G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed, praying to allow the petitioner to take the examinations of B.A. 1st year Class, on the ground that the admission fees was taken by the respondent No.2 -College and his compartment examination had been declared in January, 2014. It is submitted that the University has also issued the roll number on the website but the hard copy has not been given to the petitioner on the ground that he has been placed in two compartments in the +2 examination.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that vide communication dated 29.03.2014 (Annexure P -5), the College had written to the University that the case of the petitioner may be considered for eligibility since the PUPIN (Registration number) had been issued. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat University & another Vs. Mukat Navnitlal Kapadia & others 1993 (2) GCD 762 and the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Anirudh Sharma Vs. H.N.B. Garhwal University Srinagar 2013 AIR (Uttaranchal) 16. However, in the opinion of this Court, the said judgments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, the settled principle of law is that the prospectus has the force of law. As many as four Full Benches of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab 1993(2) PLR 212, Raj Singh Vs. Maharashi Dayanand University 1994(2) SLR 581, Rahul Prabhakar Vs. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar 1997(5) SLR 163 and Indu Gupta Vs. Director of Sports, Punjab 1999(4) RSJ 667 have held to the said effect. In the present case, the petitioner took admission in July, 2013 as per the prospectus for the year 2013 -14 wherein it has been clearly provided under Clause 8A(i) that compartment candidates should be placed in compartment in one subject only at 10 + 2 level to be eligible for admission. Said clause reads as under: "8. Compartment Candidates a. A candidate who has been placed under compartment in the +2 examination conducted by a Board/ Body/ Council/ University in India shall be eligible to seek admission to BA/ Bsc/ Bcom (General) ­ (I year) course under 10+2+3 system of education, provided he/she fulfils the following conditions: i. He/She should have been placed under compartment in one subject only at +2 level. ....."
(3.) THERE is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had got compartment in Chemistry and Mathematics in the + 2 examinations of June, 2013 and he cleared the same only subsequently, in January, 2014 by way of giving supplementary examination. At the time of admission in July 2013, he was not eligible as per the abovesaid clause. Once the eligibility criteria itself was missing, the petitioner was well aware that the said clause existed in the prospectus under which he took admission and took a chance. Now, it does not lie in his mouth to rely upon the principle of promissory estoppel. The Apex Court in Central Airmen Selection Board Vs. Surender Kumar Das, (2003) 1 SCC 152, held that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles and a person who has misled the authorities cannot invoke the said principle. The observations 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 judgment and order of the High Court therefore cannot be sustained." ;