BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) AS per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner appeard in B. A. Second year T. D. C. Examination in the Year 1987 as a private student and cleared all the papers except the one paper of Economics. He got supplementary in the paper. He appeared in the supplementary examination which was held somewhere in September October, 1987. Meanwhile, the petitioner filled in the form for IIIrd Year B. A Examination on 21. 11. 1987 from Agrawal College, Jaipur, which was affiliated to the University of Ajmer. He also deposited the examination fee of Rs. 165/- with the aforesaid form which included Rs. 50/- for the B. A Second Year TDC 1st Paper-Economics and Rs. 110/- for IIIrd Year Examination and Rs. 5/- for other charges. The examination fee tendered by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent and he was given admission card both for appearing in the IIIrd year Examination, 1988 and for the due paper of Economics Paper-I of Second Year T. D. C. He was also given roll number. The petitioner appeared in B. A Final Year Examination, 1988 and also in the due paper of Second Year i. e. Economics Paper-1. The result of both the examinatibns-IIIrd Year and due paper of Second Year was published in the new spaper on 25. 7. 1988 but the petitioner was shown as 'rl' which meant 'result lateron'. The petitioner approached the University authorities verbally and was informed that he was not eligible for B. A third Year Examination as he has not passed B. A Second Year and was also not eligible to appear in only one paper-supplementary paper, Economics Paper 1st. He ought to have appeared in all the papers of Second Year. The petitioner submitted a written representation to the University on 9. 9. 1988 and received a reply (Annexure-2) dated 16. 9. 1988. The petitioner again submitted a representation dated 26. 9. 1988 but he received no reply. Thereafter, he again submitted another representation on 12. 10. 1988 and ultimately, he had to give a notice for demand of justice on 22. 12. 1988 to which a reply had been received on 28. 1. 1989, wherein it was submitted that the petitioner was permitted provisionally to appear at the Third Year TDC Arts Examination, 1988 subject to the conformation of his eligibility from the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Lateron, he was not found eligible for appearing in the IIIrd year Examination, of TDC Arts, 1988 as per the provisions of the Ordinance 242-A of the University and therefore, the University had no alternative but to cancel his examination and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 14. 3. 1989. Notices were issued on 6. 3. 1989 to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. A reply has been filed by the University on 15. 5. 1989, to which a rejoinder had also been filed by the petitioner on 24. 7. 1989.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filled up the form and it was for the University to check up before issuing the roll-number and permission to sit in the examination. The petitioner after receiving the roll number and the admission card appeared both in the IIIrd Year Examination as also Economics Paper-I of IInd Year TDC and it is not fair on the part of the University to with-hold the result of the petitioner on technical grounds. The petitioner did not conceal anything. He had annexed with his application copy of the mark-sheet and in the form also, he had mentioned that he had appeared in the supplementary examination. He has placed reliance on Shri Krishan V. The Kurukshetra University (1) wherein their lordships have held that once a candidate is 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 candidate cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. This authority was relied by the the Delhi High Court in Inder Prakash V. Deputy Commissioner, Delhi and others (2) , which in turn has been relied by this Court in Harphool Singh V. State of Rajasthan (3) wherein a student had secured admission in Medical College on Reservation quota by giving false declaration. It was held that the authorities were estopped from cancealing the admission after the lapse of 3-4 years. He has also placed reliance on Gulab Chand V. University of Jodhpur and others (4) and Rajendra Prasad Mathur V. Karnataka University (5) wherein it was held as under : - "now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year B. Sc. Examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principles of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. " He has further placed reliance on Ashok Chand Singhvi V. University of Jodhpur and others (6) wherein it has been held as under : - "when a candidate concealed nothing from the University and authorities granted admission to him after considering all the relevant facts, he cannot be made to suffer by putting in abeyance or cancealing his admission after his joining the classes for the mistake committed by the authorities themselves in granting the admission on the basis of a resolution which was contrary to University statutes. " He has also placed reliance on Sanatan Gauda V. Behampur University and others (7) wherein it has been held as under : - "the appellant who was a student, was admitted, allowed to appear in examinations and later admitted to the final year course but at the stage of declaration of his results of pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations, objections to his ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course were raised by University on the basis of its own interpretation of the relevant regulations. The University was estopped from refusing to declare the results of appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course. University cannot punish the student for negligence of Principal or University authorities. It was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot refuse to publish his results. "
(3.) RELIANCE has also been placed on an unreported decision of this Court in Sandhya Singh V. University of Rajasthan (8) wherein the cases of Ashok Kumar Singhvi, Gulab Chand and Sanatan Gauda have been relied. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University has submitted that the petitioner has concealed the fact from the University that he had failed in the supplementary examination of IInd Year TDC and therefore, this Court should not interfer in its discretionary jurisdiction and grant premium to a person who has not been honest and has concealed material facts from the University. He has further submitted that the University has no power to condone the matter. He has placed reliance on Ordinance 242-A which is quoted as under: - "242-A (i) A candidate who, after passing the first year Examination of the University has attended a regular course of study in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for appearing at the Second Year Examination. (ii) A candidate who fails in one Optional/ Core subject and/or in one or more compulsory subjects at the First Year TDC Exam. shall be eligible to appear in the due optional/core/compulsory subject (s) at the immediately following supplementary examination. A candidate who fails to clear the due optional/ core subject at the said supplementary examination shall be required to re-appear at the First Year Examination in full (excluding the compulsory subject (s) in which he has already passed. However, a candidate who passes in the due optional/core subject but again fails in the compulsory subject (s) at the said Supp. Exam. shall be permitted to re-appear in the failing Compulsory subject (s) only at the subsequent main and supplementary Exam. subject to the conditions laid down in Ord. 153-B. But he shall not be permitted to take the Second Year Exam. until he passes in all the compulsory subjects of the First Year TDC Examination. Inability to avail a chance shall be treated as failure. (iii) A candidate who, after passing the Second Year Examination of the University has attended the regular course of study in an affiliated college for one academic year shall be eligible for appearing at the Final Year Exam. (iv) A candidate who fails at the Second Year/final Year Supplementary Exam. shall be required to re-appear at the Second Year/final Year Examination in full. " Learned counsel for the University has submitted that there can be no estoppel against the statute and had placed reliance on N. Setharamaiah V. Kotaiah (9 ). ;