JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Chandra Kant, Sri Amique Khalid and Sri S.A. Murtaza, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, the learned counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University. 2. Since a common question is involved in all these writ petitions, the same is being decided by a common judgment. It is however being made clear, that this judgment is based on the particular facts and circumstances of the present case, and will not be treated as a precedent for other cases. 3. The petitioners applied for admission in M.A. History in Aligarh Muslim University for the academic session 2009-10. As per the admission guidelines, the candidates were required to undergo a departmental test, which was conducted on 22.6.2009, and thereafter a select list and a Chance Memo list was prepared. The petitioners’ name were either found in the select list or in the Chance Memo list, and based on the aforesaid two lists, the petitioners were granted admission on 2.8.2009, except in the case of Abdul Qadir Jilani whose name was found in the Chance Memo list, but could not be admitted as the seats were exhausted. All the other petitioners were given admission on the basis of which they deposited the admission fee, etc. and some of the petitioners were also allotted a hostel for residential purposes. 4. It is alleged, that the Vice Chancellor, by an order dated 12.8.2009 cancelled the select list and Chance Memo list and directed the Admission Committee and its delegated authorities to prepare a fresh select list and Chance Memo list, on the basis of the departmental examination. A fresh select list was duly prepared on 13.8.2009 in which the names of the petitioners, who were earlier in the select list were now placed in the chance memo list. It is alleged that the Admission Committee was held on 20.8.2009, on which date the selection process was completed and the petitioners could not be given admission. 5. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition contending that no fraud was committed on their part and that they were validly admitted as per the earlier select list/Chance Memo list and had deposited their fees and therefore, the cancellation of their admission and subsequent preparation of a fresh select and Chance Memo List was wholly arbitrary. 6. The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition contending that no fraud was committed on their part and that they were validly admitted as per the earlier select list/Chance Memo list and had deposited their fees and therefore, the cancellation of their admission and subsequent preparation of a fresh select and Chance Memo List was wholly arbitrary. 6. The petitioners contended that in the absence of any fraud being played by them and, in the event a mistake was committed at the behest of the University authorities, the petitioners should not be allowed to suffer and that the authorities were estopped from cancelling their admission, since in the meanwhile, a vested right had accrued upon the petitioners. The petitioners submitted that they had also applied in other courses in the University as well as in other Universities in which they were given a firm offer of admission but since the petitioners chose to pursue the course in M.A. History, they had forgone the admission in other courses. But, now as a result of the cancellation of their admission in M.A. History, the petitioners have lost their chance in seeking admission in other courses where firm offer for admission was given to them since the admission in these courses have now been completed. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for a writ of certiorari for the quashing the order of the Vice Chancellor/controller examination dated 12.8.2009, cancelling their admission and further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give admission to the petitioners, in M.A. History, in Aligarh Muslim University. 7. The case of Abdul Qadir Jilani, the petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 45825 of 2009, is slightly different. The said petitioner also appeared in the departmental examination and his name was found at Sl. No. 15 of the Chance Memo list. It is alleged that the Chance Memo list was interpolated. It is alleged that when the select list was exhausted there were 11 vacancies and that the petitioners being placed at Sl. No. 15 had a legitimate expectation to get an admission in the course. No. 15 of the Chance Memo list. It is alleged that the Chance Memo list was interpolated. It is alleged that when the select list was exhausted there were 11 vacancies and that the petitioners being placed at Sl. No. 15 had a legitimate expectation to get an admission in the course. It is alleged that, between 3.8.2009 and 12.8.2009, the Chance Memo list was interpolated and the names of certain candidates were added at Sl.No. 4A and 6A and thereafter at various places in the Chance Memo list, as a result of which, the petitioner alleges that his name in the Chance Memo list went further down which resulted in admission being granted to other ineligible candidates to the detriment of the petitioner. The petitioner consequently filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order of the authorities cancelling the admission and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant admission to him. 8. This Court had directed the Aligarh Muslim University to file a counter-affidavit and also produce the original records in relation to the admission process as well as the first select list, Chance Memo List and the second select list and the second Chance Memo list. A counter-affidavit has been filed and the learned counsel for the University has submitted that the original records are with her. 9. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that 153 applications were filled up by candidates for admission in M.A. History, out of which 111 candidates appeared in the test. Upon the declaration of the results and before preparation of the merit list, the scrutinizer rejected 57 application forms on the ground that the mark sheet of the qualifying examination had not been filed by the candidates along with their application forms. As a result of the rejection of these 57 applications, a merit list was prepared from the remaining 54 candidates and, on that basis, the admissions were taken from the select list and thereafter the process for admission from the Chance Memo list had started when the University started receiving the representations from various students. It is at that stage that the University authorities realised their mistake and, upon an inquiry, found that the scrutiniser had wrongly rejected 57 applications on the ground of non submission of the mark sheet of the qualifying examination. It is at that stage that the University authorities realised their mistake and, upon an inquiry, found that the scrutiniser had wrongly rejected 57 applications on the ground of non submission of the mark sheet of the qualifying examination. The University found that as per the admission guidelines, an attested photo copy of the mark sheet was required to be submitted by the candidate at the time of filling up the application form. Realising their mistake, the candidates whose applications were rejected were reconsidered and those who became eligible, their names were inserted in the Chance Memo list and a direction was issued to consider their names while filling up the remaining seats. But, the University and its authorities realised that this process again created certain anomalies, inasmuch as, certain candidates, who had lower marks had already been admitted from the select list and that the persons whose names had been inserted in the Chance Memo list had more marks than those candidates who had already been granted admission. The University realised that there was every possibility that the seats would be filled up and the candidates who had more marks may not be granted admission. Realising the faux pas made by the University, the Vice-Chancellor directed the Controller of examination to submit a report and based on the said report, the Vice-Chancellor, by an order dated 12.8.2009, cancelled the select list and the Chance Memo list, as well as the the admission of the students which was based on the select list and the Chance Memo list. The Vice-Chancellor further issued a direction to prepare a fresh select list and Chance Memo list strictly on the basis of merit and as per the guidelines pursuant to the departmental examination. The Vice-Chancellor also directed to hold an inquiry against the erring officials. 10. Based on the aforesaid direction, a fresh select list and Chance Memo list was prepared on 13.8.2009 and was displayed at conspicuous places indicting that fresh admissions could be held on 20.8.2009. The record suggests that the University intimated each and every applicant not only by post but also by telegram and also telephonically intimated them that their admissions have been cancelled and they are required to appear afresh before the Admission Committee on 20.8.2009. The record suggests that the University intimated each and every applicant not only by post but also by telegram and also telephonically intimated them that their admissions have been cancelled and they are required to appear afresh before the Admission Committee on 20.8.2009. The record further suggests that all the candidates who had been granted admission from the first select list and the first Chance Memo list, again presented themselves for admission, including the petitioners, before the Admission Committee on 20.8.2009. The record further suggests that the candidates who had higher marks from that of the petitioners were given admission in the course and since the seats were exhausted, the petitioners could not be given admission. 11. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since no fault was committed by the petitioners and the fault was solely committed by the University and, in view of the fact that the petitioners had already deposited their fees and in view of the fact that the petitioners was offered firm admission in other courses not only in this University but in other Universities, consequently, the University should be estopped from cancelling their admissions. In so far as the petitioner Abdul Qadir Jilani is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Kant, submitted that in view of the past practice of the University wherein more than 50% of the candidates mentioned in the Chance Memo list are admitted, the petitioner, consequently, as per the past practice had the legitimate expectation that he would be granted admission in the course, but on account of interpolation being made in the Chance Memo List, the petitioner was denied a legitimate chance of getting admitted in the course. 12. In so far as the stand of the University is concerned, they admitted that there had been an error in the preparation of the select list and Chance Memo list and that, after an enquiry, the Vice-Chancellor was competent to cancel the select list and admission granted on the basis of that select list. Since the mistake was detected at the initial stage, no vested right accrued upon the petitioners nor had they suffered any kind of a loss. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the fee which they had deposited would be refunded to the students. 13. Since the mistake was detected at the initial stage, no vested right accrued upon the petitioners nor had they suffered any kind of a loss. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the fee which they had deposited would be refunded to the students. 13. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the University, the Court is of the opinion, that the cancellation of the select list and the Chance Memo list by the Vice-Chancellor was neither arbitrary nor malafide and that the Vice-Chancellor had rightly cancelled the select list as well as the admission made on the basis of the said select list and the Chance Memo list in view of the fact, that the select list was prepared in violation of the admission guide lines. The record clearly indicates that the select list and the Chance Memo list was prepared after excluding the application forms of those candidates who had not submitted their mark sheet of the qualifying examination. The admission guidelines clearly indicate that the qualifying mark sheet was required to be submitted by the candidates at the time of the admission and not at the time of the submission of their application forms. Consequently, the exclusion of the names of 57 candidates was clearly illegal and, when this mistake was detected by the University, the Vice-Chancellor did the right thing in immediately issuing a direction to investigate the matter and thereafter cancelling the select list and the admission. The record further suggests that intimation to all the candidates were sent asking them to report again for admission on 20.8.2009 and apply afresh for admission on the basis of the fresh select list and the Chance Memo list. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the fresh select list and Chance Memo list prepared again by the University was incorrect or that it was not based on the marks obtained by the candidates. 14. In the light of the aforesaid, the University was justified in refusing to grant admission to the petitioners, who were earlier granted admission and subsequently their admissions were cancelled but the Court cannot throw out their petitions at this stage. The Court finds that one of the petitioners was also granted admission by the Aligarh Muslim University in M.Sc. Museology. In the light of the aforesaid, the University was justified in refusing to grant admission to the petitioners, who were earlier granted admission and subsequently their admissions were cancelled but the Court cannot throw out their petitions at this stage. The Court finds that one of the petitioners was also granted admission by the Aligarh Muslim University in M.Sc. Museology. The said petitioner chose M.A. History, since his name was also found in the select list and was admitted but upon cancellation of his admission he lost his chance for admission in M.Sc. Museology, since the last date for admission in that course had expired. Similarly, other petitioners have stated that they had received firm offers for admission in other courses in other Universities but chose M.A. History and on account of the cancellation of their admission, they have lost their chance for seeking admission in other University since the admission process has come to an end in those Universities. 15. In Rajesh Singh and others v. Purvanchal Vishwavidyalaya, Jaunpur and another, 1999(1)AWC 404, the Court found that the petitioners could not be made to suffer for the mistake committed by the University and held, that the University was estopped from cancelling their admission. The Court came to the conclusion after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court and held, that the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the University. 16. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, 1986(Supp.) SCC 740, the students were admitted even though they were not eligible for admission. The Supreme Court held that the fault lay with the authority while admitting the students and that there was no reason why the students should be made to suffer from a wrong decision taken by the management of the College. The Supreme Court directed the students to continue with their studies in the College in which they were granted admission. Similarly in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others, 1990(3) SCC 23 , the Supreme Court held that the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the University observing that the University could not punish a student for the negligence committed by the University. 17. Similarly in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others, 1990(3) SCC 23 , the Supreme Court held that the principle of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the University observing that the University could not punish a student for the negligence committed by the University. 17. In the light of the aforesaid and in view of the fact that the petitioners have lost their chance in seeking admission in the firm offers given to them by other Universities, the Court if of the opinion that in the special facts and the circumstances of the present case, the University should grant admission to the petitioners (except Abdul Qadir Jilani) in M.A. History. 18. In so far as the case of Abdul Qadir Jilani is concerned, the Court finds that the petitioner was not granted admission from the first Chance Memo list and therefore, his legitimate expectation did not materialize even from the first Chance Memo list. The petitioner has alleged manipulation in the said Chance Memo list. The Court has scrutinized the record and finds that a genuine mistake had been committed by the University which led to the cancellation of the merit list and the Chance Memo list. No doubt the names were added in the Chance Memo list, but those additions were made to include those names which were left out erroneously, but subsequently, the University itself realized that by adding the names of those candidates in the Chance Memo list would not validate the select list and consequently, the Vice-Chancellor was justified in cancelling the select list as well as the Chance Memo list and issuing a direction for the preparation of a fresh select list and Chance Memo list. Since the petitioner, Abdul Qadir Jilani was not given admission either from the first Chance Memo list or from the second Chance Memo list, no case is made out, whereby he could be granted admission on the basis of his legitimate expectation. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan , 2003(3) SCC 486, wherein it was held : “A case of substantive legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its power to fulfil.” 20. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan , 2003(3) SCC 486, wherein it was held : “A case of substantive legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its power to fulfil.” 20. On this basis, the learned counsel submitted that as per the past practice, most of the students in the Chance Memo list were granted admission and therefore, his name having appeared in the Chance Memo list aroused a legitimate expectation to the petitioner to get admission in the University and which resulted in the filing of the present writ petition. 21. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. The legitimate expectation is not the same thing as anticipation. It is different from a mere wish. It is different from a mere desire. It is different from a hope. It is not a claim which is based on a right. The fact that the petitioner’s name crops up in the Chance Memo list does not give him an indefeasible right for admission. The letter issued to the petitioner intimating him that his name finds place in the Chance Memo list is only an intimation that, if he so desires may take a chance and appear before the Admission Committee on a particular date and if there are seats available he could be considered. Such an intimation cannot be called a legitimate expectation nor can such legitimate expectation be inferred since it is not based on the sanction of law or established procedure. The mere fact that the petitioners could be selected would not give rise to a legal consequence of claiming legitimate expectation. In the present case, the Court finds that the Vice Chancellor had rightly taken an action for cancellation of the select list which was in public interest. The petitioner’s case for protection of his legitimate expectation, in my opinion, cannot over ride the public interest. There is nothing to indicate that the legitimate expectation was improperly denied to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner, Abdul Qadir Jilani, does not hold any merit nor can he be granted an admission on the principles of legitimate expectation. 22. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition Nos. There is nothing to indicate that the legitimate expectation was improperly denied to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner, Abdul Qadir Jilani, does not hold any merit nor can he be granted an admission on the principles of legitimate expectation. 22. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition Nos. 45827 of 2009, 45849 of 2009 and 47736 of 2009 are allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the University to admit the petitioners in M.A. History within a week from the date of the presentation of a certified copy of this order. In the event the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 45849 of 2009 opts for M.Sc. Museology, the University would consider the same. In so far as the Writ Petition No. 45825 of 2009, in the matter of Abdul Qadir Jilani is concerned, the said writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the facts and the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own cost. ————