- (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 28.08.2013 (Annexure P6) whereby the admission of the petitioner in M.Tech. -I (Mechnical) had been cancelled. The reason given for cancellation in the letter reads as under: "Due to reason that the candidate has not passed his qualifying exam at the time of admission and upto the last date of admission i.e. on 25.9.2013 (sic. 25.09.2012)."
(2.) THE facts of the case would go on to show that the petitioner took admission with the respondents No.3 and 4 - Institute in M.Tech -I(Mechanical), which is a 2 year course and thereafter, since he had not given the detailed marksheets of the qualifying examination, namely, the Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, he was asked to submit the said certificate vide letter dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure R3/1) by the said institute where he had taken admission. The respondent -University, on 17.11.2012, asked for removing the discrepancies relating to various students in which the name of the petitioner also figured, for want of the detailed marks certificate (for short, the 'DMC). On 07.12.2012, the institute again intimated and pasted on the notice board the requirement of the DMC. The discrepancies regarding other students who had supplied their certificates was forwarded to the University by the institute but the petitioner had never submitted the DMC. Eventually, on supply of the DMC, the institute forwarded the same to the University on 03.06.2013 (Annexure R3/9).
(3.) IN the provisional certificate, which was supplied by the petitioner (Annexure P2), dated 30.05.2013, it showed that he had passed the final examination of Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, conducted during May/June, 2011. The DMC is also dated 28.05.2013, which showed that he had passed the Eight Semesters. It is pertinent to mention that admittedly, the cut -off date for having passed the B.Tech. course for taking admission in M.Tech. course was 25.09.2012. It is, thus, apparent that the petitioner had never passed the examination before 25.09.2012 but had managed to take admission with the respondents No.3 and 4 - Institute, by assuring them that he would supply the certificate and by assuring them that he had passed the said B.Tech. course which apparently, he only qualified after the cut off date and thus, was never eligible to take the admission. This is the categorical stand taken by the respondents No.3 and 4 and also by the University. It has further been averred that, now, the petitioner had taken admission in the M.Tech. course, i.e., for the year 2013 -14 which would be clear from Annexure R3/11. By hoodwinking the institute and giving out the false assurances that he had passed the B.Tech. course, he had taken admission and continued studying and giving examination in the said institute and thus, concealed material facts. Now, the present writ petition has been filed praying that the admission has been cancelled in a highly improper manner. It is settled principle that a person who wants equity should first come to the Court with clean hands and should have practised the same himself. Once the petitioner himself has tried to act smart and had not passed the B.Tech. course before the cut -off date, he would not be eligible. It is obvious that he had reappeared in a subject and got the provisional certificate only in May, 2013. Thus, he was never eligible for admission in the said course. He has consumed a seat of some meritorious student who has been left out in the said process and now, he wants this Court to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the letter dated 28.08.2013, which cannot be done. The Apex Court in Central Airmen Selection Board Vs. Surender Kumar Das, 2003 1 SCC 152 held that a person who has invoked the principles of promissory estoppel and who has misled the authorities by making a false statement, is not entitled to invoke the said principle. In the said case, claim of the petitioner, on the basis of the certificate, was based on the misrepresentation and the order of the High Court, granting him the said benefit, was set aside. Relevant portion of the judgment read as under: "7. The question, therefore, is whether in a case of this nature the principle of promissory estoppel should be invoked. It is well known that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles. A person who has himself misled the authority by making a fake statement, cannot invoke this principle, if his misrepresentation misled the authority into taking a decision which on discovery of the misrepresentation is sought to be cancelled. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation in his application to the effect that he had passed the Intermediate examination. As we have found above, this finding of the High Court is erroneous, contrary to record and therefore must be set aside. In his application, the respondent had claimed that he had passed the Secondary examination as well as the Higher Secondary +2 examination, and it is clear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants that his candidature was considered on the basis that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, as in that case he was entitled to claim relaxation in the matter of age. However, the mark sheet annexed to the application disclosed that the respondent had failed in the subject Chemistry and therefore, his claim in the application, that he had passed the Higher Secondary +2 examination, was factually incorrect and a clear misrepresentation. In these circumstances we are satisfied that the respondent could not be permitted to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel, and the High Court was clearly erred in law in invoking the said principle in the facts of this case. The judgement and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained.";