Back
1981 Supreme(All) 363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. Agrawal and V. K. Khanna, JJ.
SATISH KUMAR RAO - Appellant
Versus
GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 8154 Of 1979
Decided On : 09/01/1981
R.P.MISHRA, R.S.Misra
A party cannot rely on the principle of estoppel to gain an undue advantage or accomplish a wrong.
Headnote:
ESTOPPEL - UNIVERSITY - MARK SHEETS - FORGED DOCUMENTS - FRAUD - LL.B. EXAMINATION - MANDAMUS - U. P. STATE UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1973 - SECTION 7(4).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, students of LL.B. Part I, claimed to have passed the examination based on forged mark sheets and were allowed to appear in LL.B. Part II and III. Upon discovery of the fraud, the University issued show-cause notices to the petitioners and sought to cancel their permission to appear in LL.B. Part III. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to allow them to appear in the examination and declare their results.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had procured the mark sheets through forged documents and were party to the fraud. The University had not issued any fresh mark sheets declaring the petitioners as having passed LL.B. Part I. The petitioners' claim of estoppel against the University was not valid as they had not acted in accordance with the promise and had not come to the court with clean hands.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were issued fresh mark sheets declaring them as having passed LL.B. Part I examination? 2. Whether the University was estopped from withdrawing the permission granted to the petitioners to appear in LL.B. Part III examination? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the relief of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners had not been issued fresh mark sheets declaring them as having passed LL.B. Part I examination. The University had not issued any such mark sheets, and the petitioners had obtained them through forged documents. 2. The Court held that the University was not estopped from withdrawing the permission granted to the petitioners to appear in LL.B. Part III examination. The petitioners had not acted in accordance with the promise and had not come to the court with clean hands. 3. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners were party to the fraud and had not acted in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE 13 petitioners in this petition have sought Mandamus directing the Gorakhpur university to allow them to appear at the 5th semester examination of LL. B. Part III conducted by the said University and to declare their results.
( 2 ) THE petitioners joined LL. B. course of the Gorakhpur University in Sant Vinoba Degree college, Deoria, which was affiliated to the Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur. They appeared at the LL. B, Part I examination of the Gorakhpur University in 1977. On the declaration of the result, petitioners 1 to 11 were found to have failed while petitioners 12 and 13 were found eligible to appear at the supplementary examination in one of the papers. Petitioners 1 to 11 claimed that a joint application was filed by them to the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, for revaluation of their answer books of the subjects in which they had failed. Petitioners 12 and 13 appeared at the supplementary examination. The petitioners assertion made in the writ petition was that by the revaluation petitioners 1 to 11 were found to have passed LL. B. Part I examination and, as such, were issued fresh mark sheetst whereas petitioners 12 and 13, who had appeared at the supplementary examination, were also supplied fresh mark sheets showing them having succeeded in the supplementary examination. On the basis of their results in LL. B. Part i, the petitioners joined LL. B. Part II in Sant Vinoba Degree College, Deoria, and appeared at the 3rd and 4th semester examination of LL. B. Part II in 1978. They had passed LL. B. Part II, the result of which was declared in May, 1979. After passing LL. B. Part II, the petitioner took admission in LL. B. Part III and paid the examination fee for appearing at the 5th semester examination of LL. B. Part III.
( 3 ) IN the first week of October 1979, the petitioners, excepting petitioner 12, received notices from the Registrar, Gorakhpur University, calling upon them to show cause why the permission granted to them for appearing in LL. B. Part III examination be not cancelled, on the ground that they had not passed LL. B. Part I, and, as such, were not qualified to appear at LL. B. Part III examination. A similar notice was received by petitioner 12 on 10-10-1979. The petitioners, excepting petitioner 12, submitted their explanation on 5-10-1979 and refuted the charge that they had not passed the LL. B. Part I examination. Petitioner 12 submitted his explanation subsequently.
( 4 ) THESE petitioners, thereafter, filed the present writ petition on 12-10-1979 along with an application for stay. The writ petition was admitted on the aforesaid date and the respondent gorakhpur University was directed to permit the petitioners to appear at the 5th semester examination of LL. B. Part III. In pursuance of the said stay order, the petitioners appeared at the ll. B. Part III examination.
( 5 ) TWO counter-affidavits have been filed in this writ petition; one by the Principal of the Sant vinoba Degree College, Deoria, and the other by the Deputy Registrar on behalf of the gorakhpur University. The University has controverted the petitioners allegations made in the writ petition and has denied that the petitioners had passed LL. B. Part I examination. The allegations made in this counter-affidavit were that petitioners 1 to 11 had wrongly alleged in the writ petition that they had filed a joint application for revaluation of their marks. About petitioners 12 and 13, the University admitted that they had appeared at the supplementary examination of LL. B. Part I in the year 1977, but they again failed in it. The stand of the university was that the copies of petitioners 1 to 11 were never revalued and that they had never been supplied fresh mark sheets different from those initially given declaring these petitioners as having failed at the LL. B. Part I examination. Regarding petitioners 12 and 13, the stand of the university was that they failed even at the supplementary examinati
