Back
High Court Of Delhi
REGISTRAR OF DELHI UNIVERSITY - Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR CHOPRA - Respondent
L.P.A. 68 of 1967
Decided On : 10/09/1967
ESTOPPEL - UNIVERSITY ADMISSION - ELIGIBILITY - EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL - ULTRA VIRES - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - LEGAL ESTOPPEL - SECTION 115 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - SILENCE AND INACTION - REASONABLE TIME - INTENTIONALLY CAUSING OR PERMITTING ANOTHER PERSON TO BELIEVE A THING TO BE TRUE - REPRESENTATION BY CONDUCT - ACADEMIC COUNCIL - QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
Three students were admitted provisionally to the first year of B.A. (Pass Course) in different colleges affiliated to Delhi University. The University authorities, after a long delay, informed the students that they were not eligible for admission as the Secondary School Certificate Examination passed by them was not recognized as equivalent to the Higher Secondary Examination by the University. The students filed writ petitions challenging the cancellation of their admission. The High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that the University was estopped from denying the approval of the admission of the students.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the University was estopped from denying the approval of the admission of the students on the ground of silence and inaction for a long time, which amounted to representation by conduct that the admissions were approved. The court also held that the University had a duty to approve or reject the provisional admission of the students within a reasonable time and the delay in communicating the rejection of the admission was unreasonable. The court further held that the plea of estoppel would not be barred by the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute, as the admission of students contrary to the provisions of Ordinance I was not ultra vires but only irregular in view of the provisions of Ordinance X-A.
Issues: 1. Whether the University was estopped from denying the approval of the admission of the students? 2. Whether the University had a duty to approve or reject the provisional admission of the students within a reasonable time? 3. Whether the plea of estoppel would be barred by the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the University was estopped from denying the approval of the admission of the students on the ground of silence and inaction for a long time, which amounted to representation by conduct that the admissions were approved. The court relied on Section 115 of the Evidence Act, which provides that when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceedings between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. 2. The court held that the University had a duty to approve or reject the provisional admission of the students within a reasonable time and the delay in communicating the rejection of the admission was unreasonable. The court observed that the University owed a duty towards the students to make known to them within reasonable time whether the University had approved of their admission or not. The court further observed that the University cannot reject a provisional admission till the publication of the results of the University examination and, therefore, at no time anterior to the said publication of the results the students can proceed on the belief that the University has approved of their admissions. 3. The court held that the plea of estoppel would not be barred by the principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute, as the admission of students contrary to the provisions of Ordinance I was not ultra vires but only irregular in view of the provisions of Ordinance X-A. The court observed that Ordinance X-A enables the Academic Council to grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinances governing the admission of the students and, therefore, any act of the Academic Council not in compliance with the said requirement cannot be held to be ultra vires.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the University and upheld the decision of the High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by the students.
( 1 ) THESE three appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are against the common judgment dated 26/5/1967 of Tatachari, J. allowing three writ petitions filed by the first respondent in each of these three Letters Patent Appeals. This judgment will dispose of all the three appeals. Shri Chittaranjan Das Sharma, the first respondent in L. P. Appeal No. 70 of 1967 and the petitioner in Civil Writ petition No. 231 of 1967 passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination in March 1963 conducted by the Gujarat Secondary School Certificate Examination Board, Baroda. In July, 1965, he applied for admission in Deshbandhu College, New Delhi, for studying in B. A. (Pass Course) of the University of Delhi. In his application dated 7/7/1965 in the prescribed form, he furnished all the required particulars including the examination passed by him. The Principal of the College accepted his application and admitted him provisionally to the B. A. First year class on his payment of fees subject to the approval of the University. On 6/9/1965, another application, in the prescribed form, practically embodying the same particulars which were furnished in the application dated 7/7/1965, was obtained from him and was forwarded to the University by the College. The University allotted the student DB (E) 3457 as his enrolment number and fixed 10/11/1965 as the date of his enrolment in the University and a printed slip containing these particulars signed by the Registrar of the University was sent to the Principal of the College. On receipt of the said slip, the College authorities entered the enrolment number in the prescribed column in the Admission Register of the College against the name of the student. Shri Chittaranjan Das Sharma attended the classes of the First year of the B. A. (Pass Course ). paid his fees regularly, appeared in the examination conducted by the College at the end of the First year in April, 1966 and passed the said examination and was promoted to the second year of the said Course. When he was pursuing the second year of his Course, on 5/8/1966, the Principal issued a letter to him informing him that he was not eligible for admission to the First year of the B. A. (Pass Course ). Subsequently, correspondence passed between the student and the Principal and the University authorities and it is unnecessary to refer to them in detail for the purpose of these appeals. However, it appears from the said correspondence that the ground for treating Shri Sharma as not eligible for admission to the First Year of the B. A. (Pass Course) of the Delhi University was that the S. S. C examination from Gujarat (Baroda) passed by him had been recognised by the Delhi University as equivalent to Matriculation examination of the Delhi University only, whereas the minimum qualification for admission to the First year of the B. A. (Pass Course) was the passing of Higher Secondary or an equivalent examination with at least 40 % marks in the aggregate. The representations made by Shri Sharma failed and his admission was cancelled. It is thereafter, he filed Civil Writ petition No. 231 of 1967 on the file of this Court challenging the cancellation of his admission.
( 2 ) SHRI Yashoda Nandan Sharma, the first respondent in LPA No. 69 of 1967 and the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 232 of 1967 had passed the Secondary School Certificate examination in March 1965 conducted by the Gujarat Secondary School Certificate Examination Board, Baroda. He also applied for admission into the Deshbandhu College, New Delhi, for stuyding in B. A. (Pass Course) of the Delhi University. In his application dated 29/6/1965, in the prescribed form, he furnished all the required particulars including the examination passed by him. The Principal of the College provisionally admitted him to the First year of the B. A. Class on payment of his fees and subject to the approval of the University. The second application form with the necesary parti
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
