IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that a university cannot revoke a degree after a significant lapse of time without substantial proof of fraud or suppression of facts, and the application of estoppel in educational contexts.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

Being aggrieved by the cancellation of her M.A. degree by the Berhampur University, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief;

'Under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause;

As to why the impugned order in Annexure-8 and the resolution of the Syndicate/ Council in Annexure-9 Series shall not be quashed.

And as to why the certificate issued to the petitioner by the University vide Annexure-2 shall not be restored and held valid and operating;

And as to why the petitioner shall not be held eligible to get all consequential benefits on the basis of the certificate and mark sheet issued, vide Annexure-2;

And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute by issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may think, fit and proper;

And/or to pass such further order(s), direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray. '

2.(i). The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Petitioner having completed her graduation from S.V.M. College, Jagatsinghpur in the year 1986, appeared in the M.A. examination in History under Utkal University as non-collegiate candidate and passed in the 3rd division in the year 1989. Basing on such qualification she was engaged as Lecturer in History on 13.ll.1990 in Kaduapada Higher Secondary School (Girls') in the district of Jagatsinghpur against the 2nd post. The School was subsequently renamed as Gadi Bramha Mahila Higher Secondary School, Kaduapada. In order to improve the percentage of marks, the Petitioner took admission under Berhampur University as non-collegiate candidate in the year 1993, but could not secure her desired marks because of illness. She repeated such examination to improve her percentage of marks under Berhampur University in the year 1996 and passed securing 59.4% marks. The University issued P.G. Certificate and mark sheets, copies of which are enclosed as Annexure-2 series.

(ii) The Petitioner submitted such certificates before the College authority, who recommended her name for grant-in-aid in consideration of her marks.

(iii) A dispute arose with regard to holding of the 2 nd post between the Petitioner and one Nirmala Kumar Biswal, the intervener (Opposite Party No.6), who, though appointed against the 3rd post laid her claim as against the 2nd post. The dispute was taken to the State Education Tribunal and after hearing, the Tribunal held that the Petitioner's appointment against the 2nd post is valid. According to the Petitioner, the intervener-Opposite Party No.6 had challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in an appeal before this Court, but the same was dismissed.

(iv) Having thus failed in her attempt to be considered against the 2nd post, the Opposite Party No.6 submitted a written objection before the authorities of the Berhampur University alleging that the Petitioner was ineligible to appear in the M.A. examination for which the certificate issued by the University was invalid.

(v) The University issued a show cause notice dated 17.11.2012, basing on such objection, to the Petitioner stating that she had suppressed the fact of her passing M.A. examination earlier from Utkal University with repeat examination and thereafter appeared as non-collegiate candidate under Berhampur University in 1993-94, which was contrary to the prevailing rules and regulations to the effect that a candidate cannot appear in the M.A. examination twice on the same subject under different Universities.

(vi) The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid show cause notice before this Court in W.P.(C) No.24273/2012 refuting the allegation of suppression of facts and questioning the legality