Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal, C. J. , M. L. Malik and C. P. Sen, JJ.
BAL KRISHNA TIWARI - Appellant
Versus
REGISTRAR OF AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH, UNIVERSITY, REWA - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 877 Of 1976
Decided On : 12/16/1977
Rules of natural justice are not codified. Principles of natural justice are not statutory. They are fundamental rights of judicial procedure which have been evolved to ensure fair adjudication wherever rights of an individual are affected. Their aim is to prevent miscarriage of justice. Where there is violation of principles of natural justice, proceedings can be quashed by certiorari. Acts of public authorities, judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, can be challenged when the rules of natural justice have been contravened. [Para 6]
However, the rules of natural justice are not capable of definition. They vary according to the constitution of the statutory body and the statute under which they function. But they depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case and the frame-work of the law applicable to it. Eminent Judges have at times used the phrase 'the principles of natural justice'. The phrase is, of course, used only in a popular sense and must not be taken to mean that there is any justice natural among men. Among most savages there is no such thing as justice in the modern sense. AIR 1970 Kerala 142 referred to. [Para 7]
Where two interpretations, of any statutory rule are possible, and the person affected could place the interpretation in his favour for consideration, a failure to issue show cause notice is a violation of Rules of Natural Justice. [Para 11]
(2) University laws-examination-refusal to appear in or cancel the examination -rule of estoppel when applies.
(3) Estoppel-promissory estoppel-when applies.
Cases where occassion arises for refusal to permit a candidate to appear in an examination or cancel his examination may broadly be categorised thus :--
(i) Where the candidate practised fraud on the authorities, or was guilty of mis-statement or suppression of facts in his application form on the basis of which admission to examination was granted;
(ii) where there is some technical defect in the filling of the form or where there was any deficiency; such as shortage in attendance, which defect or deficiency could be condoned by the authorities in exercise of discretion vested in them under the statute, Rules or Regulations;
(iii) where the candidate was patently ineligible on the particulars supplied by him; and
(iv) where the question of eligibility depends upon interpretation of any provision of law, or rules or regulations having the force of law, and two interpretations are reasonably possible. [Para 17]
The present case falls under the fourth category. We have pointed out above that the interpretation of the expression 'ex-student candidate' admits of two reasonable interpretations, when examined in the light of all the relevant definitions. The petitioner first received permission from the Registrar as back as in December 1975 Secondly, admission card was issued by the University and delivered to the petitioner through proper authority. The petitioner appeared in and took the entire examination. In these circumstances, the University could not turn round and say that there was a mistake in issuing the admission card on the other possible interpretation of the definitions. This is a case of promissory estoppel. AIR 1968 SC 718 relied on. [Para 18]
The principle of estoppel applies also to a representation made under mistake, and a fraudulent intention is not necessary to create an estoppel, AIR 1971 Orissa 276 & AIR 1956 Mad. 309 relied on. [Para 20]
( 1 ) THE petitioner appeared in the LL. B. (Part-I) examination of the Awadhesh pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa (hereinafter called the 'rewa University')held in the month of April 1976. The University has not declared his result but has withheld it on the ground that he was not eligible to appear in the examination and his admission card was cancelled and consequently his examination has been cancelled. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the University to declare his result.
( 2 ) THE petitioner appeared in the examination as an ex-student candidate. According to the University he was not eligible to appear as an ex-student candidate and, therefore, the admission card, which was issued to him was by mistake and consequently it was cancelled.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was a regular student of LL. B. (Part-I) in 1967 in the teaching department of the Saugor University. He did not succeed in the examination. In october 1975, he applied to the Registrar for permission to appear in LL. B. (Part-I) examination of the Rewa University and on the recommendation of the dean, the Registrar issued a letter dated December 17, 1975, according him permission to appear in the examination. He submitted a regular application form. On April 24, 1976, he got an admission card from the Superintendent of the Examination. On April 26, 1976, the examination commenced. The petitioner appeared in all the papers. Then he went away to his village in the interior. There, on May 14, 1976, he got an envelope from the University conveying to him that his admission card had been cancelled. ( 4 ) THE case for the University is that the petitioner was an ex-student of the saugor University but he was not an "ex-student candidate of the Rewa university". That being so, he could not appear as an ex-student candidate in the LL. B (Part-I) examination of Rewa University. The Registrar was persuaded by the recommendations of the Professor of Law and it was by mistake that the registrar granted him permission. That permission was erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the rules. The petitioner was not eligible to appear in the ll. B. (Part-I) examination as an ex-student candidate. It was on April 22, 1976, that the University cancelled the admission card and conveyed this both to the Superintendent of the Examinations and the candidate. Learned counsel for the University placed before us the Despatch Register for our inspection. It is clear that the envelope addressed to the petitioner was sent by post to his village address. Perhaps that was the only address with the University. However, the fact remains that the envelope was never delivered to the petitioner until he reached his village after taking the whole of the examination.
( 5 ) THE petitioner's contentions are that since the letter of permission was issued to him as back as on December 17, 1975, and, that apart, an admission card was issued to him, and further he actually appeared in the examination without any objection, the University is estopped from withholding his result. To consider the petitioner's case of eligibility was a quasi-judicial act. The petitioner was entitled to a notice. Rules of natural justice were violated when his examination and the admission card were cancelled without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has relied on Krishan v. Kurukshetra university AIR 1976 SC 376.
( 6 ) RULES of natural justice are not codified. Principles of natural justice are not statutory. They are fundamental rights of judicial procedure which have been evolved to ensure fair adjudication wherever rights of an individual are affected. Their aim is to prevent miscarriage of justice. Where there is violation of principles of natural justice, proceedings can be quashed by certiorari. Acts of public authorities, judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative, can be challenged when the rules of natural justice have been contravened,
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
