Sone Ram Dhakad vs State of M.P. and Others

Doabia, J.

The brief facts for the purposes of this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution are as under.

The petitioners are seeking admission in the veterinary College in the discipline of Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry courses on which instructions are being imparted by the respondent University. And examination was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. The petitioners applied for admission to seats reserved for agriculturists i.e. Krishak. The rules and regulations in the form of brochure were issued in a Paper known as Rozgar Nirman. This is dated 6th of April, 1995. The petitioners applied and appeared in the examination. According to them, they are being debarred from admission on the ground that they must possess the further requirements indicated in annexure R/2/3 i.e., in addition to the falling in the category of agriculturists (Krishak), there is a further stipulation that they should at least educational instructions in two institutions which are located in a rural area upto the level of primary i.e. 5th Middle i.e. 8th class, Matric i.e., X Class and higher education upto 12 B. The petitioners submit that this additional qualification was prescribed for the first time on 17th August, 1995. They submit that it is on this basis, the respondent University denied admissions to the course in question to which they sought initial admission.

The respondents have put in appearance. According to them, in the prospectus which was issued, it was categorically stated that the State Government can prescribe further conditions also. Accordingly it is stated that this further condition was made applicable as per the decision taken by the State Government. This decision as noticed above is contained in annexure R/2/3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that in two other matters, I have taken a view that the State Government is competent to prescribe further qualifications. They may be right in their submissions. The fact, however, remains that so far as this case is concerned, a plea of estoppel has been raised by the petitioners. According to them, they have not applied for any other University and they were hopeful of getting admission on the basis of reservation made for the category of krishak. The petitioners have also submitted that the condition has been stipulated after the examination over.

Even though it may be possible to say that the State Government is competent to prescribe some conditions later on also but the fact that the examination was conducted in the month of May, 1995 and the conditions are being imposed after three months in the month of August, 1995, cannot be ignored. This has definitely prejudiced the petitioners. According to them, they would not be now able to seek admission in any other University. As noticed above, on the plea of estoppel the petitioners can be said to be on sound footings.

In Mukul Madhukar Sanai Mahatme and others v. Dean, Goa Medical College, Panaji and others, AIR 1981 Goa 39, the view expressed is that where there are rules for selection of candidates for admission into certain courses and some restrictions are sought to be placed afterwards then the prescription of these conditions would be bad as principles of estoppels would apply.

Reference be made to the decision given by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court reported as Biswanath Misra v. Director of Medical Education and Training and others, AIR 1982 Orissa 106. In the above case, there was nothing in the prospectus for admission to post-graduate courses that only fresh candidates were to be admitted and that in-service candidates would not be admitted. It was accordingly held that the authorities were stopped in denying admissions to the in-service candidates on the ground of change of Government policy.

The principle of estoppels was again applied by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in a case reported as Dr. Anand Kumar Mishra and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, . The notice and prospectus for admissions to the post-graduate medical course declared that selection of the candidates shall be done on the basis of merit determined by marks obtained in the competitive test by the candidates. No reservation for Scheduled Castes and Tribes candidates was made at that time. The candidates had applied acting upon the representations made in the notice and prospectus. It was held that the Government was stopped from changing the basis of selection by ordering blanket reservations. Reference was made to an earlier decision of the Orissa High Court reported as Abodha Kumar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1969 Orissa 80. It was held that the Government is not exempt from the liability to carry out there presentations in the notice and prospectus as to the basis of merit on the marks obtained at a competitive test for selection.

In the present case, as noticed above, the examination was held in the month of May, 1995 and the additional conditions are being prescribed after the results is declared on 16th August 1995. The plea of estoppels would be attracted.

In this view of the matter, the petitioners case be considered on the basis of prospectus ignoring the additional qualifications indicated in annexure R/2/3.