R.A.Sharma - (1.) PETITIONER No. 1, Shikshak Abbibhavak Sangh, which is an Association of the guardians of the students, studying ,in Jai Narain Inter Collage, Varanasi (here-in-after referred to as college) along with its Vice President (petitioner no. 2) and two students of High School and Intermediate classes of the college of (petitioners no 3 and 4) have filed this writ petition in a representative capacity on behalf of 31 girl students of Intermediate class and 56 girl students of High School of the college, who had appeared in High School and Intermediate examinations of 1990 as regular candidates of the college and whose examinations have been cancelled by the impugned order, on the ground that admission of these girl students in the college were illegal, as the college was boys' college, where girl students could not be admitted
(2.) WHEN this writ petition was presented on 22-6-1990 this Court granted time to learned Standing counsel for filing the counter affidavit on behalf of respondents. Counter affidavit and having been filed the learned Standing counsel was granted ten days further time, and no more time, by this court on 23-7-1*90. But no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents so far. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and the writ petition is being disposed (sic) Rules of the Court. Girl students of High School and Intermediate classes, whose Roll numbers have been given in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, were regular students of the college and had submitted the examination forms of High School and Intermediate examination of 1990 and had also deposited the requisite fees within time. These forms were, after due scrutiny, forwarded by principal of the college to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. (hereinafter referred to as Board). The Board after scrutinising the forms, issued Admit-cards of the girl-students and also allotted them examination centre. All these students appeared in their respective High School and Intermediate examinations. The Board declared the result of Intermediate examination and High School examination on 29-5- 1990 and 12-6-1990 respectively in local news paper. In that news-paper against the Roll numbers of girl-students in question the word "C" was written meaning thereby that their candidature has been cancelled. Thereafter enquiry was made and then it was learnt that Board sent letter dated 5-5- 1990 to the Principal of the college asking him to explain as to how girl students were admitted in the college when the college was boys-institution. It was further mentioned in the letter that even in the post girl students have been admitted by the college and have appeared in Board examination and were declared pass. The letter has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is clear that girl-students used to be admitted in the college even in the past years and they also appeared in the examinations conducted by the Board and were declared successful No action has been taken by the Board against those girl-students who appeared in the past in the examination and were declared successful. The girl-students in question also got themselves admitted in the college, as the college has admitted girl-students for the last several years. The college accepted the examination-forms, forwarded them to the Board and Board accepted those forms and issued them Admit cards and allotted examination centres. The Board had sufficient time at their disposal to scrutinise the forms and find out whether the admission of the girl-students in the college was justified or not. Having permitted these students to study in the college on payment of substantial fees and to appear in the examination of Board, it is highly, unfair and unjustified on the part of the Board to cancel their candidature in the examination. Principle of promissory estoppel are applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case in as much as all these students have changed their position by spending money and time and appeared in the examination and if their result is cancelled it will work very hard and likely to jeopardise their future.
(3.) SUPREME Court in Shri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, ALR 1976 SC 376, while considering to some what similar case, has held that. "Once the appellant was allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly, then the statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant has worked itself out and the applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear." In Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University, JT 1990 (2) 57, the University withheld the result of a student of Pre Law and Inter-Law examinations on the ground that he was not eligible for admission to the Law course. SUPREME Court struck down the action of the University on the ground that the student having been admitted by the University cannot be punished for negligence of the University authorities in scrutinising the relevant records before permitting him to appear in the examination. Relevant extracts of the judgment is quoted below ; "This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along wiih the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre Law and Intermediate Law Examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the Final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre Law and Inter- Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his co-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the result of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course." It was further observed that the student cannot be punished for in-action and negligence on the part of the University, and it was the duty of the authorities of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the student to appear in the examination and not having done so, it cannot refuse to declare the result. A Division Bench of this Court in Raj Nath Singh Yadav v. Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishau, Uttar Pradesh, 1987 ALJ 388, have also quashed the order cancelling the result of a student on the ground of delayed action. It is obvious that mistake, if any, in permitting these girl-students to study in and appear as regular student of the college in the examination conducted by the Board, is that of the college and officials of the Board. These girls are not to be blamed because the college was admitting the girl students in the past and Board has permitted them to appear in its examination. These students could have no reasons to believe that their admission in the college is wrong. If it is the mistake of the college and officials of the Board then who is to be punished. Definitely not these girls who are in no way responsible. Punishing some one for the mistake of some one else is highly objectionable, arbitrary and illegal. Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda's case (supra) has also laid down that authorities. "Cannot punish students for negligence of the Principal of the University authorities.........It was bounded duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter throughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results." This court also in P. K. Dubey v. University of Kanpur, 1990 AC/508,'has reiterated the same position by holding. "who is to be punished and who is to suffer for the mistake of the University in issuing incorrect mark-sheet. Mistakes can be corrected by the authorities at any time provided some other person has not changed his position on the basis of those mistakes. Equities are to be adjusted in favour of one who suffer most, if the mistakes are permitted to be corrected. No body will be allowed to suffer for the mistakes of others. In all fairness the University is to be estopped from refusing to declare the result of B.Sc. Part II of the petitioner." These principles equally apply, with all force, to the present case.;