ORDER Petitioner is a student of Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya (respondent No. 1) and is prosecuting studies in B.Sc. (Bio) having been admitted therein in July, 2005. He appeared in the examination of two subjects of third semester and was thereafter debarred from remaining subjects which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 2. Facts of this case are in very narrow compass. Petitioner took admission in July, 2005 in the course of B.Sc. (Bio). He appeared in the examination of first and second semester and was promoted to third semester. Admit card for appearing in the Examination of third semester was issued on 31-12-2006 vide Annexure/P-6. Examination of third semester commenced from 22-12-2006. Petitioner appeared in the examination of Hindi discipline on 22-12-2006 and English discipline on 23-12-2006. He was verbally informed and was not further allowed to appear in the examination of remaining subjects of third semester because he had secured 2.3 CGPA in place of the requisite CGPA at 5. It is alleged that after issuance of Admit Card in respect of the examination of third semester, the petitioner could not have been debarred from appearing even in the examination of remaining subjects. Secondly, one Vikas Pandey a student of B.Tech (Agricultural Engineering) (respondent No. 2) was allowed to be promoted to fourth semester despite having CGPA at 1.3. Petitioner who was having 2.3 CGPA was and is obviously entitled to appear in the examination of third semester and onwards. Accordingly, the action of the respondent No. 1 of debarring the petitioner is thus not only illegal and arbitrary but is equally unconstitutional on account of having been treated with hostile discrimination. In the light of the aforesaid averments following prayer has been mainly made :- (i) Hon'ble High Court be pleased to direct the first respondent to recall the verbal order restraining the petitioner to appear in papers of the third semester after 23-12-2006. (ii) Hon'ble High Court be further pleased to direct the first respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the fourth semester with a further direction to clear all the papers of first and second semesters. 3. Respondent No. 1 alone submitted its return refuting thereby the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is studying in third semester whereas Vikas Pandey (respondent No. 2) is studying in fourth semester. 3. Respondent No. 1 alone submitted its return refuting thereby the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner is studying in third semester whereas Vikas Pandey (respondent No. 2) is studying in fourth semester. It is stated that at the relevant time regulation 31 of Credit System Regulations (Annexure/R-1) provided that a student will have to obtain a minimum CGPA of 2.50 in order to move into the subsequent semester. It is further stated that the Standing Committee of respondent No. 1 on 26-5-2001 took a decision that the regulation of 2.5 CGPA would be effective after end of the second semester of first year. This decision was accepted by the Academic Council in its meeting on 25-8-2001. Accordingly, the Credit System Regulation of CGPA (Regulation 31) was applicable to the petitioner at the end of second semester of first year and the same was not applicable to respondent No. 2 (Vikas Pandey) at the end of third semester while promoting him to fourth semester. Since, the petitioner has obtained CGPA less than 2.5, he was not eligible to appear in the examination of third semester. Mistakenly he was allowed to appear in the examination of two subject of third semester. However, he was debarred when it was traced out that he was not qualified to appear in the examination of third semester. Thus, there is neither illegality nor arbitrariness in the action of respondent No. 1 while debarring the petitioner from the examination of third semester. Case of Vikas Pandey being distinguishable, there was no discrimination, nonetheless, hostile discrimination with the petitioner. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition is made. 4. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel and Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General made their respective submissions at length. 5. Both the contesting parties agreed that the relevant provision with regard to CGPA (Cumulative Overall Grade Point Average) were clauses 28 and 29 of the Credit System Regulations which are reproduced below :- "Clause 28. Minimum GPA to Continue The Course : A student shall have to obtain a minimum GPA of 2.5 out of 10 in each semester to continue the study. Clause 29. Minimum GPA to Continue The Course : A student shall have to obtain a minimum GPA of 2.5 out of 10 in each semester to continue the study. Clause 29. (a) The final statement of grades of the students shall classify his performance according to the following norms : CGPA CLASSIFICATION 8.5 to 10.0 1 class with Distinction 6.5 to 8.4 2 class 5.00 to 6.4 II class Below 5.0 Fail (b) Only those shall be included in the merit list who have passed with the subjects without any repeat or reappear examination." Clause 19.7 of Statute No. 19 of Course of Study and Institution of Degree and Diplomas lays down that the University shall, subject to the conditions laid down by the Academic Council and approved by the Board of Management grant all Degree and Diplomas as prescribed. Clause 7.8 of Statute No. 7 lays down that the Academic Council shall appoint a Standing Committee which may render advise on various matters. Ordinance No. 8 deals with the evaluation of courses of study for all Degrees, Diplomas and Certificates. It contains a provision as follows :- "Minimum CGPA required for degree : To qualify for a degree with division the student shall complete all the prescribed courses with CGPA of not less than 5.0 for professional courses and 4.5 for other courses." Standing Committee in its meeting on 26-5-2001 took a decision that the rule of CGPA at 2.5 would be applicable at the end of second semester of the first year but in the course of one year it would be applicable at the end of second semester. This decision was accepted by the Academic Council in its 11th meeting on 25-8-2001. Regulation 31 of the Credit System Regulation is also to the following effect :- "31. Minimum CGPA to Continue the Course : A student will have to obtain a minimum CGPA of 2.50 in order to move into the subsequent semester." From the aforesaid it is crystal clear that a student in order to make himself eligible for appearing in the examination of third semester must have obtained 2.5 CGPA and petitioner with 2.3 CGPA was having less than the requisite CGPA. 6. 6. Contention of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that respondent No. 1 having once issued Admit Card for third semester could not have prevented the petitioner and further having allowed to appear in two question papers of third semester could not have debarred the petitioner from appearing in the remaining question papers and the petitioner could not have been excluded from examination in the impugned manner. This apart, respondent No. 2 was promoted to appear in the fourth semester despite having 1.3 CGPA. This amounts to hostile discrimination prohibited by virtue of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to equal treatment and ought to have been permitted to appear in the remaining question papers of the examination of third semester. 7. Per contra Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General contended that the academic standards have been duly prescribed by making the regulations and provisions prescribing thereby CGPA at 2.5 for allowing a student to appear in the examination at the end of second semester. This cannot be relaxed in any manner and principles of estoppel in such matters has no application. 8. Question of CGPA and its effect came-up for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology and another vs. Gagandeep Sharma and another, (2001)9 SCC 157 . The relevant part of Clause 17(a) of Schedule I of Academic Regulations in that case was as follows :- "During academic year 1997-98, clause 17(a) of Schedule I of the Academic Regulations governing the appellant Institute required a student of the first year to repeat the examination if he fails to secure specified credits and/or specified grade and on inability to secure specified grade after repeating to leave the Institution. The relevant part of clause 17(a) at the material time in academic year 1997-98 was as follows :- " 17(a) A student will be required to repeat first year if (i) he fails to earn 40% of the credits offered in the approved scheme of courses for the first year; and/or (ii) he secures a CGPA of less than 4.00 at the end of first year. However, while repeating first year he will be exempted from repeating the courses in which the grade earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt. However, while repeating first year he will be exempted from repeating the courses in which the grade earned is A, B or C in the earlier attempt. If the student, after repeating first year under clause 17(a) is unable to secure a CGPA of 4.5, he will be required to leave the Institute." CGPA in that case was as follows :- "The level of performance in the course on a 10 point scale, providing for grade point for purposes of computing the Semester Grade Point Average (SGPA) and Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) is as follows : Letter Grade Performance Grade Point Average A Excellent 10 B Good 8 C Fair 6 D Poor 4 E Fail 2" 9. Students in the case of Thapar Institute (supra) secured CGPA below 4.5 and were required to leave the Institute in accordance with Clause 17(a). A writ petition was preferred in the High Court of Punjab and Harayana before the learned Single Judge for quashing the notification striking thereby the names of the students from the Rolls of the Institution. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, in appeal learned Division Bench reversed the Judgment and allowed the students to prosecute the studies in second year. It was further challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Learned Constitutional Bench while delivering the judgment observed that the students were required to secure CGPA of 4.5 and otherwise they were required to leave the Institute. Admittedly, they could not secure CGPA of 4.5. Their names were, thus, rightly struck of from the rolls of the Institute. It has been further observed :- "The Court would normally not interfere with such prescribed standards and especially when they are intended to improve the academic standards in their respective institutes. The scope of judicial review in such matters would be very limited." Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Division Bench was set aside and the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld. 10. In the case in hands, the petitioner had admittedly failed to secure 2.5 CGPA at the end of second semester of first academic year. Therefore, he was not eligible and/or qualified to appear in the examination of third semester. 11. 10. In the case in hands, the petitioner had admittedly failed to secure 2.5 CGPA at the end of second semester of first academic year. Therefore, he was not eligible and/or qualified to appear in the examination of third semester. 11. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel placed much reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shri Krishan vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376 to contend that once having issued the Admit Card and having further allowed to appear in two question papers of third semester, petitioner could not have been prevented from appearing in the remaining question papers. In case of Shri Krishan (supra), the student was allowed to appear in the examination and there was a mandatory provision of Clause (2)(b) of Kurukshetra University Calendar Volume I in which candidature could be withdrawn before the candidate took the examination. In view of this mandatory provision Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan (supra) held that once a student was allowed to appear in the examination, respondent had no jurisdiction to cancel his candidature for that examination. It was not a case where the declaration of result would have brought down the prescribed academic standards or the student was allowed to appear in the examination contrary to the academic standards prescribed by the University. 12. Further reliance has been placed on another Supreme Court decision in the case of Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others, (1990)3 SCC 23 . In this case the question involved was whether a student seeking admission in law degree course on the basis of degree of M.A. was eligible or not. 12. Further reliance has been placed on another Supreme Court decision in the case of Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others, (1990)3 SCC 23 . In this case the question involved was whether a student seeking admission in law degree course on the basis of degree of M.A. was eligible or not. After discussing the various provisions relating to qualification for seeking admission in law degree course, the Apex Court in paragraph 13 found : "Even though, therefore, for admission to the Law Course there is no requirement of any particular marks for post-graduate students like the appellant, and the appellant is entitled to be admitted under Regulation 1 in Chapter VIII of the said Regulations quoted earlier, the appellant satisfies the other qualification as well, viz., he has passed the M. A. examination with 36 per cent in the aggregate deducting 13 marks in one of the papers and is, therefore, duly qualified to be admitted to the Law Course." Again in paragraph-14 it has been observed :- "the aggregate of 40 per cent and above marks is required only for graduates and there is no requirement of any percentage of marks prescribed for the post-graduates." Thus from the aforesaid, it is clear that the admission to the petitioner in the case of Sanatan Gauda (supra) was not in contravention of the prescribed academic standards and the principles of estoppel could have applied in his favour. 13. Further reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh and others vs. State of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 10675/2007. In this case instead of sanctioned strength of 60 seats, 100 students were given admission for B.Ed, course. Principle of estoppel seems to have been rightly and conveniently applied because there was no question of lowering down of the prescribed academic standards. Thus, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable and have no application in the present case wherein allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination of third semester despite his ineligibility on the basis of prescribed academic standards, would amount to lowering down the educational standards. Principle of estoppel would not apply against the statutes, moreso, when it may yield a result of lowering down the prescribed academic standards. Principle of estoppel would not apply against the statutes, moreso, when it may yield a result of lowering down the prescribed academic standards. A student who is not eligible to appear in the examination for want of prescribed academic qualifications could not be allowed to appear in the examination even on the basis of principle of estoppel. It is true that Admit Card was issued and the petitioner was permitted to appear in two question papers of the examination of third semester despite his ineligibility. Petitioner despite his ineligibility was given an impression that he would be able to appear in the examination and he must have studied and prepared all the subjects with all seriousness and sincerity. Obviously, there is a serious lapse on the part of employees/officers of respondent No. 1 who issued Admit Card without properly scrutinizing the eligibility of the petitioner to appear in the examination of third semester. But, this will not make the petitioner eligible to appear in the third semester examination on account of shortage of prescribed CGPA at 2.5. If candidates ineligible due to having not secured prescribed academic standards are permitted to appear in the examination by applying principles of estoppel, the entire education system of the country would be at peril which would be virtually a national loss. Therefore, no leniency can be adopted in such matters against the interest of nation. Of-course, the petitioner who has undertaken the studies of third semester for the purpose of appearing in the examination may be compensated by cost. Accordingly, I impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on respondent No. 1 which would be payable to the petitioners within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Apart from the exemplary cost, it is further directed that in case, if the petitioner succeeds in the question papers of Hindi and English disciplines of third semester, marks obtained by him would be considered as valid in future and he will not be required to re-appear in those subjects during the examination of third semester. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 1 has also given a concession to this effect that respondent No. 1 will treat the marks as valid for the examination of third semester which is to be undertaken by the petitioner in future. 14. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 1 has also given a concession to this effect that respondent No. 1 will treat the marks as valid for the examination of third semester which is to be undertaken by the petitioner in future. 14. As regards question of discrimination, it may be firstly seen that in order to invoke this ground, the petitioner is first required to establish his own eligibility for appearing in third semester examination and thereafter alone he can complain about the discriminatory treatment with hostility. According to Annexure/R-2, the rule of CGPA at 2.5 has been made applicable to a student at the end of second semester of first year. Petitioner who is asserting his right to appear in third semester examination is obviously covered by it. Having secured less than 2.5 CGPA, he has been rightly found to be not entitled to appear in the examination of third semester and is further found to have been rightly debarred from appearing in the remaining papers. 15. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent University as well as its Academic Council have interpreted this provision so as to make it applicable at the end of even semester (i.e. 2nd, 4th and 6th semester) of every academic year (i.e. 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year). The interpretation put by them though is not fully in consonance with Annexure/R-2, but, cannot be obviously said to be contrary to it. Moreover, the interpretation put by respondent No. 1 does not seem to cause prejudice against the spirit and object of the said provision. In any case the petitioner having been found ineligible under this clause, is not going to be benefited in any manner and the interpretation put by respondent No. 1 is hereby kept open for being decided at appropriate occasion. 16. I may profitably refer to the following observations from the order of learned Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 2514/2002 (PIL) :- "Grievance of petitioners is against Rule 3.7 of Admission Rules annexed A/P5 to the petition. The petitioners want that there should be no restriction for candidates to appear in the examination irrespective of the fact that they have not cleared all the semesters in the past. The petitioners want that there should be no restriction for candidates to appear in the examination irrespective of the fact that they have not cleared all the semesters in the past. Already, Rule 3.7 gives concession to a candidate to appear in succeeding semester though he has not cleared the preceding semester, but in any case he has to clear all the semesters before result of sixth and final semester is declared, including the Project Work. The provision is salutary, object being to tone up efficiency and hard work by the candidates, otherwise giving laxity may create curious situation when candidate, though failing semester after semester, reaches the final semester. Apart from the Institution, it should be beneficial to the candidates also so that they clear the course of study by clearing the semester regularly and punctually. Above all, it is being academic matter, should be left to the academicians and Court should not interfere with such matters." 16. In the result, the petition for want of merits is dismissed in the aforesaid manner. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.