Judgment:
ORDER
1. Petitioner passed his B.E. degree examination in February, 1994 from the Bangalore University. He claims to have taken the entrance examination for admission to Post-Graduate course in M.E. Computer Engineering and Science ('CE and S' for short). The third respondent informed the petitioner that he was provisionally selected to M.E. degree course. Petitioner paid the required fees on 30-1-1997 and was admitted to M.E. (CE and S) course and has been attending the classes regularly. When the matter stood thus, third respondent-college issued a memo dated 12-6-1997 (Annexure-H) cancelling his admission to M.E. (CE and S) course on the ground that his basic B.E. degree was in Electronics and not in Computer Science and therefore he was ineligible for admission according to the Regulations. The said memo is based on the communication dated 6-6-1997 (Annexure-J) from the second respondent to first respondent-University with a copy to third respondent directing cancellation of petitioner's admission on the said ground. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this petition for quashing of Annexure-J dated 6-6-1997 and Annexure-H dated 12-6-1997. He also sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to admit him to M.E. (CE and S) course and permit him to continue in the said course and to take the examination relating to the said course.
2. This writ petition was filed on 18-6-1997. On 27-6-1997 Bangalore University issued a notice (Annexure-K) to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why his admission should not be cancelled on the ground that he does not have eligibility to be admitted to M.E. (CE and S) Programme. Pursuant to the notice dated 27-6-1997, petitioner appeared before the Registrar of Bangalore University on 1-7-1997 and submitted his statement of objections (Annexure-L). After considering the objections and the relevant Regulations governing Masters Degree Courses in Engineering, the Registrar has passed an order dated 1-7-1997 (Annexure-M) cancelling the admission of the petitioner to M.E. (CE and S) course, Petitioner has also sought quashing of Annexure-M (by amendment application-I.A.III which has been allowed).
3. Two questions therefore arises for consideration. They are:
(a) Whether the petitioner is eligible to be admitted to M.E. (CE and S) programme; and
(b) Whether the University and the College are estopped from cancelling his admission to M.E. (CE and S) course, having admitted him and permitted him to attend the course for nearly 4 months 10 days, even if he is not eligible.
Re: Point (i)
4. Section 57 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 deals with eligibility for admission of students. It is extracted below:
'No student shall be eligible for admission to a course of study for a degree or diploma unless he possesses such qualification as may be prescribed'.
4.1 Regulation 1 of the Regulations governing Master's degrees courses in Engineering of the Bangalore University specifies the qualification for admission to M.E. degree course, as follows:
'Candidates who have passed the B.E. degree examination in the appropriate branch of Engineering of the Bangalore University or any other equivalent examination recognised by the Bangalore University, are eligible for admission to Master of Engineering Degree Course'.
(emphasis supplied)
4.2 The University issued a Notification dated 27-11-1996 inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to the Post-Graduate course leading to Master of Engineering degree in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Electronics, Computer Engineering and Science and Chemical Engineering, for the academic year 1996-97. The said notification dated 27-11-1996 clearly stipulates that:
'Candidates who have passed the B.E. Degree examination in the appropriate branch of Engineering of the Bangalore University or any other equivalentexamination recognised by the Bangalore University are eligible to apply'.
4.3 Regulation 16 of the Bangalore University Regulations governing the entrance examination for admission to P.G. Course in Engineering Faculty relating to selection provides as follows:
'The Selection Committee shall ensure that candidates selected for admission are academically eligible and their selection shall be in accordance with the University regulations for the course for which they are selected and a certificate to that effect shall be recorded on the list of candidates selected for various courses by the Chairman and members of the Committee'.
5. Petitioner admits that he has not obtained a B.E. degree in Computer Engineering and Science which is the appropriate branch of Engineering of the Bangalore University for admission to the M.E. course in CE and S. His contention is that he has obtained B.E. degree in Electronics; that the Regulation and Notification while specifying the eligibility have used not only the words 'B.E. degree examination in the appropriate branch of Engineering' but also the words 'or any other equivalent examination recognised by the Bangalore University'; that all degrees in several courses of Bachelor of Engineering granted by the University are equivalent examinations and therefore a B.E. degree in Computer Science is equivalent to a B.E. degree in Electronics and a student who has obtained a B.E. degree in any of the courses is therefore eligible for admission to any of the M.E. courses of the University; and therefore he is eligible to apply for and be admitted to M.E. (CE and S) course, though his basic degree is in Electronics.
6. The eligibility criteria prescribed is that the candidate should have a B.E. degree in the appropriate branch of Engineering; that is, if a candidate wants to be admitted to M.E. in Computer Science, he should have a basic degree (degree of Bachelor of Engineering) in Computer Science; and for admission to M.E. in Electronics, he should have a basic degree in Electronics; or a candidate having a basic degree in Civil Engineering can seek admission to Master of Engineering coursein any of the branches of Civil Engineering like Structural Engineering, Highway Engineering or Construction Technology. This is based on the fundamental principle that any specialised study requires basic study in that subject. This is so from Pre-University stage. For example, a candidate who completed PUC with Core subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics can apply to Engineering course and not medical course; and a candidate who completed PUC with the Core subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology can apply to Medical or Dental course and not Engineering course. The words 'or any other equivalent examination recognised by the Bangalore University' only refer to the examinations and degrees of other Universities recognised by the University as equivalent to its examinations and degrees in a particular course. In fact sub-section (2)(k) of Section 27 provides that the Academic Council of the University may make Regulations prescribing equivalence of examinations. Sub-section (2)(b) of Section 39 specifies that the Regulations may provide for recognition of examinations and degrees of other Universities as equivalent to the examinations and degrees of the University. If the words 'or any other equivalent examination recognised by the Bangalore University' are to be interpreted as referring to degree in any B.E. course, then the students of Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering or any other B.E. course can apply to admission to M.E. course in Computer Science. Such an absurd result will demonstrate that the interpretation of those words as put forth by the petitioner, is impermissible. Hence the contention that petitioner is qualified for being admitted to M.E. (CE and S) course is liable to be rejected.
Re: Point (ii)
7. Petitioner contends that there was no suppression or misrepresentation of facts on his part. He had applied for admission to M.E. (CE and S) and he was permitted to take the Entrance Test; that the Committee constituted by the University for selection of candidates had scrutinised his application and enclosures and had selected him for admission to M.E. (CE and S) course as per its proceedings dated 8-1-1997 (Annexure-R1). Thereafter he was admitted to the course by the college on30-1-1997 on payment of Rs. 11,500/- as fees and he has been pursuing his studies in M.E. (CE and S) course ever since then, till the revocation of admission on 12-6-1997 for more than four months. If his admission is cancelled, his future will be affected and he will be wasting a year in his career. In view of the above, the University is estopped from cancelling his admission. Petitioner relies on two decisions in support of his contentions.
7.1 The first is the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Jayalakshmi v Selection Committee, University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada and Others. In that case, a candidate was admitted to Medical College against the seat reserved for Army Personnel, even though she was not entitled to such seat, due to a mistake on the part of Selection Committee. Subsequently her admission was sought to be cancelled on the ground that it was not proper, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court held that Selection Committee had no power to cancel the admission long after the admissions were closed. The Selection Committee becomes functus officio on the expiry of the date of commencement of the course and ceased to have any power to interfere with the selection. The admissions cannot eternally remain as provisional admissions and the candidate will be entitled to invoke the principles of equitable estoppel if he had altered his position to his detriment and he is told after four months that he has to quit the college for no fault of his. The Court observed:
'The cancellation of admission is a serious matter affecting the career of the student. He is not only thrown out of the college, but also thrown once again to the competition world. This is an example of the casual approach of the educational authorities in cancelling admission .....'.
7.2. The second decision relied on by the petitioner is of the Allahabad High Court in Kumari Smita Shukla u University of Allahabad and Another. In that case, a candidate was given admission to B.A. course in a particular subject due to a mistake on the part of University. There was no illegality or irregularitywhile granting admission. There was no suppression of facts by the candidate. After the candidate was admitted and was pursuing the course of study, University sought to cancel the admission on the ground of mistake on its part. The Court held that if a student acting upon the representation made by the academic body has altered his position by pursuing a course of study for a reasonable period of time, then it is not open to it to cancel his candidature or deprive him of his right to appear in the examination on the ground of mistake which is attributable solely to the academic body and not to the candidate. The Court however made it clear that the said principle will not apply where student is himself guilty of any fraud and his fraudulent act led to the admission enabling him to pursue the course of study which he was not entitled under the relevant rules.
8. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is inapplicable as in that case there was no want of eligibility on the part of student. The student was eligible to be admitted to the course. The mistake was in giving the candidate a seat under a quota which was reserved for Army Personnel, to which she was not entitled. Hence that case is of no assistance. The decision of Allahabad High Court related to an admission to a course relating to basic degree in Arts and did not relate to a specialised Post-Graduate course in a technical subject like Computer Science. There is fundamental difference in regard to admissions to a basic degree course in General Arts subjects and admission to a Post-Graduate course in a technical subject like Computer Science. Secondly, there is a statutory bar (under Section 57 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976) against admission of any student without the prescribed qualification. A candidate cannot plead estoppel against a statute. This aspect apparently did not arise for consideration by the Allahabad High Court. Hence that decision is also of no assistance to the petitioner.
9. In this case, the petitioner, though not eligible, applied for admission to M.E. (CE and S) course. The Selection Committee forwarded the list of selected candidates to the third respondent-College under cover of letter dated 24-1-1997 (Annexure-R1) which was provisionally approved subject tofulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the M.E. Regulations. The college informed the petitioner that he was provisionally selected to M.E. (CE and S). While getting admitted, the petitioner gave an undertaking dated 30-1-1997 to the college (Annexure-R2) agreeing that his admission was provisional and subject to approval by the Bangalore University and undertaking to produce the original certificates within a fortnight. The college sent the list of admissions for approval to the University under cover of letter dated 5-4-1997, which was received by the University on 7-4-1997. On 6-6-1997 the Chairman of the Selection Committee notified the Registrar of the University that petitioner was ineligible and his admission should be cancelled. The University issued a show-cause notice on 27-6-1997 and after giving a hearing, cancelled petitioner's admission on 1-7-1997. Acting on a copy of the letter dated 6-6-1997 received by the college, the college cancelled the petitioner's admission on 12-6-1997, even before cancellation by the University. Thus the admission remained provisional and not approved by the University at all. If the University had either approved the admission or permitted the petitioner to take any examination conducted by it thereby impliedly approving the admission, the petitioner could have presumably contended that the University had treated him as an eligible candidate by impliedly equating his basic degree as equivalent to the basic degree required for admission. But where there is no such approval and the admission has remained provisional, the petitioner cannot contend that the University is estopped from cancelling bis admission. It is now well-settled that ground of estoppel and equity cannot be called in assistance by a candidate to maintain his admission: (i) where the admission has been obtained by the candidate by fraud or misrepresentation of material facts; and (ii) where the candidate is ineligible for admission and there is a statutory bar against admitting ineligible candidates. In such cases, pursuing the course for a few months will not create any right in favour of the student to claim immunity from cancellation of admission. This is not a case of mere procedural irregularity in admission, but a case of absence of the basic and fundamental requirement for admission.
10. The petitioner next contended that the Selection Committee had become functus officio on completion of the selections and therefore the Chairman of the Selection Committee could not have initiated any action nor cancelled the admission. There is no merit in this contention. The letter dated 6-6-1997 shows that the Chairman of the Selection Committee had merely brought to the notice of the Registrar, the absence of eligibility on the part of the petitioner and requested the University to take action for cancellation. He merely acted as an informer in regard to the ineligibility. He neither initiated action for cancellation nor cancelled the admission. The action was initiated by the Registrar of the University by issuing a show cause-notice and the cancellation is by the University and the college.
11. There can be no doubt that there is carelessness on the part of the Selection Committee and the college in entertaining petitioner's application for admission and considering his case for admission and in making provisional admission. The admission is to a Post-Graduate course. The candidates are few. The members of the Selection Committee are five highly qualified academicians. Hence such a mistake ought not to have occured. But the petitioner is also not free from blame. A candidate who seeks admission is presumed to have acquainted himself with the conditions of eligibility. Petitioner who had a basic degree in Electronics is therefore deemed to have knowledge about his ineligibility to be considered or selected for M.E. course in Computer Engineering and Science. Nevertheless he chose to apply for admission and thereby offered himself as an eligible candidate. To that limited extent, it can be said that there is 'misrepresentation' on the part of the petitioner. Be that as it may. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought.
12. At this juncture, it is necessary to record the fair submissions made on behalf of the University and College. The learned Counsel for the College stated that it had committed a mistake as the Selection Committee had made provisional selection; and in view of the mistake in admission and having regard to the fact that petitioner has already been a student ofthe M.E. course for some time, the college is willing to consider acceptance of petitioner as a student of M.E. Electronics programme instead of M.E. (CE and S), if the petitioner makes an application to the University and the College. The learned Counsel for the University submitted that if there is a vacant seat in the college and if the college is willing to accept him for M.E. Electronics, the University will favourably consider any request of the petitioner for transfer to Electronics course and regularisation of petitioner's admission to M.E. Electronics, subject to the petitioner fulfilling the requirements in that behalf. It is therefore open to the petitioner to approach the University and the College within one month, if he is so interested.
Recording the said submissions, this petition is rejected as no case is made out for issue of rule.