Kumari Smita Shukla v. University of Allahabad — 1993 DIGILAW 301 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : G.P. MATHUR, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Respondents (University of Allahabad and Head of Department of Geography) to allow her to study Geography subject and farther to allow her to appear in B.A. Part I examination of the University in the aforesaid subject. The parties have exchanged affidavits and as such writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 2. The Petitioner passed Intermediate examination in the year 1992 and thereafter applied for admission in B.A. Part I class in the University of Allahabad. She had given choice of subjects which she wanted to offer In B.A. Part I and Geography was her tenth choice. On the basis of marks secured by her, she was admitted in B.A. Part I class and was allotted three subjects namely; English, Medieval History and Geography. Thereafter, she got endorsement of the department concerning the subjects which she had been allotted and endorsement of Geography Department was made on 30.10.1992. The Petitioner then pursued her study in Geography Department apart from English and Medieval History in B.A. Part I dais and also attended the classes regularly. On 28.2.1993 a list was put op in the Geography Department on the Notice Board which showed that her name had been struck off from the rolls of students studying Geography subject. On enquiry, she was orally informed that she could offer any other subject but could not be allowed to study Geography subject as she has not studied the said subject in Intermediate. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition was filed in this Court on 12.3.1993. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Head of Department of Geography on behalf of the Respondents. The case of the Respondents is that under a resolution passed by Academic Council of the University only those students who had passed Intermediate or equivalent examination with Geography as one of the subject, can be allowed to study the said subject in B.A. Part I class This resolution is also incorporated in the "Admission Information Booklet of the University for the Session 1992-93." The Admission Committee did not notice the fact that the Petitioner had not offered Geography in Intermediate classes at the time when the Petitioner wan admitted and was allotted Geography subject. The mistake was noticed in February, 1993 and consequently her name was struck off from the Geography department and she was asked to approach the Admission Committee for allotment of some other subject. It is further pleaded that though the admissions were made in October and November, 1992 but regular classes lo the subject commenced from January, 1993 and the examination would not take place before July, 1993. Thus the main defence of the Respondents is that she had been allowed to study Geography subject contrary to the resolution of the Academic Council. 4. The averments made in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit show that the Petitioner has been admitted In B.A. Part I class of the University on the basis of merit and no illegality or irregularity of any kind has been committed in granting her admission. Under the rules every candidate seeking admission to B.A. Part I class has to submit a copy of Mark sheet of Intermediate class which mentions the subjects which had been studied by the candidate in the said class. The Petitioner also submitted her mark sheet of Intermediate class and it is on the basis of this mark sheet that her position in the merit list was determined and she was granted admission. The mark sheet submitted by the Petitioner clearly snowed that the Petitioner had not studied Geography in Intermediate class. Thus no misrepresentation of any kind was made by the Petitioner at the time when she sought admission in the University. It is true that in the "Admission Information Book-let for the Session 1992-93" which runs into closely printed twenty pages. It is mentioned at page-II that only those students can study Geography who have passed Intermediate (or equivalent) examination with Geography. But the Petitioner while giving her choice of subjects had not mentioned Geography as the first choice but as tenth choice. The Admission Committee of the University allotted Geography subject to the Petitioner. The certificate of admission has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This mentions the subjects which had been allotted to the Petitioner and bears the signature of the Chairman of B.A. Part I Admission Committee and also the date. The certificate has been signed by two authorities of the University, one on 29.10.1992 and the other on 30.10.1992. The certificate of admission has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This mentions the subjects which had been allotted to the Petitioner and bears the signature of the Chairman of B.A. Part I Admission Committee and also the date. The certificate has been signed by two authorities of the University, one on 29.10.1992 and the other on 30.10.1992. The members of the Admission Committee are responsible teachers of the University and they are expected to be well versed with the rules and resolutions concerning the admission of the students end allotment of subjects to them. It is, therefore, obvious that the mistake, if any, was that of the authorities of the University and no blame of any kind can be attributed to the Petitioner for having been offered Geography as a subject In B.A. Part I class. 5. The other aspect of the matter is that the subjects were offered to the Petitioner on 30.10.1992. The Petitioner has averred in the writ petition that she has been continuously studying Geography subject since then after spending money in purchasing the books in the counter affidavit, it is asserted that though the admissions in Geography Department were made in October/November, 1992 but the classes commenced in January, 1993. It is further asserted that examination will not take place before July, 1993 Be that as It may, the fact remains that by now nearly Six month have elapsed when the Petitioner was given admission in Geography class. The University will close for summer vacation by middle of May and will reopen on 15th July, 1993. Even If the examination takes place in July, 1993, there is hardly any time left in which the Petitioner may study a new subject. The Petitioner has been studying Geography for quite some time and must have prepared a substantial portion of the course. 6. Shri S.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that on the facts of the present case, the principle of estoppel is fully applicable and it is not open to the University to contend that the Petitioner was wrongly allotted Geography subject and that she should pursue a course of study in some other subject at this stage. 6. Shri S.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that on the facts of the present case, the principle of estoppel is fully applicable and it is not open to the University to contend that the Petitioner was wrongly allotted Geography subject and that she should pursue a course of study in some other subject at this stage. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner has acted upon the representation made by the University and has altered her position and at the fag end of the Session, the University cannot be allowed to resile from the representation made by It and contend that the admission in Geography subject was given by mistake. The principle of estoppel is applicable in academic matters as well. In Anil Kumar Srivastava vs. University of Allahabad and Another, AIR 1973 All 442 , the Petitioner was declared to have passed M. Sc. (Previous) examination. Thereafter, he took admission in M. Sc. (Final) and studied in the said class. Shortly before commencement of the examination, he was informed that he could not appear In M. Sc. (Final) examination as in fact, he had failed in M. Sc. (Previous) Examination. Hon'ble H.N. Seth, J. held that the Petitioner having altered his position namely by pursuing his course of study in M. Sc. (Final), the University was estopped from taking the stand that the mark sheet issued to the Petitioner in which he was shown to have passed M. Sc (Previous) examination was wrong and that the Petitioner had in fact, failed in the said examination. This judgment was affirmed by a Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 65 of 1973 which was decided on 18.4.1973. In Narendra Deo vs. G.B. Pant University, 1981 UPLBEC 320, the Petitioner was admitted In Civil Engineering course but after four months, his admission in Civil Engineering course was cancelled and he was transferred to Agricultural Engineering course. On account of clerical mistake of the office of University, the marks of another candidate having the same name were noted against the name of the Petitioner and the marks actually secured by the Petitioner entitled him to admission in Agricultural Engineering course only. It was held by a Division Bench that the principles of estoppel were applicable and the University was estopped from transferring the Petitioner to Agricultural Engineering course. It was held by a Division Bench that the principles of estoppel were applicable and the University was estopped from transferring the Petitioner to Agricultural Engineering course. In Shri Krishnan vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC 311 , it was held that if shortage of percentage or attendance was not disclosed by a candidate in the Admission Form and the University authorities did not take care to scrutinise the Admission Form and the candidate was allowed to appear in the examination, it was not open to the University authorities to cancel his candidature. Recently in Shikshak Abhibhavak Sangh vs. Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, 1991 ALJ 5, it was held that if in an institution of boys girl students were being admitted for last several years and their Examination Form were accepted and Admission Cards were Issued by the Board, it was not open to the Board to cancel their candidature. 7. These authorities, therefore, lay down that in academic matters like pursuing a course of study or appearing in the examination, the principle of estoppel is applicable. If a student acting upon the representation made by an Academic Body has altered his position by pursuing a course of study for a reasonable period of time then It is not open to it to cancel his candidature or deprive him of his right to appear in the examination on the ground that by mistake, which it attributable solely to the said academic body, the candidate was allowed to pursue course of study which he was In fact, not entitled to do. However, this principle will not apply where the student is himself guilty of fraud and his fraudulent act has led to the passing of order or giving the communication by academic body which enables him to pursue the course of study which he was not entitled under the relevant rules to do. 8. Shir Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the University has placed reliance upon Sukhpal Singh vs. Vice-Chancellor, 1982 UPLBEC 603 and Km. Leena Gupta vs. Roohilkhand University, 1989 (1) UPLBEC 409, in support of his submission that principle of estoppel would not apply as permitting the Petitioner to study Geography would be in contravention of the resolution of the Academic Council. 8. Shir Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the University has placed reliance upon Sukhpal Singh vs. Vice-Chancellor, 1982 UPLBEC 603 and Km. Leena Gupta vs. Roohilkhand University, 1989 (1) UPLBEC 409, in support of his submission that principle of estoppel would not apply as permitting the Petitioner to study Geography would be in contravention of the resolution of the Academic Council. In out opinion, the authorities cited by the learned Counsel have no application to the facts of the present case In the case of Sukhpal Singh (supra) no representation of any kind was made by the University. The college concerned, unauthorisedly and illegally, admitted the Petitioners who were not even in the waiting list nor they had been selected by the Selection Committee. The College got the papers cyclo-styled of its own and allowed the Petitioners to appear in the examination, though no roil number was allotted to them by the University. It was in these circumstances the Court ruled that the principle of estoppel would not apply as the admission of the Petitioners in the college was invalid from the very inception. In the case of Km. Leena Gupta, the Petitioner was informed by letter dated 20th October, 1987 that ate was eligible for admission in B.D.S. course and she was formally admitted on 27th October, 1987 but shortly thereafter, by order dated 7th November 1987 her admission was cancelled on the ground that as a result of manual checking the mistake which had been committed earlier while deciding her roll number was detected and the Petitioner had actually secured lesser marks. It is obvious that as the mistake was decocted within ten days, the Petitioner could not contend that she had altered her position to her detriment by acting upon the representation made by the University. That apart, her admission itself was invalid as she had secured lesser marks. 9. In the present case, no illegality of any kind has been shown to have been committed in the admission granted to the Petitioner in B.A. Part I class. She had not given Geography subject as her first choice but as tenth choice it was the University authorities which allotted Geography subject to her. It is not the case of the University that she had made any false statement that she had studied Geography in Intermediate class. She had not given Geography subject as her first choice but as tenth choice it was the University authorities which allotted Geography subject to her. It is not the case of the University that she had made any false statement that she had studied Geography in Intermediate class. On the contrary, mark sheet submitted by her clearly showed that she had not studied Geography. The University authorities cannot be said to have been misled on account of any act which may be attributed to her. She has studied the said subject since 30.10.1992. Therefore at this stage, when the academic session is coming to a close, it will be highly unjust and inequitable to ask her to change her subject and study an altogether new subject which has not yet been allotted to her. These circumstances we arc of the opinion that the action of the University authorities in cancelling the Geography subject allotted to her is wholly Illegal and she should be allowed to study and appear in the examination in the said subject. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Respondents are directed to permit the Petitioner to study Geography subject in B.A. Part I class and to allow her to appear in B.A. Part I examination in the said subject and to declare her result. The Respondents are further directed to allow the Petitioner to fill up the Examination Form of B.A. Part I with Geography as one of her subject within a week of the presentation of a certified copy of this order before them. The office is directed to issue a certified copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on payment of usual charges within 48 hours.