1977 Supreme(Mad) 347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Sethuraman and V. Balasubrahmanyan, JJ.
K.K. Jacob (Minor) represented by father and guardian M.K. Korah .....Appellant(s)
Versus
The Madurai University,represented by the Registrar, Madurai and another .....Respondent(s)
W.A. No. 2 of 1977.
Decided On : 29 July 1977
Nagercoil, and complete the same and appear for the University Examination without reference to the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 3rd November, 1976.
M. Srinivasan and K. Sreekumaran Nair, for Appellant.
B. Ramamurthy, N. S. Varadachari and T. V. Ramanujam, for Respondents.
Estoppel doctrine applicable.
Headnote:Madurai University Act, 1965-Section 35 and Rules-Estoppel doctrine-Cancellation of admission due to securing less percentage of marks in ICSE-Held, university not justified in cancelling admission after five months-Direction given to declare candidate as having passed P. U. C. examination.
2. On 13th September, 1976 a form was taken from the petitioner in which the details relevant for submission to the Madurai University for recognition were recorded. The said form, as the form itself showed, had to be submitted through the Principal of the College where the applicant sought admission within 15 days of his admission with evidence of his having passed the examination sought to be recognised and other enclosures mentioned in the application. It is stated in the instructions appended to the said form that pending decision of the application the Principal may admit the applicant provisionally and at the applicant’s risk. After more than a month following the submission of the said form to the Madurai University, the Controller of Examination, Madurai University sent a telegram on 25th October, 1976 to the Principal of the Scott Christian College, Nagercoil asking him to cancel the admission of the petitioner. The telegram was followed by a letter dated 29th October, 1976 from the Controller of Examinations to the Principal. In the said letter after mentioning that the petitioner had obtained only 35 per cert. in Mathematics as against 4O per cent required under the relevant rules and after referring to the earlier communications sent to the Principal, it was stated:
“Even then you have admitted the candidate M.K. Jacob to P.U.C., who has not satisfied the above rule (i.e. he has secured only 35 per cent instead of securing 40 per cent. of marks in Mathematics). Hence I am by direction to request you to cancel the admission of the candidate M.K. Jacob to P.U.C. in your College during 1976-77 immediately under intimation to this office.
I am also by direction to inform you that it is irregular on your part to admit candidate of this kind. You should avoid such irregularities in future.”
On receipt of this letter, the Principal who is the second respondent in the Writ Petition sent a letter to the Controller of Examination stating that the admission of the petitioner to the Pre-University Class was cancelled. On the 3rd November, 1976, the petitioner’s father received a letter conveying the cancellation of the admission. Immediately the petitioner’s father made representations to the Vice Chancellor of the Madurai University appealing to him to stay the operation of the cancellation of the admission and permit his son to continue his studies pending a decision on the representation made to the Syndicate. The petitioner’s father got a letter dated 7th December, 1976 in which it was stated that the rules of eligibility do not permit of any deviation. Apparently the authorities of the Madurai University had declined to consider the appeal made by the petitioner’s father. The further representa