1985 Supreme(Raj) 309
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Surendra Nath Bhargava, D.L.Mehta, JJ.
Prahlad Kumar - Appellant
Versus
University of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 338 of 1984.
Decided On : 9-01-1985
The principle of equitable estoppel prevents a party from asserting a right that it has previously denied or failed to assert.
Headnote:
ADMISSION TO LAW COURSE - ELIGIBILITY - ADMISSION GRANTED BY COLLEGE PRINCIPAL DESPITE INELIGIBILITY - UNIVERSITY CANNOT CANCEL ADMISSION AFTER STUDENT HAS ATTENDED CLASSES AND APPEARED IN EXAMINATION - PRINCIPLE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL APPLIES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had secured less than 45% marks in his B.Com. examination, was admitted to the LL.B. (First Year) course by the Principal of Government College, Karauli. He attended classes and appeared in the LL.B. (First Year) Examination held in July 1982. The result of the examination was withheld, and the petitioner was informed that his admission had been cancelled as he was ineligible due to his low marks in B.Com. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his admission.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the University was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission after he had attended classes and appeared in the examination. The court relied on the principle of equitable estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a right that it has previously denied or failed to assert.
Issues: Whether the University could cancel the petitioner's admission after he had attended classes and appeared in the examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the University was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission because it had failed to object to his admission before he took up the LL.B. First Year Examination 1982. The court also held that the petitioner could not be punished for the negligence of the Principal of Government College, Karauli, who had granted him admission despite his ineligibility.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the University to declare the result of the petitioner's LL.B. (First Year) Examination held in October 1983. If the petitioner had passed the examination, he would be entitled to join the LL.B. 2nd Year Course in 1985. If he had failed in some papers, he would be entitled to appear afresh in those papers in accordance with the University's rules.
JUDGMENT
1. :- This is a special appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ, petition of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner passed the B.Com. Examination in the year 1981 and secured 43.5% marks. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the admission in LL.B. (First Year Course) in Government College, Karauli. He was given admission by the Government College, Karauli. He attended the classes and appeared in the LLB. First Year) Examination held in July 1982, as a regular student. The result of the LL.B. (1st year) Examination was declared in the month of January 1983 but the result of the petitioner was with-held. The petitioner obtained advance copy of his mark-sheet of LL.B (First year) Examination and found that he had failed in the said examination. Therefore he decided to appear in the LL.B. (1st year) examination for the year 1983 as an ex-student and submitted an application form for the same examination. For the first time by letter dated 27th September, 1983, the petitioner was informed that his LL.B. (first year) Examination, 1982, has been cancelled because he had secured less than 45% make in the B. Com. examination and therefore, he was not entitled to appear as ex-student in the LL.B. (First Year) Examination, commencing from 5th October, 1983. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a writ petition in this Court. A notice to show-cause was issued as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and meanwhile, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the LL.B. (First Year) Examination which was to be held from 5th October, 1983. It was further ordered that the result shall not be declared till further orders of this Court. As a consequence of this order the petitioner appeared for the LL.B. (First Year) Examination held in October, 1983 Learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner as well as the University dismissed the petition and hence this appeal.
3. Earned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his case is fully covered by a Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court in Miss. Sangeeta Srivastava v. Prof. U.N. Singh and Ors. AIR 1980 Delhi 27 . The facts of the case of Miss. Sangeeta Srivastava were also identical and there fore, the principle of equitable estoppel operated and the University cannot refuse the petitioner from appearing at the Examination of LL.B. (First Year) being held in October, 1983. The petitioner was not guilty of only misrepresentation or any malpractice. The Principal of the Government College, Karauli had given admission and the University is bound by the action of the Principal, Government College, Karauli and therefore, petitioner's result of LL.B. (First Year) Examination in which he appeared in October, 1983 should be declared and he should be permitted to continue his studies in LL.B. (Second Year), if he is declared passed in the LL.B. previous Examination.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the University has vehemently opposed and has submitted that in view of the consistent decisions in Punjab Engineer College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati andothers AIR 1983 Supreme Court 580 in Punjab University, Chandigarh v. Devjani Chakrabarti and Ors. AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1444 , and in Principal, King Georges' Medical College, Lucknow, U.P. and Anr. v. Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta and Ors. 1984 (1) SCC 307 , this Court should not interfere in the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. Learned counsel for the University has further placed reliance on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Kedar Lal Verma v. The Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Anr. AIR 1980 Allahabad 32 and has submitted that since the petitioner was ineligible in view of the Ordinance 252, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this appeal.
5. We have considered the arguments advanced before us and have also gone through the record of the case including the reply filed by the University before the learned s
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
