Back
High Court Of Delhi
SANGITA SHRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
U.N.SINGH - Respondent
Civil 482 of 1979
Decided On : 10/26/1979
ESTOPPEL - ADMISSION TO UNIVERSITY - ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS - RELAXATION OF REQUIREMENTS - UNIVERSITY'S FAILURE TO INFORM CANDIDATE OF INELIGIBILITY - CANDIDATE'S RELIANCE ON ADMISSION AND ATTENDANCE AT CLASSES - UNIVERSITY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING ADMISSION - ACADEMIC COUNCIL'S REFUSAL TO GRANT RELAXATION IRRELEVANT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had obtained less than the required 45% marks for admission to the M.A. (Previous) History course at Delhi University, was nevertheless allowed to take the entrance examination and was admitted to the course. She attended classes and paid fees regularly for the academic year. However, just before the commencement of the final examination, she was informed that her admission had been cancelled as far back as October 1978 due to her ineligibility. The petitioner challenged the university's decision, arguing that the university was estopped from denying her admission due to its silence and inaction in not informing her of the cancellation earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had not misrepresented any facts or concealed any material particulars while seeking admission. She had clearly stated her marks in her application, and the university had issued her a registration number and allowed her to take the entrance examination. The court also found that the college had continued to treat the petitioner as a regularly admitted student, allowing her to attend classes and pay fees. The court held that the university's failure to inform the petitioner of her ineligibility until just before the examination was a clear case of estoppel, and that the petitioner was entitled to rely on her admission and attendance at classes as an indication that her application had been accepted.
Issues: 1. Whether the university was estopped from denying the petitioner's admission due to its silence and inaction in not informing her of the cancellation earlier. 2. Whether the Academic Council's refusal to grant relaxation of the eligibility requirements was relevant to the court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the university was estopped from denying the petitioner's admission because: - The petitioner had not misrepresented any facts or concealed any material particulars while seeking admission. - The university had issued the petitioner a registration number and allowed her to take the entrance examination, creating a reasonable expectation that she would be admitted despite her ineligibility. - The college had continued to treat the petitioner as a regularly admitted student, allowing her to attend classes and pay fees. - The university's failure to inform the petitioner of her ineligibility until just before the examination caused her to lose an academic year and deprived her of the opportunity to seek admission elsewhere. 2. The court held that the Academic Council's refusal to grant relaxation of the eligibility requirements was irrelevant to its decision because the petitioner's claim was based on the plea of equitable estoppel, not on the Academic Council's power to grant relaxation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the university's order cancelling the petitioner's admission, and directed the university to treat the petitioner as properly admitted to the M.A. (Previous) class.
( 1 ) THE Petitioner in this writ petition challenges, the order of the respondent No. 2, University of Delhi, in refusing to allow the petitioner to take the examination of M. A. (P) held in April 1979 This petition was filed on 6th April 1979 and pending the disposal of the petition the petitioner was allowed to appear for the M. A. (P) History examination commencing on 7th April 1979. She has since taken the examination but her result has been withheld to await the decision in the present writ petition.
( 2 ) THE petitioner passed her B. A. (Hons.) History examination in 11978 from Delhi University. She was a. student in Indraprastha College women. She secured 354 marks out of 800 marks equivalent to 44. 25 per cent. For admission to the Post Graduate course candidates desirous of seeking admission to M. A. must fulfil the requisite condition of having passed with prescribed percentage as detailed in the appendix I of the Bulletin of Information. At page 9 of the Bulletin Note 1 provides that rounding of a fraction of marks tor purposes of admission to any course is not permissible and note 2 provides that candidate not fulfilling the eligibility requirements shall not be registered and no request for relaxation in the minimum eligibility requirements shall be entertained.
( 3 ) ADMISSION to M. A. History in Delhi University course requirement is B. A. (Hons.) in History from Delhi University. Those candidates who get 50 per cent marks or above in the main subject are entitled to automatic admission while candidates who get 45 per cent or more but less than 50 per cent marks that is category (B) will have to take admission test of the department of history from which the consolidated merit list will be prepared and admission will be strictly according to merit. These instructions are found on pages 22-23 in the Bulletin of information for 1978-79. Therefore if the Rules are to be strictly followed the petitioner was not eligible to seek admission to M. A. History course because she was short by 6 marks. She nevertheless applied for registration and sent her application. In the said application she correctly mentioned her marks as 354/800 and the division and percentage mentioned was III and 45 per cent appro. (approximate ). Notwithstanding that on apparent reading of her application the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility requirement. She applied for registration to appear in the entrance examination and she was issued a registration slip No. 3271 on 6th July 1978 by the University of Delhi, respondent No. 2. permitting her to take the entrance examination which she took on 28th July. 1978. She was declared successful in the entrance examination and was placed second in order of merit in the second list of successful candidates. The petitioner was given an admission slip and obtained admission in the Indraprastha College for Women, respondent No. 3. It is alleged in the petition that thereafter she attended the classes regularly as well as tutorial classes of M. A. in the year 1978-79 and paid her college fee regularly upto April 1979. This part of her allegation has not been disputed in the counter affidavits. On 2nd April, 1979 the petitioner went to the college to collect her roll number and the admission ticket but was told that the same had not been received. The petitioner alleges that she filled her form with fee of Rs. 32 and submitted the same to the college authorities which forwarded the same to the Controller of Examination. This is not disputed by the respondents. The examination was to commence from 7th April. 1979. On April 4, 1979 the petitioner went to the college to collect her admission ticket but found that the same had not come from the university. She thereafter obtained a letter dated 4th April. 1979 from the Principal of the college addressed to the Controller of Examination requesting him that the college had not received the admission ticket of the petitioner for the examination M
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
