Judgment:
D.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. The decision of this case depends on interpretation of the provision in Regulation 18(C) under Chapter III of the Sambalpur University Regulations.
2. The petitioner Shri Prabhat Kishor Sahu appeared in the Bachelor of Arts Examination held in the month of March, 1987 with honours in Statistics; he was declared to have passed the Examination with second class honours in July, 1987 (vide result sheet Annexure 1); on his application a provisional certificate was issued to him on 31st July, 1987 wherein it was stated that he passed the B.A. Examination with second class honours in Statistics (Vide Annexure 2) and in the mark-sheet issued to him (Annexure 3) the said position was also reiterated. In November, 1990 when he received the B.A. degree certificate he found that there was no mention of honours in it. His requests to the Principal, G. H. College, Sambalpur (opp. party No. 2) and the Registrar of the University (opp. party No. 1) for correction of the certificate brought no fruitful result. He was told that the degree certificate is final and no change in it is possible. It is averred in the writ application that in the meantime the petitioner had successfully completed the course in the Rank Institute Computer Centre, Madras in June, 1989 and thereafter has got himself admitted for higher studies in Annamalai University at Annamalainagar in the State of Tamil Nadu on the basis of the provisional certificate issued to him. The action of the opp. parties in not showing him as an honours graduate in Statistics in the degree examination is assailed by the petitioner as illegal, in violation of the principle of natural justice and being hit by the principle of estoppel. He filed the writ application seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opp. party No. 1 Sambalpur University to correct the certificate as per Annexure 8 and to declare him to have passed B.A, with Statistics honours.
3. The opp. party No. 1 in its counter affidavit while not denying the averments of facts discussed above took the stand that since the petitioner did not secure 45% marks in theory examination in Statistics he did not qualify for being declared to have passed in Statistics honours in accordance with the provisions in Regulation 18(C)(ii) of the Regulations and therefore while issuing the degree certificate the honours subject was rightly omitted. It was the further case of the opp. party that on erroneous impression the petitioner was shown in the provisional certificate and the mark sheet to have passed the B.A, Examination with second class honours in Statistics. On the mistake being detected necessary corrections were made and the correct position was reflected in the degree certificate.
4. Shri H.S. Misra appearing for the petitioner submitted that Regulation 18(C) has no application to Statistics since it is not one of the honours subjects mentioned in Regulation 17(B). The learned counsel for the opp. party No. 1 reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit as noted earlier.
5. On the rival cases pleaded by the parties and, the submissions of the counsel appearing for them, the two points that arise for determination are : whether Regulation 18(C) applies to the case of the petitioner and whether the subsequent revision of the petitioner's result after he was declared to have passed B.A, Examination with second class honours in Statistics is hit by the principle of estoppel.
6. Regulation 18(C) reads as follows :
'18(C). In order to qualify for Honours in a subject at the Final Degree Examination, a candidate should secure :-- (i) In a subject where Not less than 45%there is no practical of the maximumexamination. marks.(ii) In a subject where Not less than 45%there is a practi- of the maximumcal examination. marks in the Theore-tical and practicalpapers taken separa-tely.'
On a plain reading of the above provision it is clear that in a subject where there is practical examination the examinee in order to qualify for honours has to secure not less than 45 per cent of the maximum marks in the theoretical and practical papers taken separately. Concededly the petitioner secured 178 marks out of 400 in the theory papers which is less than 45 per cent. It is the contention of Shri Misra that the provision in Regulation 18(C) is to be read together with that in Regulation 17(B) wherein it is provided, inter alia, that in Education, Home Science, Anthropology, Geography and Psychology for the Final Examination there shall be for the honours course four theoretical papers each of three hours' duration and each carrying 100 marks and two practical papers each of six hours' duration, and each carrying 100 marks. It is his submission that Regulation 18(C) applies only to the subjects mentioned in Regulation 17(B); Since Statistics is not mentioned in the latter provision, Regulation 18(C)(ii) has no application to it.
On giving our anxious consideration, we are unable to accept the interpretation given by Shri Misra. Regulation 18(C), as we read it, is in general terms applicable to subjects where there is no practical examination and also to subjects where there is practical examination. Concededly Statistics is a subject where there is practical examination. There is no reference to Regulation 17(B) therein. Reading Regulation 17(B), there is no doubt that Statistics is not mentioned therein. This may be on account of the fact that Statistics was not available as one of the honours subjects in B.A. when the Regulations were enforced in the session 1971-72. Indeed this appears to be the position since Shri Misra himself submitted that previously Statistics was one of the papers in Economics and Shri Sanjib Swain appearing for the University submitted that B.A. Hons. in Statistics has been introduced since 7 to 8 years only. Further, Regulation 17(B) is not exhaustive of all the subjects in which honours is available in B.A. degree. Another noticeable feature is that Regulation 17(B) does not make any provision regarding the minimum percentage of marks which a candidate has to secure to qualify for honours in the subjects mentioned therein. Therefore even for the subjects mentioned in the said provision Regulation 18(C) is applicable. On this analysis we are not persuaded to accept the contention of Shri Misra that under the Regulations the petitioner was not required to secure 49% of the maximum marks in the theoretical and practical papers taken separately. Tested in the light of our above finding there is no scope for doubt that the petitioner did not qualify for honours in satistics. Therefore the University authorities were not competent to declare him as an Honours Graduate.
7. Coming to the question of estoppel, the position is well settled that there can be no estoppel against law which in the present case is the University Regulations. Further, the mark sheet issued to the petitioner clearly reflected the position that he secured less than 45% of marks in the four theoretical papers taken together (178 out of 400 marks). The petitioner had ample opportunity of knowing the real position from the mark list issued to him, i.e. he had failed to secure qualifying marks' in theory papers to secure honours. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner was misled by the erroneous statement in the mark sheet and the provisional certificate that he had passed B.A. Examination with second class honours in statistics. This view gains support from the decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Choudhury v. Berhanpur University, reported in AIR 1987 Ori 38 in which in pari materia circumstances this Court observed (at p. 42):
'Where the candidate who was not entitled to be declared as 'passed' in view of the provisions under Regulation 19 of the Berhhanpur University Regulations requiring the candidate to secure minimum 40 per cent marks in practical examination to pass in that subject was declared as successful even though he had secured less than 40 per cent marks in practical examination, the University was not estopped from subsequently declaring him unsuccessful, even though he had taken admission for other course on the basis of earlier result. The declaration that the candidate passed in the examination was clearly erroneous. The candidate could not have been misled by the representation of the University authorities since the mark sheet sent to the College admittedly showed that he failed to secure the minimum requisite percentage in the Physics practical examination. Directing the University to comply with its declaration would be compelling the authority to act against the statute. On the aforesaid analysis it could not be said that the action of the authorities declaring the petitioner to have failed in the examination was hit by the rule of estoppel.'
(Quoted from placitum)
Therein this Court placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 121 (Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v. Patel Narendra Haribhai) and also the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1978 Ori 68 (Haripada Das v. Utkal University) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1980 All 32 (Kedar Lal Verma v. Secy. Board of High School and Intermediate Education). It was further held in that case that where there are materials to show that the petitioner had knowledge or means of knowledge to know the real state of affairs the doctrine of estoppel will not apply. In the present case, as noted earlier, the petitioner had ample opportunity to know the real state of things from the mark list issued to him and the provisions in Regulation 18(C) of the University Regulations. It cannot be said that he was not aware or could not have been aware of the real state of things. Therefore the contention of Shri Misra that action of the opposite parties in revising the petitioner's result is hit by the principle of estoppel is not acceptable.
8. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.
J.M. Mahapatra, J.
9. I agree.