the University woke up that the admission had been taken from an Institution which was not recognized and the candidate had been allowed to take the examination. In the present case, the situation has not reached that stage. Similarly, in Anirudh Sharma (supra), the candidate was allowed to appear in various examinations of the B.A. LL.B. course and it was at a subsequent stage that the University declined to declare the result. The said judgment held that the University, at that stage, was not entitled to act like that. The facts in the present case are totally different, as noticed above, since the petitioner has not been allowed to sit for the examination." Accordingly, no benefit could be granted to the petitioner and consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.