JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation Training and Research (SVNIRTAR), Olatpur in the district of Cuttack and National Institute for the Orthopedically Handicapped (NIOH), B.T. Road, Koklata are the institutes under the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, established to impart education in the subjects, Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT), Bachelor of Occupational Therapy (BOT) and Bachelor of Prosthetics and Orthotics (BPO). For admission to the said course for the session 2016, SVNIRTAR conducted Common Entrance Test (2016) (CET-2016) by publishing information brochure and application form to be available in the website i.e. www.svnirtar.nic.in. The last date of submission of application form was 23.05.2016. The date of entrance examination was 26.06.2016 and the tentative date for declaration of result was 20.07.2016. The petitioner having got the requisite qualification, i.e., 10+2 in Science applied for the aforesaid courses in the prescribed form by downloading the same from the website and her application having been found in order, she was permitted to appear CET- 2016 on 26.06.2016 in B.J.B. College, Bhubaneswar Centre. The merit list was published on 20.07.2016 in the website and the petitioner also received a letter being Ref. No. DA IA 01/CET- 2016 dated 27.07.2016 of the Chairman, CET-2016-cum- Director for Counseling–cum-Admission for BPT/BOT/BPO course for the academic year 2016-17 through CET-2016 on 30.08.2016. The petitioner’s Roll No. UG-G-01-676 had been indicated in the merit list having secured common rank of 228. She was informed that she was declared provisionally qualified/wait listed as per the common Rank No. 228 in the merit list prepared on the basis of performance in CET-2016 conducted by the SVNIRTAR on 20.06.2016 for admission to one of the mentioned courses at SVNIRTAR, Cuttack or NIOH, Kolkata. Accordingly, she was directed to report at SVNIRTAR, Olatpur, Cuttack for counseling-cum-admission at 9 a.m. on 30.08.2016. It was also indicated that the allotment of course would be exclusively depend upon her rank in the merit list of CET-2016, according to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the prospectus and the number of seats available in each course in respective institutes. On 30.08.2016, as per the rank of the petitioner, she was allotted a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. On 30.08.2016, as per the rank of the petitioner, she was allotted a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. But, at the time of document verification, the NIOH counseling officials found that she had not secured 50% of marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology (PCB) in qualifying +2 Science Examination, which is eligibility criteria for admission into the said course. Further, it is stated that she has secured 149 marks in PCB out of 300 marks, which is below 50% and she has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for taking admission to BPT course at NIOH, Kolkata as per “Academic Qualification” published in Clause 4.3 of the prospectus. The parents of the petitioner, referring to sub-point no.9 of point no.20 of the prospectus, though stated that marks should be rounded up to the nearest whole number, the said points are mentioned for guideline to fill up the form in the column no. 9 and 10 of the application form making round up the nearest whole number and that is not considering the eligibility criteria in the academic qualification, thus the petitioner has been denied to take admission and accordingly her candidature has been rejected having not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per prospectus CET-2016. Hence, this application. 2. Mr. R.C. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner states that Clause-4.3 of the prospectus indicates the academic qualification wherein it has been specifically mentioned that minimum aggregate of 50% marks in PCB in +2 Science Examination has to be acquired by the general category candidate to satisfy the requirement of eligibility criteria for admission to BPT, BOT and BPO courses. It is further urged that as per Clause-9 the marks should be rounded up to nearest whole number. It is further urged that as per Clause-9 the marks should be rounded up to nearest whole number. Therefore, the petitioner having secured 149 marks in the subjects PCB, which is one mark short to 50% marks in aggregate out of total mark of 300, applying the provisions contained in Clasuse-9 the same has been rounded up to 150 so as to make the petitioner eligible to appear in CET- 2016 and she has been qualified in the entrance test having stood in serial no.228 in the merit list, the committee allotted a seat to her at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category, subsequently the authority cannot turn around stating that the petitioner having not fulfilled the eligibility criteria in academic qualification as per prospectus of CET-2016 she is denied the admission by rejecting her candidature. Such action of the authority his hit by principle of estoppel. Therefore, seeks for interference of this Court. 3. Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties strenuously urged before this Court that as per Clause-4.3 of the Admission Bulletin of the CET-2016 wherein the eligibility criteria of the qualifying examination in +2 Science has been mentioned which clearly specifies that the students would be eligible in taking admission to BPT/BOT/BPO courses on production of documentary evidence of having passed the qualifying examination with required percentage. The petitioner having not satisfied the required qualification of securing 50% marks in PCB in +2 Science, she has not satisfied the requirement of eligibility criteria. As per Clause-9, rounding up of mark to the nearest whole number is only meant for filling up of the application form which has no nexus with the eligibility criteria of the candidate. Therefore, the authorities are justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the aforesaid course. To substantiate his argument, reliance has been placed on the judgments in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 : 2011 (2) OLR (SC) 585, and Kabita Dhal v. State of Orissa, 2014 (II) OLR 290 . 4. We have heard Mr. R.C. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite parties. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, taking into consideration the urgency in the matter, this writ petition is heard at the stage of admission and is disposed of finally. 5. 4. We have heard Mr. R.C. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite parties. Pleadings having been exchanged between the parties, taking into consideration the urgency in the matter, this writ petition is heard at the stage of admission and is disposed of finally. 5. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, admittedly the petitioner had applied for admission into BPT/BOT/BPO courses of SVNIRTAR, Cuttack and NIOH, Kolkata. A common entrance test described as CET-2016 was conducted by the SVNIRTAR, Cuttack and the petitioner having applied for admission to the said courses well within time, the same has been considered and she has been allowed to appear in the entrance examination on the date fixed, i.e., 26.06.2016 in which she has been placed at serial no.228 in the merit list and accordingly she has been called upon to appear in the counseling on 30.08.2016. On the basis of her rank, she has been allotted a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. But, her candidate has been rejected, as she has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per the prospectus of CET-2016. 6. Clause-4 of the Admission Bulletin for CET-2016 deals with eligibility condition. Clause-4.3, which deals with academic qualification, being relevant, is extracted hereunder: “4.3 ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION COURSE DURATION ELIGIBILITY B.P.T. 4yrs. + 6 months 10+2 (Higher/Senior Secondary Examination) I. Sc. Or equivalent recognized examination with subjects- Physics (P), Chemistry(C), Biology (B) and English with minimum aggregate of 50% in PCB when taken together for General/OBC and 40% for SC/ST & PH candidates. B.O.T. 4yrs + 6 months 10+2 (Higher/Senior Secondary Examination) I. Sc or equivalent recognized examination with subjects–Physics (P), Chemistry (C), Biology (B) AND English with minimum aggregate of 50% in PCB when taken together for General/OBC and 40% for SC/ST & PH candidates. B.P.O. 4yrs. + 6 months 10+2 (Higher/Senior Secondary Examination) I Sc or equivalent-recognized examination with subjects Physics (P), Chemistry(C), Biology (B) OR Mathematics (M) AND English with minimum aggregate of 50% in PCB/PCM when taken together for General/OBC and 40% for SC/ ST & PH candidates.” 7. Clause-20 deals with instructions for completion & submission of offline (manual) application form. B.P.O. 4yrs. + 6 months 10+2 (Higher/Senior Secondary Examination) I Sc or equivalent-recognized examination with subjects Physics (P), Chemistry(C), Biology (B) OR Mathematics (M) AND English with minimum aggregate of 50% in PCB/PCM when taken together for General/OBC and 40% for SC/ ST & PH candidates.” 7. Clause-20 deals with instructions for completion & submission of offline (manual) application form. Sub-clause (9) of Clause-20 states about marks in qualifying examination (10+2), which reads thus: “9.MARKS IN QUALIFYING EXAMINATION (10+2) Kindly fill in the appropriate subject and percentage of marks obtained in the 10+2 (qualifying examination). The original mark sheet will have to be produced at the time of counselling/admission. If the candidate is appearing in 10+2 in this academic year, then put zero in the relevant box. The marks should be rounded of the nearest whole number.” 8. The petitioner having qualified in the CET-2016 she has been allotted a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. But, at the time of document verification NIOH officials have found that she has not secured 50% marks in PCB in qualifying +2 Science Examination, which is eligible criteria for admission to BPT stream as per prospectus for general category candidate, since she has secured 149 marks in PCB out of total marks of 300, which is below 50% for taking admission to BPT at NIOH, Kolkata as per the academic qualification prescribed in the prospectus Clause 4.3. As per sub-clause-(9) of Clause-20, the marks should be rounded up to nearest whole number. It is stated that the same can only be available to fill up the forms in Column-9 and 10 of the application form and not for considering the eligibility criteria in the academic qualification. In view of such position, in the counter affidavit the opposite parties have reiterated the same issue and denied the admission to the petitioner to the said course, though she has been selected for the same. 9. On a perusal of sub-clause-9 of Clause-20, it would be seen nothing has been provided therein that it would be considered for filling up the forms and not for other purpose. But, in the counter affidavit in paragraph-7 a clarification has been made by the authority stating that the rounding up of marks is only applicable for filling up the forms. The subsequent clarification given in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. But, in the counter affidavit in paragraph-7 a clarification has been made by the authority stating that the rounding up of marks is only applicable for filling up the forms. The subsequent clarification given in the counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. Rather, the clause itself on its face value has to be taken into account. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851 , the Constitution Bench of the apex Court in Para-8 held as follows: “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". “….when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an-order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” In view of such position, any explanation given subsequently by way of counter affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. 10. In Mamata Mohanty (supra) the apex Court held that the minimum qualification prescribed should be adhered to and there should not be any relaxation in such qualification, which has no application to the present context. 11. In Kabita Dhal (supra) relying upon a circular issued by Government of Orissa in Education and Youth Services Department dated 25.07.1989 the percentage of marks secured in Master’s Degree Examination has been directed to be rounded up to nearest whole number. Consequentially, the petitioner in the said case, who had secured 54.6% of marks got the benefit of rounding up mark to nearest whole number as 55% so as to eligible her to receive grant-in-aid. The said case is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. 12. Consequentially, the petitioner in the said case, who had secured 54.6% of marks got the benefit of rounding up mark to nearest whole number as 55% so as to eligible her to receive grant-in-aid. The said case is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. 12. Clause 4.3 though specifies that minimum aggregate of 50% marks in PCB had to be taken together for general category students, on perusal of the mark-sheet of the petitioner it would be seen that she has secured 44 marks out of 100 in Physics, 47 marks out of 100 in Chemistry, 23 marks out of 50 in Botany, 35 marks out of 50 in Zoology in the Annual +2 Examination, 2016. Therefore, she has secured 149 marks in PCB out of 300 marks in three subjects. The 50% marks being 150, one mark to be rounded up to the nearest whole number as 50% to be considered as 150 for admission to the course. 13. Clause 9 specifically deals with marks in qualifying examination, i.e., 10+2. Therefore, taking into consideration the marks awarded in PCB, the petitioner having secured 149 marks, the same should be rounded up to the nearest whole number, i.e., 150 in consonance with the said clause. Nothing has been mentioned that the rounded up to the nearest whole number has to be considered for the purpose of filling up of the application form, rather the sentence “the marks should be rounded up to the nearest whole number” is independent of the said clause and thereby the petitioner will get the advantage of such clause by rounding up of her mark to the nearest whole number as 150. If that will be taken into consideration, then the petitioner has satisfied the minimum qualifying marks for getting herself admitted into the course. More so, the petitioner has been selected for admission into the course by allotting a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT in general category. Once the selection committee has considered her case taking into consideration the merit list, subsequently they cannot turn around and say that the petitioner is not eligible having not satisfied the eligibility criteria as per the prospectus of CET- 2016. The same is hit by principle of estoppel. 14. Once the selection committee has considered her case taking into consideration the merit list, subsequently they cannot turn around and say that the petitioner is not eligible having not satisfied the eligibility criteria as per the prospectus of CET- 2016. The same is hit by principle of estoppel. 14. The meaning of estoppel has been described in Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition as a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true. In B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355 the apex Court held ‘Estoppel’ is based on the maxim allegans contrarir non est audiendus (a party is not to be heard contrary) and is the spicy of presumption juries et de jure (absolute, or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption). Subsequently, in H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank, (2010) 12 SCC 458 , the apex Court held that In general words, estoppel is a principle applicable when one person induces another or intentionally causes the other person to believe something to be true and to act upon such belief as to change his/her position. In such a case, the former shall be estopped from going back on the word given. The principle of estoppel is only applicable in cases where the other party has changed his positions relying upon the representation thereby made. 15. In Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, AIR 1990 SC 1075 the apex Court considered that the candidate passing M.A. Examination with 36% marks in the aggregate is duly qualified to be admitted to law course. The petitioner in the said case having not acquired such qualification was admitted to Pre-Law course and permitted to appear in the examination and thereafter Inter-Law Examination. But, subsequently, when the University refused to declare the result on the ground of ineligibility to be admitted to Law course, the apex Court held that the same is barred by principle of estoppel. 16. In Dr. (Smt.) Pranaya Ballari Mohanty v. Utkal University, AIR 2014 ORISSA 26, the petitioner therein having appeared in I.A., B.A., and M.A. Examinations as a regular candidate and also as a Non-Collegiate (Private) candidate by producing the said registration number, subsequently the cancellation of result in M.A. (Odia) as a Non-Collegiate candidate in the year 1991 cannot sustain by applying the principle of promissory estoppel. In para-14 of the said judgment the Court observed as follows: “The principle of promissory estoppel has been considered by the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. M/s.Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., AIR 1968 SC 718 , Chowgule and Company (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1971 SC 2021 , M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1979 SC 621 , Union of India and others v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 806 , Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 2414 , Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181 and many other subsequent decisions also.” 17. In Miss Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University, 1992 (II) OLR 341 this Court held that once a student has been declared passed and has taken admission to another course it implies that he has changed his position, his result cannot be changed or altered or cancelled by the authorities. 18. In David C. Jhan v. Principal Ispat College, Rourkela, 1984 (I) OLR 564 this Court by applying the law of estoppel directed the Board authorities not to cancel the result of the students who had already taken admission to the I.A. classes. 19. Applying the above principle to the present context, as the petitioner furnished all the documents in her application form for appearing in the CET-2016 examination and on consideration of the same she has been issued with an admit card to appear in the entrance examination and she having been qualified and called upon to participate in the counseling and, accordingly, she has been allotted a seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course as a general category candidate, subsequently, she cannot be denied admission on the pretext that she has not secured 50 % marks in PCB. If the mark secured in PCB, i.e., 149 out of 300, is rounded up to the nearest whole number, it will become 150, which is 50% of the mark 300. Consequentially, the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of the eligibility criteria to admit into the NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. If the mark secured in PCB, i.e., 149 out of 300, is rounded up to the nearest whole number, it will become 150, which is 50% of the mark 300. Consequentially, the petitioner has satisfied the requirement of the eligibility criteria to admit into the NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. In our considered view, applying the principle of estoppels and Sub-clause-9 of Clause-20 of the prospectus, the petitioner, having satisfied the eligibility criteria, is entitled to be admitted to her allotted seat at NIOH, Kolkata for BPT course in general category. Thus, it is directed that she should be admitted forthwith, preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of the certified copy of the judgment. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.