JUDGMENT P.S. Gupta, J. - By our order dated 12-9-1980 we have allowed this writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the respondents under the signature of the Registrar of the University, dated 30th August, 1977 of which Annexure-2 of the counter-affidavit is a true copy and have directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his studies at the respondent University as a student of B. Tech. in Civil Engineering in accordance with the relevant rules of the University. We have also ordered the parties to bear their own costs. 2. Now we proceed to give the reason for our above-noted order. 3. The petitioner passed his Intermediate Science Examination securing 68.8 per cent marks in the year 1977 from the U P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The petitioner had an ambition to become a a Civil Engineer as the prospects in the branch of Civil Engineering, are comparatively better than in other branches of Engineering. He applied for admission to the 1977 course of B. Tech in Civil Engineering, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as University). Besides the above University he applied in Civil Engineering Colleges of Karnataka, Jaipur and Jamshedpur also. 4. The petitioner was selected for admission by the respondent University to the degree programme of B. Tech Civil Engineering in July, 1977. The petitioner consequently joined the University for studying the course of B. Teeh in Civil Engineering on 23-7-1977. The petitioner was also selected in Engineering Colleges of Karnataka, Jamshedpur and Jaipur, but as he preferred to join the respondent University, he did not take admission in any of the above referred Engineering Colleges. The petitioner paid the University fee and dues etc. and continued to study in the course of B. Tech in Civil Engineering from the date of his admission. In October 1977 the petitioner was orally informed by Dr. R. A. Rastogi, a member of the staff of the University, who was also acting as an advisor of the petitioner that his branch was being changed from Civil Engineering to the Agricultural Engineering. The petitioner was surprised and shocked to receive this information as he had no interest or aptitude in Agricultural Engineering. R. A. Rastogi, a member of the staff of the University, who was also acting as an advisor of the petitioner that his branch was being changed from Civil Engineering to the Agricultural Engineering. The petitioner was surprised and shocked to receive this information as he had no interest or aptitude in Agricultural Engineering. Moreover, he did not like the the idea of joining the Agricultural Engineering side as the prospects in Civil Engineering were far better. The petitioner protested to the University authorities against the proposed change in his course of studies and informed his father regarding the proposed change, who consequently rushed to the University. The father of the petitioner who was a School teacher met the Dean of the College of Technology in this connection and on 11-1-1978 addressed a letter to the Dean of the College of Technology requesting him to let the petitioner continue in the Civil Engineering course. The Dean gave assurance to the father of the petitioner that he would see that the petitioner was not inconvenienced in his academic life. The University was closed in the first week of February 1978 due to strike of its employees and reopened in the first week of April, but was re closed in the first week of May due to recurrence of the workers' strike. It re-opened in the mid of July. The father of the petitioner again met the Dean in November when he was told that the Dean had written a letter to the Registrar of the University opposing the transfer of the petitioner. Thereafter on 8-11-1978 the father of the petitioner met the Vice-Chancellor of University and handed over to him a representation against the proposed change of course of the petitioner. The University again closed due to disturbances in the first week of December 1978 and could re-open on the 15th of April, 1979. The father of the petitioner again met the Vice-Chancellor of the University in May 1979 and requested him not to change the study course of the petitioner, but no specific reply was given to him On 23-5-79 the father of the petitioner received a letter from the Registrar of the University stating that at the end of the Core programme the petitioner may be permitted to retain Civil Engineering course if he maintained a C. G. P. A. (Cumulative Grade Point Average) of 4000. The father of the petitioner sent a letter dated 23-7-1979 to the Vice-Chancellor requesting him to permit the petitioner to continue in the course of the Civil Engineering but he did not receive any reply from the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner has also stated that he had spent a sum of about Rs. 15,000 for study in the Degree course in the University and he would never have spent the said amount if he would not have been admitted in the course of B. Tech Civil Engineering. He never applied for the transfer from Civil Engineering to the branch of Agricultural Engineering and that neither the Advisor nor the Head of the Department of Civil Engineering or Agricultural Engineering or the Dean, College of Technology have recommended that the petitioner be transferred from the Branch of Civil Engineering to the Branch of Agricultural Engineering. 5. The Core programme which is common to all Branches (including Civil Engineering and Agricultural Engineering) ended in February 1980 and its examination was completed on 22nd February 1980 and thereafter students of different branches bad to be their separate and distinct education and it was at this juncture that the petitioner had to study either of the courses of Civil Engineering or Agricultural Engineering. On 13 1980 the father of the petitioner sent a notice to the Vice Chancellor of the University Respondent No. 1 that his representations had not been considered. It is averred that the University did not send any reply to that. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the transfer from the course of Civil Engineering on various grounds, including the violation of the principle of natural justice, principle of promissory estoppel, violation of the provisions of para 15 (D) of regulations of admission framed by the University and has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to transfer the petitioner from Civil Engineering Branch to Agricultural Engineering Branch and also to quash the order of the transfer passed by the respondents transferring the petitioner from the Branch of Civil Engineering to Agricultural Engineering. 6. 6. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have asserted that in the year in question in which the petitioner was admitted in B. Tech (Civil Engineering) admission was made up to 70 per cent marks whereas the petitioner had only 68.8 per cent marks, (fat Agricultural Engineering admission was made up to 67 per cent and in Electrical Engineering up to 71 per cent and in Mech. Engineering up to 71.2 per cent. The petitioner had only 68.8 per cent marks. There was another candidate named Narendra Choudhary who had applied for admission in B. Tech. Civil Engineering and had 72.6 per cent marks to his credit. By some clerical error and oversight in the office of the respondent University the marks obtained by Narendra Choudbary were inadvertently mentioned against the name of the petitioner who had only obtained 68.8 per cent marks in the qualifying examination. It was due to this mistake that the petitioner was admitted in the course of Civil Engineering instead of Agricultural Engineering. On the detection of this mistake the petitioner's admission itself was liable to be cancelled but taking a sympathetic attitude it was decided by the respondents that the petitioner may be permitted to change the'branch to Agricultural Engineering for which the petitioner was qualified on the basis of his marks and accordingly vide officer order No. R/Std. Tech. 9817/8148, dated 30-8-1977 (Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit) the petitioner's branch was transferred Form Civil Engineering to Agricultural Engineering. It is further asserted that it was incumbent on the petitioner to have verified whether his admission was in order. The petitioner knew well that the admission in the B. Tech (Civil Engineering) had been made up to 70 per cent and percentage of the petitioner being 68.8 per cent he could not have possibly been admitted to the same since he was lower in order of merit. As soon as the mistake came to light the respondent University was left with no option but to cancel the admission but in view of the special circumstances, the University changed the branch of the petitioner's course. After passing the above referred order the University received several letters from the petitioner's father who also met the Dean and the Registrar and prayed for a sympathetic consideration of the case. After passing the above referred order the University received several letters from the petitioner's father who also met the Dean and the Registrar and prayed for a sympathetic consideration of the case. A meeting comprising the Dean Technology, Head of Department of Civil Engineering, Head of Department of Agricultural Engineering and the Registrar was held and it was decided that if at the end of the Common Core programme, that is, after sixth trimesters, which is compulsory for all B. Tech students (irrespective of the Branch opted for), the petitioner secured a CGPA (Cumulative Grade Point Average) of 4.000 or above, he would be permitted to change his branch for Agricultural Engineering to Civil Engineering irrespective of the vacancies. This decision was communicated to the petitioner and his father. It is further stated that after completing the Core programme the petitioner had secured a CGPA of 3.777. The petitioner as such fell short of the prescribed CGPA of 4.000 which was the minimum prescribed for permitting the petitioner to change his branch. It has also been stated that classes have already commenced with effect from 6-3-1980 and the petitioner has started his classes in Agricultural Engineering, The petitioner was also taking the Core programme as student of Agricultural Engineering and he also filled in his registration cards for each Trimester as a student of Agricultural Engineering. According to the respondents the instant case is a case in which admission has been granted on account of clerical error in a branch whereas it could not be granted in the said branch considering the order of merit of the petitioner. Moreover, by way of special indulgence the petitioner was given an opportunity of change in course in case of his procuring a CGPA of 4.000. The petitioner's failure to secure that much percentage disentitle him for any claim in the course of the Civil Engineering. 7. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has denied the fact that he was admitted to B. Tech programme in Civil Engineering as a result of clerical mistake and oversight in the office of the University. According to him the procedure after the call letter is followed by the appearance of the petitioner before the concerned authority of the University along with the original mark-sheets of the High School and Intermediate Examinations etc. and all the certificates of the candidate. According to him the procedure after the call letter is followed by the appearance of the petitioner before the concerned authority of the University along with the original mark-sheets of the High School and Intermediate Examinations etc. and all the certificates of the candidate. Only after the originals have been checked by the concerned authority of the University that a candidate is given I.D. Number. In pursuance of the call letter dated 11-7-77 the petitioner appeared before the concerned authority on 23-7-77 when the original mark-sheets and certificates were thoroughly examined by the concerned authorities and he was duly admitted to the B. Tech programme in Civil Engineering on the day itself and he was issued I. D. Number 9817. It has also been asserted that it is wrong to say that the frame of the petitioner was inadvertently mentioned in the B. Tech programme. Sri Narendra Chaudhary with I. D. No. 9835 had been studying all along with the petitioner in Civil Engineering and there was no question of any contradiction or confusion between Narendra Chaudhary and the petitioner whose name is Nirendra Deo. It has also been stated that seven other students were admitted to the Civil Engineering in the B. Tech course subsequent to the admission of Sri Narendra Chaudhary. 8. In this case the admitted facts are that the minimum eligibility qualifications for getting admission in the Civil Engineering course of the University was the Intermediate Examination with Agriculture science with Mathematics or Biology with a minimum of 60 per cent marks in aggregate, conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education U.P. or equivalent. The petitioner who had admittedly obtained 68.8 per cent marks applied for his admission in the Civil Engineering course Intimation was issued on 11-7-1977 to him to take admission in the University on or before July 23, 1977. He was asked to bring his original mark-sheet and to submit other relevant documents. The petitioner along with his father reached the University office on 23-7-1977 and "Was admitted in the B. Tech Civil Engineering course after going through the necessary formalities and was issued 1. D. No. 987. Since then he continued to persue his studies in the University. It was in October 1977 that the petitioner was told that his branch being changed from Civil Engineering to Agricultural Engineering. D. No. 987. Since then he continued to persue his studies in the University. It was in October 1977 that the petitioner was told that his branch being changed from Civil Engineering to Agricultural Engineering. The reason for his transfer of the course is stated to be half the minimum marks on which the admissions in Civil Engineering, W6 made that year was 70 per cent and the petitioner had only obtained 68.8 per r cent marks which was lesser than the minimum prescribed. It is alleged by the University that due to some clerical error in the office of the University the marks obtained by another candidate named Narendra Coudhary which were 72.6 percent were inadvertently. entered in the column of the name of the petitioner and it was due to that mistake that the petitioner was permitted in the Awed Engineering course and when this mistake was detected, the petitioner's admission in Civil Engineering was cancelled and his course was changed to the Agricultural Engineering for which he had obtained the prescribed percentage of marhs. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner had been that the petitioner did not indulge into any fraud or misrepresentation. When he found himself to be eligible for applying in the Civil Engineering course of the University he applied for admission in the Civil Engineering course and had sent to the University a true copy of the mark-sheet obtained by him. When he received the intimation later for admission, the original mark-sheet as required by the Rules of the University was produced in the University Office and after perusal of the same he was admitted in the University. His mark-sheet issued by the Board is the correct and genuine mark-sheet and there is no clerical error in his mark-sheet. It was on the basis of this mark-sheet that he got the admission in the Civil Engineering course of the University. His mark-sheet issued by the Board is the correct and genuine mark-sheet and there is no clerical error in his mark-sheet. It was on the basis of this mark-sheet that he got the admission in the Civil Engineering course of the University. It is further contended that the act of the respondent in admitting the petitioner in the Civil Engineering course of the University %used him to believe that he has been duly admitted in the Civil Engineering course and in that belief he continued his studies in the University and as such the respondents are stopped to deny the petitioner the opportunity of continuing his studies in the Civil Engineering course of the University or transferring him to the Agricultural Engineering side. 10. The question, therefore, arises whether the University is estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioner to the Civil Engineering course 11. In Gyansi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal, AIR 1955 SC 1055 at p. 1061 it has been observed by the Supreme Court to invoke the doctrine of estoppel three conditions must be satisfied : (i) representation by a person to another. (ii) the other shall have acted upon the said representation, and (iii) such action shall have been detrimental to the interests of the persons to whom the representation has been made. 12. It will have to be seen whether these three conditions exist in the instant case or not. 13. The petitioner wanted his admission in the Civil Engineering course for which he applied to the University. In fact he had specifically applied for Civil Engineering course and had not sought admission in any other course. The University after considering his eligibility and other things sent him the intimation for taking admission in the Civil Engineering course. This amounts to representation made by the University to the petitioner that he may take admission in the above course. On the basis of this communication the petitioner took admission in the University in the Civil Engineering course, deposited the fees etc. and persued his studies, This thus shows that the petitioner acted upon the representation made by the University. The respondent University, four months after, conceded his admission in October 1977 and transferred him to the Agricultural Engineering course which was not a subject of the choice of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner was only interested in the Civil Engineering studies. The respondent University, four months after, conceded his admission in October 1977 and transferred him to the Agricultural Engineering course which was not a subject of the choice of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner was only interested in the Civil Engineering studies. This action of the respondent .was undoubtedly detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. Thus all the three conditions mentioned by the Supreme Court in Gvansi Basis case (supra) are very much in existence in the instant case due to which tit principle of promissory estoppel is wholly applicable against the respondents. 14. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that in para 13 of the intimation card, (the true copy of which is Annexure-1 to this counter-affidavit) It has been specifically mentioned that if at any time it is discovered that the admission has been secured on the basis of wrong information supplied by the petitioner or through some clerical mistake, the admission would be cancelled and the petitioner would have no claim whatsoever. It has further been contended that the petitioner was not en tiled to the admission in the Civil Engineering course as the minimum marks on which the admission in the Civil Engineering course took place that year was 60 per cent and the petitioner had only obtained 68.8 per cent. 15. According to the respondents it was due to the mistake on the part of a clerk of the University that the marks obtained by some other student were entered as the marks obtained by the petitioner it was due to this error on the part of the respondents that the petitioner was admitted. The question arises whether any error committed by the respondents for which the petitioner is in no way responsible can make his admission liable to be cancelled. Para 13 of the intimation letter runs as follows "Please note that if at any lime it is discovered that you have secured admission on the basis of wrong information supplied by you, or through some clerical mistake, your admission would be cancelled and you would have no claim whatsoever. Therefore, before joining this University, you should please check whether you fulfil the eligibility qualifications prescribed by the University for admission." 16. Therefore, before joining this University, you should please check whether you fulfil the eligibility qualifications prescribed by the University for admission." 16. A perusal of the wordings of the above noted para shows that a candidate has to check himself whether he fulfils the eligibility qualifications prescribed by the University for admission. In this case the eligibility qualification was that the candidate must have obtained 60 per cent marks in the Intermediate Science Examination of the Intermediate Board. The petitioner had obtained more than e0 per cent marks in the Intermediate Science Examination. As far as the petitioner was concerned he had fully complied with the conditions. No wrong information was supplied by him to the University. There was no clerical mistake in the mark sheet supplied by him. If there was any error or mistake as claimed by the University it was in the University, Officer. The University office should have been vigilant enough to see that the intimation card is being issued to the correct person. Para 8 of the intimation letter says : - "The Identity number will be issued to you on your producing the original mark sheet and submitting the following documents 17. It shows that it is after verifying the marks of a candidate from the original mark-sheet and ascertaining that the copy of the mark-sheet enclosed with the application form is correct, that a candidate if admitted. It there was any incorrect entry regarding marks obtained by the petitioner in the University records, it was for the University authorities to detect the same at the time of the admission when the original mark-sheet was produced by the petitioner in the University Office. The University Office should have been vigilent enough to see that the marks of the petitioner entered in the relevant record of the University tallied with the original mark-sheet produced by petitioner. The petitioner is not expected to have known the entries in the University records. Thus in no case it can be attributed to the petitioner that he has secured admission by taking the advantage of the mistake of the University. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that it was known to the petitioner that the minimum marks prescribed for the admission in the Civil Engineering course was 70 per cent. Thus in no case it can be attributed to the petitioner that he has secured admission by taking the advantage of the mistake of the University. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that it was known to the petitioner that the minimum marks prescribed for the admission in the Civil Engineering course was 70 per cent. The respondents have not filed any document to show that is was communicated to the petitioner or there was any general notice that the students securing 70 per cent will only be admitted in the Civil Engineering course.. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner was in any way instrumental in getting his admission in the Civil Engineering course due to any suppression of facts on his part or misrepresentation made by him or any fraud practised by him. Now it is not open to the respondents to take the shelter behind the shield of so called `clerical' mistake, which they could have detected if they would have acted vigilently. 18. In fact after permitting the petitioner to believe that his admission in the course of a genuine and bona fide admission and letting the petitioner to continue his studies for several months, the respondents are not entitled to can cell the admission of the petitioner to the Civil Engineering course. The University is bound by its own actions. 19. On this ground alone the action of the University in cancelling the admission of the petitioner to the Civil Engineering course is unjustified and cannot be sustained. 20. The petitioner who had an opportunity to join several other Engineering Colleges from where he received intimation cards not avail of that opportunity because he was admitted by the respondent University in the Civil Engineering course. The father of the petitioner who was a school teacher having moderate income had spent several thousands of rupees for the admission and education of the petitioner in the University. The balance of equity is also tilting in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner studied in the University in the belief that he has been duly admitted in the Civil Engineering course and to deprive him of that opportunity afterwards for the fault, if any, of the University office would be highly unjust and detrimental to the interest of the petitioner who has committed no fault. 21. The petitioner studied in the University in the belief that he has been duly admitted in the Civil Engineering course and to deprive him of that opportunity afterwards for the fault, if any, of the University office would be highly unjust and detrimental to the interest of the petitioner who has committed no fault. 21. For the reasons given above the petition has been allowed by our orders dated 12-9-1980.