Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY
A.Nageswara Rao - Appellant
Versus
A.P. Agricultural University represented by the Registrar, rajendranagar, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-29-81
EDUCATION - CANCELLATION OF ADMISSION - DELAY - ESTOPPEL - NATURAL JUSTICE - POWER OF UNIVERSITY TO AMEND RESULT - ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT - OGPA REPORTS - ADMISSION BASED ON FORGED DOCUMENTS - JURISDICTION OF COURT - CANCELLATION OF ADMISSION AFTER FOUR YEARS - ESTOPPEL AGAINST GOVERNMENT - POWER OF UNIVERSITY TO AMEND RESULT - NATURAL JUSTICE - ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT - OGPA REPORTS - ADMISSION BASED ON FORGED DOCUMENTS - JURISDICTION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a scheduled caste candidate, was admitted to the B.Sc. (Agriculture) course in 1977-78. In 1981, the university cancelled his admission on the ground that his declaration that he belonged to the scheduled caste was incorrect. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his admission, arguing that the university was estopped from cancelling his admission after four years, that the cancellation was based on an inquiry report that was not provided to him, and that the university did not have the authority to withhold his completion certificate on the basis of attendance shortage without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the university was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission after four years, as it had not acted within a reasonable time. The court also held that the university did not have the authority to withhold the petitioner's completion certificate on the basis of attendance shortage without giving him an opportunity to be heard. However, the court held that the university had the power to amend the result of the petitioner's evaluation, as it was discovered to be vitiated by an error.
Issues: 1. Whether the university was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission after four years? 2. Whether the university had the authority to withhold the petitioner's completion certificate on the basis of attendance shortage without giving him an opportunity to be heard? 3. Whether the university had the power to amend the result of the petitioner's evaluation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the university was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission after four years, as it had not acted within a reasonable time. The court relied on the principle of estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a right that it has previously denied or acted inconsistently with. 2. The court held that the university did not have the authority to withhold the petitioner's completion certificate on the basis of attendance shortage without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The court relied on the principle of natural justice, which requires that a person be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made that will affect their rights. 3. The court held that the university had the power to amend the result of the petitioner's evaluation, as it was discovered to be vitiated by an error. The court relied on Regulation 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University Regulations, which gives the Vice-Chancellor the power to amend the result of a candidate if it is discovered to be vitiated by error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct, or any other reason.
Final Decision: The court quashed the university's order cancelling the petitioner's admission and directed the university to initiate proceedings to determine whether the petitioner had put in the minimum attendance required and to decide whether the course completion certificate could be conferred or not. The court also held that the petitioner was not entitled to appear for the M.Sc. (Agriculture) Entrance Examination since the final result of the B.Sc. (Agriculture) course had not been announced.
( 2 ) THIS case concerns the cancellation of admission to the four-year B. Sc. (Agriculture) Degree Course, at a time when the course is almost completed by the petitioner. Cases of such such nature have invariably called for the compassion of the Court as is clear from a catena of decisions ; and in my judgment, this case is no exception. W. P. No. 3948 of 1981.
( 3 ) THE petitioner prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents refusing to give him the course completion certificates for the B. Sc. (Agriculture Course and thereby refusing to give him the hall ticket for the M. Sc. (Agriculture Entrance Examinations for the current academic year (1981-82), as arbitrary and illegal, and further directing the respondents to permit him to appear for the Entrance examination and award hima seat in the m. Sc. (Agriculture) course of the 1st respondent-University. W. P. No. 4328 of 1981.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT to the filing of W. P. No. 3948 of 1981. Since it transpired that the admission accorded was cancelled by the order of the respondents dated 13th June, 1981, and also inasmuch as pending the aforesaid writ petition, an interim direction was given to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear for the M. Sc. (Agriculture,) entrance Examination withholding, however, the result thereof, W. P. No. 4328 of 1981 is a sequal to W. P. No. 3948 of 1981 as it seeks to quash the order dated 13th June, 1981 and also seeks a declaration for the announcement of the result of the M. Sc. (Agriculture) Entrance Examination.
( 5 ) THE relevant averments as per the affidavits of the petitioner man be noticed. The petitioner was admitted to the B. Sc. (Agriculture), course in the College of Agriculture, Rajendranagar affiliated to the Andhra pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad, (1st respondent herein) during the academic year 1977-78 as a scheduled caste candidate since the belongs to the anamuk caste which is a scheduled caste. The 1st respondent, after issuing two memos. , dated 18th December, 1980 and 9th January, 1981 seeking the recessary information from the petitioner in relation to this caste, issued third memo dated 30th January, 1981 calling for an explanation as to why his admission should not be cancelled as they had provisionally concluded that his declaration that he belonged to anamuk caste was incorrect. Later, the 1st respondent also sent, on 31st March, 1981, another memo enclosing an extract of the report of the Collector, Khammam, which was sent after an inquiry conducted by the collector regarding the petitioner s caste. A detailed reply was sent by the petitioner on 13th April, 1981, along with his objections to the extract of the Collector s report, to the effect that the inquiry has been conducted behind his back and also the University was estopped from cancelling his admission at that late point of time, and that therefore, any action to cancel his admission after four years was unjust, illegal and unfair. It is further averred that the petitioner was undergoing for the last semester of the agricultural course "rural Agricultural Work Experience Programme" at Dachepalli Village within the area programme of Jangamaheswarapuram, guruzala Taluk, and he was evaluated for the said programme on 29th April, 1981, which would ipso facto constitute completion of the course of B. Sc. (Agriculture ). The further averments are that the petitioner believed that he had obtained the requisite overall grade points average, OGPA for short, (a method of evaluating a pupil s performance by the respondent-University) which amounts to successful completion of the course. The last date for submission of applications for the course of M. Sc. (Agriculture) was 30th may, 1981. So, the petitioner submitted an application on 30th May, 1981, and in the meantime he met the respondents and request
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
