Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1246 (PNJ)

Manmeet Sharma v. State Of Haryana

2004-11-14

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2004
Judgment 1. This petition seeks quashing of eligibility condition contained in the prospectus for admission to the BDS course and quashing the order of cancellation of the petitioners admission dated 1.3.2007 on the ground of his ineligibility. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he got admission in June 2006 to the BDS course but on 1.3.2007, the order of admission has been cancelled, which was illegal. 3. The order of cancellation of admission dated 1.3.2007, Annexure P.4 refers to order dated 8.12.2006 passed by the University respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner did not have 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, which was a requirement in the prospectus, Annexure P.1. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the University, same stand has been reiterated and it has been mentioned that the petitioner was given admission in the Entrance Test conducted by the Association of Self Financing Medical and Dental Colleges of Haryana. As per mark sheet of the petitioner Annexure P1/A, his marks in Physics. Chemistry and Biology were 43, 40 and 57 respectively and the petitioner was, thus, not eligible. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. In the prospectus, it has been clearly laid down that only candidates having 50% marks in English and 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together will be eligible for the Entrance Examination. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have 50% marks as required. In these circumstances, the petitioner being ineligile could not have been given admission. 7. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that the petitioner having made no misrepresentation and having paid the fee, the admission could not be cancelled. Reliance was placed on a DB judgment of this Court in Ashu Singla v. Punjabi University, Patiala and another, 2004(2) RSJ 720. 8. We are unable to accept the submission. The petitioner was clearly ineligible and was aware about his ineligibility. No estoppel could arise in such a situation. The judgment relied upon is distinguishable. The University never approved the admission of the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to appear in examination, as was the case in Ashu Singla (supra). As per the impugned order, admission of the petitioner was provisional and was never approved by the University. No estoppel could arise in such a situation. The judgment relied upon is distinguishable. The University never approved the admission of the petitioner and did not allow the petitioner to appear in examination, as was the case in Ashu Singla (supra). As per the impugned order, admission of the petitioner was provisional and was never approved by the University. Equitable principle of promissory estoppel could not be invoked when a candidate was himself aware about his ineligibilty. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Central Airmen Selection Board and another v. Surender Kumar Das, AIR 2003 SC 240. 9. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.