IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.08.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.NO.9703 OF 2010 AND M.P.NOS.1 & 2 OF 2010 Imran Ahamed Mohammed ... Petitioner Versus 1.The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-600 025. 2.The Principal, B.S.Abdur Rahman Crescent Engineering College, Seethakathi Estate, G.S.T.Road, Vandalur, Chennai-600 048 ... Respondents PRAYER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent herein in proceedings Letter No.3307/AUC/DAC/DD- A1/Readm/2009 dated 19.02.2010 and Letter No.3307/AUC/DAC/DD- A1/Readm/2009 dated 19.03.2010 quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to issue the consolidated marks sheet, provisional degree certificate of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayanarayanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent-1 : Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal for M/s.G.M.Mani Associates For Respondent-2 : Mr.V.N.A.Ghouse Gani O R D E R The petitioner joined B.E. Computer Science in the second respondent College during 2003-2004. He completed 2 years. He also appeared for all the semester examinations that were conducted during those two years. However, the first respondent-University took a decision to debar the petitioner for a period of two years. Therefore, the petitioner was not able to pursue his course for two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years. However, he was re-admitted, after debarment. The re- admission was approved by the first respondent-University by an order dated 23.08.2007. The petitioner was re-admitted for the third year course during the year 2007-2008. While his initial admission was under the Regulations 2001, the re-admission was under Regulations 2004. Apart the from the petitioner, many others were also re-admitted to various courses. In those circumstances, the second respondent-College wrote a letter dated 13.12.2007 to the first respondent-University seeking information relating to the list of subjects to be studied additionally and the list of subjects to be exempted, for re-admitted students, as there was change of Regulations. Along with the said letter dated 13.12.2007, the second respondent-College enclosed the list of re-admitted students. The petitioner's name was found therein along with others. While so, the first respondent sent a letter dated 09.06.2008 stating that the list of the students, whose names were given in the annexure to the said letter, were to study additional subjects and nothing was stated about the petitioner. 2.On the other hand, the first respondent permitted the petitioner to write all the examinations commencing from 5th semester to 8th semester, along with the students who were admitted under the Regulations 2004. The petitioner appeared in all those examinations and has also passed in all the subjects. He completed the course in April - May 2009. Transfer certificate was also issued to him by the second respondent on 29.05.2009 and based on the mark sheet issued by the first respondent, he also joined M.B.A course. The petitioner requested the first respondent vide letter dated 18.11.2009 to provide him provisional certificate and consolidated mark sheet for the B.E. Course. 3.However, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2010 directing the petitioner to study 5 subjects additionally. The petitioner sent a reply dated 26.02.2010 stating that the first respondent could not direct him to do additional subjects, at this distant point of time. The second respondent also wrote a letter dated 18.03.2010 to the first respondent on the same lines. 4.The first respondent-University passed another order dated 19.03.2010 directing the petitioner to study 2 additional subjects, instead of 5 additional subjects as stated in the earlier order. The second respondent wrote a letter dated 13.04.2010 to the first respondent, terming their order as unfair. 5.In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the aforesaid orders dated 19.02.2010 and 19.03.2010 of the first respondent-University and for a consequential direction to the first respondent – University to issue consolidated mark sheet and provisional certificate to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Notice of motion was ordered on 02.07.2010. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit. 7.Heard Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr.Manisundar Gopal, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.V.N.A.Ghouse Gani, learned counsel for the second respondent. 8.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the first respondent approved re-admission of the petitioner in August 2007, the first respondent ought to have directed the petitioner to study the additional subjects under the Regulations. But, the same could not be done, after the petitioner completed the course and passed all the subjects and came out of the College. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders are against the principles of promissory estoppel and he relies on the following judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in this regard. (i) Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 (ii) Sanatan Gauds Vs. Berhampur University and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1075 (iii) Guru Nanak Dev University through Registrar Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 760 (SC) (iv) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sr.S.Sagayarani, reported in 2009 (5) MLJ 652 9.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent – University submits that since there was change in Regulations in 2004, the petitioner has to do two additional subjects and the University reduced the subjects from 5 to 2. 10. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11.The petitioner was re-admitted during the year 2007- 2008. He underwent 5th to 8th semester courses and he was permitted by the first respondent to appear for those examinations. He completed the course in April - May 2009. He also passed in all the subjects and mark sheets for the respective examinations were also issued. When he wanted consolidated mark sheet and provisional certificate, the first respondent passed the impugned orders, directing him to undergo 5 additional subjects and later the same was reduced to 2 additional subjects. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.In my considered view, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submissions that the first respondent is estopped from issuing the impugned orders directing the petitioner to study 2 additional subjects, so as to issue consolidated mark sheet and provisional certificate. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent ought to have directed the petitioner, at the time of re-admission in the year 2007-2008 itself that he should have to do additional subjects. In fact, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the second respondent also sent a letter to the first respondent enclosing the list of re-admitted students, seeking information regarding the additional subjects and the exempted subjects for those re-admitted students. While the first respondent replied stating about the additional subjects and exempted subjects with respect to re-admitted students, nothing was stated about the petitioner in their letter. Hence, neither the second respondent, nor the petitioner, could be found fault. It is only the first respondent, who is at fault, as the first respondent permitted the petitioner to complete the course and in turn the petitioner also appeared in all the examinations and also passed in all the subjects. Now, he also joined M.B.A. Course. At this distant point of time, for the fault of the first respondent, the petitioner could not be made to suffer. Hence, the first respondent is estopped from issuing the impugned orders, directing the petitioner to do two additional subjects, initially mentioning as five subjects and later reducing to two subjects. Both the impugned orders are illegal and opposed to the judgments of Honourable Apex Court relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The said judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of this case and the relevant passages from those judgments are extracted here-under:- (i) Shri Krishan Vs. The Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra reported in AIR 1976 SC 376 "The last part of this statute clearly shows that the University could withdraw the certificate if the applicant had failed to attend the prescribed course of lectures. But this could be done only before the examination. It is, therefore, manifest that once the appellant was 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 applicant cannot be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the applicant permission to appear. There was ample time and opportunity for the University authorities to have found out the defect. In these circumstances, therefore, if the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the appellant to appear in part I Examination in April,1972, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the appellant. A somewhat similar situation arose in Premji Bhai Ganesh Bhai Kshatriya V. Vice Chancellor, Ravishankar University Raipur. AIR 1967 Madh Pra 194. (ii) Sanatan Gauds Vs. Berhampur University and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1075 "This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his mark sheet along with the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the pre Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course. The University is, therefore, clearly estoped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course." (iii) Guru Nanak Dev University through Registrar Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 760 (SC) "However, on the peculiar facts of the case, the first respondent is entitled to relief. The first respondent was admitted through a Common Entrance Test process during 2004-2005. He was permitted to take the first semester examinations by the University. He is not guilty of any suppression or misrepresentation of facts. Apparently, there was some confusion in the appellant university itself as to whether the distance education course attended by the first respondent was the same was as correspondence course which was recognized. The first respondent was informed that he was not eligible, only after he took the first semester examination. He has however https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also been permitted to continue the course and has completed the course in 2007. He has succeeded before the High Court. Now after four years, if it is to be held that he is not entitled to admission, four years to his career will be irretrievably lost. In the circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to deny the first respondent the benefit of admission which was initially accepted and recognized by the appellant university. This Court in Shri Krishan Vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376; (1976) 1 SCC 311, has observed that before issuing the admission card to a student to appear in Part-I Law examination, it was the duty of the university authorities to scrutinize the papers; and equally it was the duty of the Head of the Department of Law before submitting the form to the university to see that it complied with all requirements; and if they did not take care to scrutinize the papers, the candidature for the examinations cannot be cancelled subsequently on the ground of non-fulfilment of requirements. In Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University AIR 1990 SC 1075; (1990) 3 SCC 23, this Court held where the candidate was admitted to the Law course by law college and University also permitted him to appear for Pre-Law ad Intermediate Law examinations, the college and the university were estopped from withholding his result on the ground that he was ineligible to take admission in Law course. Having regard to the above we are of the view that irrespective of the fact that M.A., English(OUS) degree secured by first respondent from Annamalai University through distance education, may not be recognized as an equivalent to the Master's degree of the appellant university, his admission to the law course should not be cancelled. (iv) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Sr.S.Sagayarani, reported in 2009 (5) MLJ 652 "There is no dispute that to secure an admission in B.A. Degree course, a pass in Higher Secondary is must. In the present case, the first respondent while securing admission in Stella Maris College, had admittedly submitted her mark sheet along with the application for admission. The said college had admitted her and she had pursued her studies for three years and the Madras University had also granted B.A. Degree. It is only at the stage of getting approval of her appointment as B.T. Assistant in a private school, the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Educational Officer had raised objection with her so called ineligibility to be admitted in the Degree course. She cannot be accused of any fraud or misrepresentation. It was the fault on the part of the college authorities i.e., Stella Maris college in giving admission to the first respondent for the degree course although she did not have the requisite qualifying mark as a result of which, the first respondent pursued her studies in B.A. Degree for three years and now it would not be proper to refuse approval at this stage, particularly when she was not at fault while she got admission in the said college. There is nothing on record to show that she projected her higher secondary examination marks other than what she possessed. In spite of placing her statement of marks before the college authorities, for some reason or the other, it had thought it fit to admit her and the first respondent has chosen to continue in the said degree and now it would be inadvisable to make her suffer for the same. It is to be noted that the college authorities would not have missed to see the qualifying marks when she was admitted and may be, as averred by the first respondent, aggregate of English and Advanced English(optional) would have been taken into consideration, which aspect cannot be ignored. In such a situation, even assuming that the first respondent had no requisite basic qualifying marks in higher secondary, her appointment cannot be disapproved, as it was the bounden duty of the college authorities to have scrutinized higher secondary certificate before admitting her to degree course. In Guru Nanak Dev University V. Sanjay Kumar Katwal and Another, 2009 (1) SCC 610; (2009)2 MLJ 760, the Honourable Supreme Court has held, referring to its earlier pronouncements in Shri Krishan Vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376; (1976) 1 SCC 311 and Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University AIR 1990 SC 1075; (1990) 3 SCC 23, that when the petitioner was permitted to continue the course and has completed the course in 2007, after four years, to hold that he is not entitled to admission will be irretrievable loss and further it would be unfair and unjust to deny the petitioner the benefit of admission, which was initially accepted and recognized by the Appellant University." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13.In these circumstances, the impugned orders dated 19.02.2010 and 19.03.2010 of the first respondent-University are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to issue consolidated mark sheet and provisional certificate to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. RRG/RNS Sd/- Asst. Registrar //True Copy// Sub Asst. Registrar To The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-600 025. + 1 cc to Mr. R. Pathiban, Advocate SR No.61280 PKB(CO) SR/30.8.2010 W.P.NO.9703 OF 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/