B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) -Whether the authorities of Allahabad University (for short the University), can be permitted to go back from the promise made by them to the petitioner, a student of B. A. Part I with the subjects English, Geography and Arabic, by accepting his fee and permitting him to pursue his studies for the Degree of B. A. and the said student has pursued his study and thereby changed his position. In other words whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel or equitable estoppel is applicable to the facts of the present case, is the short point for our consideration in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner against the Vice-Chancellor, Allahabad University and others seeking relief for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the studies of petitioner in English, Geography and Arabic as his subjects in B. A. Part I and permitting him to fill up the form of B. A. Part I Examination 1988, and to appear in the ensuing examination of B. A. Part I with the aforesaid subjects. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the order, if any, passed or proposed to be passed in the case of petitioner.
(2.) A portrayal of essential facts are these. The petitioner having passed his Intermediate Examination securing 246 out of 500 marks, appeared at the combined entrance test held by the University and C. M. P. Degree College for admission in B. A. and B. Sc. Part 1 and scored 224 out of 500 marks. In this way the total marks obtained by the petitioner were 470 out of 1000. The petitioner also appeared at the entrance test held by the Ewing Christian College, Allahabad and secured 151 out of 300 marks. He was offered admission in B. A. Part 1 in Ewing Christian College. The petitioner came to know that he can be admitted in the University with Arabic as one of the subjects in B. A. Part I. Consequently he applied in Allahabad University for admission in B. A. Part I with Arabic, Geography and English as subjects and made application to University giving correct details without concealing any fact about the entrance test and his application was forwarded to the Chairman, Admission Committee for B. A. Part I. After looking into details furnished by the petitioner, the Chairman of the Admission Committee passed an order admitting the petitioner in B. A. Part I in the University with the aforesaid subjects. The petitioner deposited total fee of Rs. 245.50 on 27-1-88 and took admission on the same day in B. A. Part I in the University. True copy of the fee receipt has been filed as Annexure-2 to the petition. The University authorities being satisfied in all respects, issued Identity Card bearing No ABI/1904 to the petitioner on 5-2- 88 as also the Library Card No. 2135 (Annexures 3 and 4 to the petition). Similarly he deposited Cycle Stand fee and received Plate No. 1353 (Annexure-5 to the petition). However, subject allotment card was not issued to petitioner even though he approached the Vice-Chancellor and the Chairman Admission Committee. Even though the petitioner is regularly attending the theory classes of Arabic, English and Geography since the date of his admission, i. e. 27-1-88 and the attendance register of Arabic Department indicates his regular attendance, but on account of inactivity on the part of University authorities, the subject allotment card was not issued to the petitioner and the petitioner is suffering a lot. Consequently he has preferred this petition seeking the aforesaid relief. In para 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University it has been stated that the petitioner made application for admission in Science Faculty in B. Sc. Part I, but he obtained admission in B. A. Part I. In the same paragraph it has been admitted that even if it is assumed that there was an error on the part of officials of the University to issue the intimation card for admission to Arts Faculty to the petitioner on the basis of mark sheet that related to the Science Faculty and the petitioner does not get any right for admission. All that he is entitled to is refund of the fee deposited by him. The petitioner did not make application for admission test for Arts Faculty, hence he was not entitled to admission in B. A. Part I. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that once the petitioner was successful in the entrance test for admission and the fee deposited by him was accepted, his application for admission in B. A. Part I with aforesaid subjects having been forwarded to the Admission Committee, Identity Card, Library Card and Cycle Stand fee receipt having been issued to him and in view of the fact that he continued his studies which was evident by the attendance registers of Arabic and other subjects, the petitioner matured a legal right and the University authorities were stopped from denying the admission to petitioner in B. A. Part I as they have made a promise by accepting the tuition fee etc. by the petitioner and the petitioner having changed his position on that promise continued his studies and was pursuing his studies in the aforesaid subjects. The principle of equitable estoppel or promissory estoppel were applicable and the University authorities now could not decline to permit the petitioner to pursue his studies with the aforesaid subjects and the petitioner could not be refused admit card for examination nor he could be deprived of other formalities so as to appear at the ensuing examination of B. A. Part I of 1988.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the petitioner having appeared in the entrance test for B. Sc. could not get admission in B. A. with the aforesaid subjects and the University authorities were not estopped from declining to permit the petitioner to appear at 1988 Examination of B. A. Part I, nor the aforesaid principle was applicable. As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the parties have been heard at considerable length, as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the petition itself may be disposed of on merits.;