RSA No.2870 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2870 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.10.2009 Sonia Jain ....Appellant Vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondents. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant challenges the judgements and decrees dated 30.5.2008 and 1.5.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra and the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing her suit and her appeal. The appellant filed a suit for declaration that the orders dated 22.2.2006 and 24.2.2006 cancelling her admission be declared null and void. The appellant pleaded that she sat for an entrance examination for the B.Ed course conducted by the M.D. University, Rohtak. She was called for counselling, her documents were appraised by the Admission Committee and she was granted admission to B.Ed. College of Doon Valley at Karnal. However, on 17.11.2005, she received a letter from the University RSA No.2870 of 2009 2 cancelling her admission as on the date of admission she was not a graduate and,therefore, ineligible. The appellant replied that as she had completed her graduation during the B.Ed. Course and had been allowed to sit for the B.Ed. Examination, her admission should not be cancelled. However, vide orders dated 22.2.2006 and 24.2.2006 respectively, her admission was finally cancelled. In response to the averments in the plaint, the respondents asserted that the University cancelled the appellant's admission, as she had not passed the B.A. Examination and was, therefore, ineligible for admission to the B.Ed. course. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether orders dated 22.2.2006 and 24.2.2006 are illegal, void non est against the rule of natural justice ? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether defendants can be restrained from intefering in the studies of the plaintiff ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the court ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action against the defendants to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 rule 11 and rule 1 CPC ? OPD. 6. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that as the appellant was ineligible for admission, the fact that she cleared her RSA No.2870 of 2009 3 graduation, during the pendency of the B.Ed. course was irrelevant. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 1.5.2009, the District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not deny that on the date of her admission to B.Ed. course, she had not completed her graduation. However, during the B.Ed. course, she sat for and cleared the supplementary examination thereby completing her graduation. It is submitted that as the respondents allowed her admission, permitted her to undergo the course and allowed her to sit for the examination, this court should, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, set aside the orders cancelling her admission. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that in matters of admission, it is eligibility and not equity that matters. The appellant was admittedly ineligible for admission to the B.Ed. course. An error on the part of the admission committee, the college or the university, would not confer any equitable rights upon the appellant to urge that her admission be regularised. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements and considered the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant but express my inability to hold that the impugned judgements are in any manner, illegal or raise any substantial question of law. Admittedly, the appellant was ineligible for admission to the B.Ed. course. The fact that she subsequently cleared the qualifying examination during the B.Ed. course and thus became eligible would not date back to the date of admission. The doctrine of estoppel does not apply to a case of RSA No.2870 of 2009 4 an admitted ineligibility, particularly when the admission committee, the college and the university had no power to admit the appellant to the B.Ed. course. It is true that she may not have committed a fraud or mislead the respondents but this alone would not entitle the appellant to the exercise of any discretion, based upon equity or to pray that her ineligibility be condoned. In this view of the matter, as the order cancelling the admission was rightly passed by the respondents, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 5.10.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE