Judgment:
G.B. Pattnaik, J.
1. The petitioner are students of Sadashiva Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha, Puri. They are pursuing their education for Shiksha Shastri course during the academic session 1991-92. The course is conducted by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi. They completed their course and appeared in all practical examinations conducted by the opposite parties. But as they were not permitted to appear at the written test scheduled to be conducted 1rom 6-5-1992, they moved this Court on 4-5-1992, and obtained an interim order from the Court that they would be permitted to appear at the examination scheduled to be held from 6-5-1992 but their results would not be published without leave of the Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order they had appeared at the Examination which was conducted with effect from 6-5- 1992. The petitioners allege that Shiksha Shastri course in Sanskrit is conducted by opp. party No. 1 through seven Sanskrit Vidyapithas one of which is at Puri. Admission to the course is made through a written competitive entrance test called Pre Shiksha Shastri Test. A candidate having qualified and having been successful at the entrance test-will be eligible for admission to the said Shiksha Shastri course and shall be required to pursue to a regular course of study for not less than one academic year. The petitioners made applications to appear at the Pre-Shiksha Shastri Test or the entrance test and along with the applications they submitted their mark-sheets. The Opposite parties admitted them to the Pre-Shiksha Shastri test by issuing admit cards and they appeared for the said test at Puri. Having qualified themselves in the said test, they were selected for admission to the Shiksha Shastri course and on being directed by ppp. party. No. 1 they took admission in the Sadashiva Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapitha, Puri by producing the, necessary original certificate with regard to age, educational qualification and other relevant documents. After being admitted to the course, they pursued their regular course of study for one academic session and they completed the practical examinations for different subjects which is Part II of the course. They appeared at the practical examinations and they were only required to appear at the six theory papers which were to commence from 6-6-1992., They have paid necessary fees and filled up the forms but as opp. party No. 2 did not issue Admit Cards on the ground that opp. party No. 1 has asked not to allow the petitioners to appear at the Examination, they moved this Court. While refusing to issue Admit Cards no reason has been given as to why Admit Cards are not, being issued. The petitioners allege that their refusal to issue Admit Cards is grossly discriminatory and arbitrary and the Court must issue direction to declare the petitioners' result since they have already app. eared under the orders of the Court.
2. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit and the stand taken in the counter is that the petitioners did not possess the minimum eligibility requirement but yet by mistake they were allowed to sit at the qualifying test and were permitted to take admission on the basis of the result of the said test but finally when the error was made known the Admit Cards had not been issued. According to the opposite parties the minimum eligibility criteria for admission is prescribed in Clause 1 of the prospectus. The petitioners 1 to 3 did not possess the minimum requirement of 45 percentage of marks in aggregate and petitioner No. 4 did not complete his B.A. in 10 + 2 + 3 pattern of education and, therefore, they are rightly not issued the, Admit Cards and were prevented from eppearing at the Examination. It is thus contended that since the petitioners did not possess the minimum eligibility criteria, they cannot be permitted to appear at the examination and even if they have appeared pursuant to the interim orders of the Court, the result should not be declared.
3. Mr. Pangari appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the assertion of the opposite parties that the petitioners had riot got the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to Shiksha Snastri course as indicated in Clause 1 of the prospectus but he contends that since the petitioners made their applications and 'along with the applications submitted their mark-sheets and the oposite parties allowed them to appear at the entrance test and the petitioners appeared at the said test and thereafter took admission and have prosecuted their studies for one year, the opp. parties would be estopped from bringing the eligibility criteria now at the fag end of their career when they have already taken half of; the course and only the other half remained, when the admit cards were not issued and further since the petitioners have already been permitted to apper pursuant to the orders of this Court, it would be just and proper to direct the opposite parties to declaretheir result.
4. Mr. Ashok Mohanty the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, on the other hand contends that since the petitioners themselves knew about the eligibility clause and in the prospectus it was clearly mentioned that application form should be filled in only if the candidate fulfils the eligibility requirement and not with standing the same the petitioners filled in their application forms even though they did not have the minimum eligibility requirement even if they have been permitted to appear at the least and even it they have pursued their studies for one year and they have appeared at the test pursuant to the orders of the Court the plea of estoppel should not be attracted particularly when the petitioner made applcations knowing fully well that they were ineligible to apply.
5. The short question that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the question of estoppel would apply,
6. According to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility clause of the prospectus as they did not possess the minimum requirement of 45 percentage of marks in the aggregate. Clause 1(a) of the prospectus clearly indicated that the candidate seeking admission to Shiksha Shasiri Course must have passed Shastri or B. A. or equivalent . traditional degree from any University or recognised examining body having obtained at least 45% marks in the aggregate in 10 + 2 + 3 pattern of education. Admittedly the petitioners did not have 45% of marks as required under Clause 1(a) of the prospectus. The prospectus clearly stipulated that form should be filled in only if the candidate fulfils the eligibility requirements. It is no doubt true that by permitting the petitioners to appear at the entrance test and thereafter by admitting them to the course and they having pursued their course for one year, they have already wasted more than two years and it is because of the fact that the opposite parties by their conduct entertained their application forms and permitted them to appear at the test and thereafter on the basis of the result of the test permitted them to take admission and undergo studies for one year. In somewhat similar circumstances a Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Choudhury v. The Berhampur University and Ors. * (AIR 1987 Ori. 38) had held that the plea of estoppel will not apply as the petitioner was aware of the true state- of things. In that case under the Regulations of the University the minimum percentage of marks required to be secured in practical examination was 40 percent but even though the petitioner had secured less than 40 per cent marks he was declared to have passed. That declaration was obviously erroneous. But since the candidate himself knew the marks he had secured on the basis of the marks sheet issued to him, the Court did not apply the principle of estoppel. It is because of this decision Mr. Mohanty appearing for the opposite parties contended that the plea of estoppel should not apply. But the eligibility clause in the prospectus cannot be equated with the Regulations of the University. The prospectus is administrative in nature. So it has to be found out whether though the prospectus indicated that 40 per cent is the minimum marks which makes a candidate eligible for admission, yet the candidates securing less than 40 per cent of marks applied for the course and submitted their mark sheets along with the application forms and they were still permitted to appear at the entrance test and having appeared at the same they were qualified and were permitted to take admission and finally they pursued their studies for one year, can they be prevented at the fag end of their career from appearing at the final examination by invoking the eligibility clause of the prospectus or the opposite parties must be held to be barred from raising the eligibility clause by principle of estoppel. In the case of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and Ors. (* AIR 1990 SC 1075) the appellant had secured admission in Ganjam Law College by submitting his mark sheets along with his M. A. degree certificate. He completed the pre-Law course and also the intermediate Law course and than appeared at the Pre-Law and Inter-Law Examinations in 1385 and he was admitted to the final Law course but his results of the pre-Law and inter Law Examinations were not declared and finally the University gave the reply that as he had secured 39.5% marks in his Degree Examination, though according to the Prospectus 40% was the minimum marks for admission to the pre-Law course, he was not entitled to be admitted to the Law course at all. When the candidate approached the Orissa High Court, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the University is estopped from refusing to declare the results of the Examinations and from preventing the candidate from pursuing his final year course by their own conduct and they applied the principle of estoppel against the University. Mr. Panigari the learned counsel for the petitioners, strongly relies upon the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda's case. In paragraph-10 of the aforesaid decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held :
'...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 estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course.''
Justice Sharma in his concurrent judgment had observed :
'It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had produced his mark sheet before the College authority with his application for admission and cannot be accused of any fraud or mis-representation. The interpretation of the rule on the basis of which the University asserts that the. appellant was not eligible for admission is challenged by the appellant and is not Accepted by the College and my learned Brother accepts the construction suggested by him as correct. In such a situation even assuming the construction of the rule as attempted by the University as correct; the Principal cannot be condemned for re-commending the candidature of the appellant for the examination in question. 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 dona so it cannot refuse to publish his results.'
In our considered opinion, the aforesaid, decision of the Supreme Court will apply with full force to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly the petitioners had submitted their mark sheets along with their application forms for the entrance test. They were permitted by opposite party No. 1 to appear at the said test. They qualified themselves and they were directed to take admission. They took admission and prosecuted their studies for one academic session. They have appeared at the practical test and it is only before appearing at the written test they had been prevented as the Admit Cards had not been issued and the opposite parties took the stand that they did not satisfy the eligibility clause contained in the prospectus, In our opinion, the opposite parties should be estopped from taking the stand. Since the petitioners have already appeared at the written test already held pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, we would direct that the results of the petitioners be declared and we hold that the petitioners were entitled to appear at the Shiksha Shastri Examination which commenced from 6-5-1992. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There would be, however, no order as to costs.
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.
I agree.