The University was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission as the petitioner had suffered detriment by relying on the representation made by the Principal of the College, who was acting as an agent of the University.

SETHURAMAN J :- This is an appeal from the judgment of Mohan J. declining to admit W. P. 4440 of 1976. The petitioner was a student of Loyola School, Trivandrum and had appeared for an examination conducted by the Council for the Indian Schools Certificate Examination, New Delhi. In the said examination, the petitioner had obtained over 40 per cent of marks in all subjects except Mathematics in which he had secured 35 per cent. The authorities conducting the said examination, issued a certificate to the petitioner stating that he had passed the said examination. The petitioner applied for admission to two institutions, namely, Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum affiliated to the Kerala University and also to the Scott Christian College, Nagarcoil affiliated to the Madurai University. He got admission first from the College at Trivandrum and he paid the sum of Rs. 175 for the first term fees. Subsequently he got an admission card from the Scott Christian College, Nagarcoil. After getting a transfer certificate from the Mar Ivanios College, Trivandrum, the petitioner joined the Scott Christian College said to be nearer his house, paying a sum of Rs. 200 towards fees etc. He joined the classes and was studying in the said College.

2. On 13-9-1976, 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 Examinations, Madurai University sent a telegram on 25-10-1976, to the Principal of the Scott Christian College, Nagarcoil, asking him to cancel the admission of the petitioner. The telegram was followed by a letter dated 28-10-1976 from the Controller of Examinations to the Principal. In the said letter after mentioning that the petitioner had obtained only 35 per cent in Mathematics as against 40 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 candidates 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 Examinations stating that the admission of the petitioner to the Pre-University class was cancelled. On 3-11-1976, 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 7-12-1976 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 representation also proved unsuccessful.

3. Ther