D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) IN this case, the petitioner contends that by reason of an endorsement made on her application dated 11th April 1994 recommended by the Principal which is Annexure '1' to the writ petition, the petitioner was permitted admission is M.Sc. though she did not satisfy the condition laid down in para. 10(3) of Chapter II of the Ordinance of the Kanpur University She alleges that she thereafter appeared in the examination but her result has been withheld. The respondent contends that the petitioner was never permitted admission neither she was allowed to appear in the examination. The letter contained in Annexure '1' is not available on the record of the University. The Vice -Chancellor who had alleged to have endorsed has already retired. Therefore, the petitioner can not get the benefit of her appearance in the examination. He relied on the judgment in the case of Alok Kumar Bhardwaj v. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and others, (1994) 3 UPLBEC 2035 and contends that in such cases, if leniency is shown, in that event, it would encourage the students to seek admission by whatever means he can on the belief that the same would be regularised through court process Such a situation has been deprecated in the said judgment. On the other hand, Mr. B.N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner contends that since she has been allowed admission and permitted to appear in the examination, therefore, her result should be declared. In support, he relies on the decision in the case Sunil Kumar Patnaik and others v. Kanpur University, Kanpur and others : (1995) 2 UPLBEC 904, wherein it was held that once the petitioner was allowed admission and to appear in the examination, thereafter the result can not be withheld or cancelled on the ground that the admission was illegally made. He also relies on the judgment in the case of Cadet Aditya Singh v. Committee of Management of U.P. Sainik School and others, (1995) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 23. In support of his contention, he further relies on the judgment in the case of Principal, Cambridge School and another v. Miss, Payal Gupta and others : (1995) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 1440. The decision in the case of Principal, Cambridge School (supra) is altogether on a different point. In the said case, the petitioner was given provisional admission but his result was withheld. After the result was declared, it was found that the result falls short of the condition for admission. In the said case, admittedly, admission was given, may be provisionally. In the case of Cadet Aditya Singh (supra), admission was not denied. But after having given admission, the said admission was sought to be cancelled because the candidate did not secure 50% aggregate marks in Maths and Science. In this case, the order of cancellation of admission was quashed on the ground that he having been given admission, the same can not be cancelled subsequently even if it is provisional. In the case of Sunit Kumar Patnaik (supra), it was a different case where admission was denied because he fell short of the cut off mark for a student who sought admission in the same College though he had passed the earlier examination from the same College. Therefore, the facts of these three cases are distinguishable so far as the petitioner is concerned.
(2.) IN the present case, the very admission is also disputed and there is nothing on the record of the University to show that the University had ever permitted admission to the petitioner. The Ordinance also does not provide any rule for relaxation with regard to the marks as mentioned in sub -para. (3) of para. 10 of the said Ordinance. In the present case, it is also admitted that no Admit Card was issued to the petitioner by the University. The petitioner had appeared in the examination without any Admit Card and without Roll Number. Mr. Singh contends that forms were filled up by the candidate and the fees were deposited in the Bank and were forwarded by the Principal to the University. Despite the receipt of the form, the University did not reject the form neither communicated to the petitioner that she can not be allowed to appear in the examination. Therefore, the University is estopped from withholding the result.
(3.) IT is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Singh. It is not necessary that the University should reject the form and communicate the decision to the candidate. In case no Admit Card is issued, the same is sufficient communication that the University has rejected the form. It is inconceivable that a candidate appeared in a University Examination without Admit Card and without Roll Number. This might, however, be a case of carelessness of the Principal of the concerned College and his nonchalant attitude towards the Rules of the University, but the same does not have the effect of any estoppel so far as the University is concerned. It has not been brought on record to show that at any point of time, the University was responsible for her admission or her appearance in the examination. Therefore, the principle of estoppel can not be applied in the present case so far the University is concerned.;