Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.P. SINGH, J.
Pawan Malik - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38084 of 1993
Decided on : Jan 21, 1994
ESTOPPEL - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - COMBINED MERIT LIST - ARBITRARY - RESERVATION - EX-SERVICEMEN - DEPENDANTS - ADMISSION TO GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS - JURISDICTION - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS - REASONABLENESS - PUBLIC INTEREST - FAIRNESS - EQUALITY - RIGHT TO EDUCATION - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who had applied for admission to a Government institution of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition at Almora, challenged the combined merit list prepared by the opposite parties for admission to two different institutes, claiming that it was arbitrary and violated the principle of promissory estoppel.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the combined merit list prepared by the opposite parties was arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as the advertisement for admission clearly stated that candidates would be considered for admission only to the college for which they had applied. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of reservation of one seat, out of six, being the dependant of an Ex-service man.
Issues: 1. Whether the combined merit list prepared by the opposite parties was arbitrary and without jurisdiction? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of reservation of one seat, out of six, being the dependant of an Ex-service man?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the combined merit list prepared by the opposite parties was arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as the advertisement for admission clearly stated that candidates would be considered for admission only to the college for which they had applied. The court relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that the opposite parties were estopped from denying admission to the petitioner at Almora college, as they had allowed him to appear for the examination and had not informed him that he could be admitted to any institution irrespective of his choice. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of reservation of one seat, out of six, being the dependant of an Ex-service man. The court interpreted the advertisement for admission to mean that the reservation was for the dependants of Ex-servicemen and not for the Ex-servicemen themselves.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite parties to admit the petitioner in Almora college in the relevant course for the academic year 1993-94, giving him the benefit of being the dependant of an Ex-service man and treating him to be belonging to the reserved category.
M.P. Singh, J.
1. In the instant case I am satisfied that the combined merit list, for admission to two different institutes, prepared by the opposite parties for the academic year 1993-94 is wholly arbitrary.
2. The Government and its instrumentality while passing even an administrative order can never be permitted to be irrational or unreasonable. If it departs from such standard or norms in any case, its action would be liable to be struck down as arbitrary. It has always to meet the test of reasonableness and public interest. No doubt some-times the administrative orders are discretionary in nature but that does not give a lever to the authorities to be fanciful in their choice. The problem of administrative discretion is a complex one. It is true that the Government cannot function without the exercise of some discretion by the officials. It is necessary not only for the individualization of the administrative power but also because it is humanly impossible to lay down a rule for every conceiveable eventuality in the complex art of modern government.
It is equally true that absolute discretion is a ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of man's other inventions. The administrative orders are experted to foe reasonable and fait' in the oyes of public to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. The instrumentality of the Government is not expected to behave like a private litigant. It should act in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms. These elements are missing in the present case.
3. The Department of Tourism, U. P. has established two Government institutions of Hotel Management, Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition. One is at Almora and the other at Dehradun. They have separate management and different prospectus. They have their full control over day-to day affairs. Only general poliicy decisions and financial aspects are controlled by the State Government.
4. Each institution holds its separate examination and interview for admission.
In the month of April, 1993 an advertisement was issued in the "Employment News" inviting application forms from the candidates desirous of taking admission in the said institutions.
5. The petitioner having passed C.B.S.C. Board examination (Class XII) in the year 1991, which is the minimum requisite qualification, submitted his application form for admission in Almora college. This; was done by him in accordance with the advertisement, which made it clear that the applicants shall apply only to those colleges where they want to be admitted.
6. Paragraph 6 of the advertisement made it clear that the candidates will be considered for admission only to that college for which they have made application, but, casually it was also mentioned that the Commissioner/ Director General shall have a right to decide as to in which institution a particular candidate would be admitted. This is self-contradictory and inconsistent. Both cannot co -exist.
A careful reading of the said clause shows that a candidate has a free choice of his admission in dither of the two colleges for which he has made the application. Reserving the right in the Commissioner/Director General of sending the selected candidate to any institution renders the whole clause redundant. Had there been a combined test for both the colleges, then of course, it could have been said that he had the power to admit a candidate according to his choice.
7. A fair and proper interpretation of this clause leads to an irresistible conclusion that it is only the candidate who has the choice of admission in a particular college.
8. After the written examination, the petitioner was required to appear for the interview on 28th September, (993 at Almora In the prospectus it was provided that out of total 25 sanctioned seats, 13 shall be reserved for hill candidates and six seats have been reserved for Freedom Fighters, Ex- servicemen and Physically handicapped.
Petitioner's father is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
