ORDER
M.A. Shah, J.
1. The petitioner was granted provisional admission in the LL.B. (1st term) Course of the Jammu University for the Academic Session 1982-83 in the Department of Law. His admission was cancelled by respondent No. 5. The Admission Committee, Faculty of Law, acting through its Chairman, University of Jammu by Notice No. Law/328-36 dated October, 25, 1982 issued by respondent No. 4 the Head of the Department, Faculty of law cancelled the admission. The petitioner has, therefore, by this writ petition prayed for the quashing of the said cancellation order by a writ of certiorari and have further prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue and continue his studies in the LL.B. Academic Session 1982-83 and onwards till the completion of his LL.B. Degree (Professional) and any other writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit by the Court.
2. It is stated that a notice was issued vide No. Admission/82-83/416-500 dated July 24, 1982 inviting applications, on the prescribed forms, for admission to the different courses of education in the University of Jammu, including the LL.B. Course for Academic Session 1982-83. the procedure was to be regulated by the 'BROCHURE' containing information about admission to courses in the teaching Departments. A further notification was also issued in supersession of previous notification with regard to the last date for receipt of application forms, which was extended up to Sept. 15,1982. The petitioner claiming himself eligible for admission to the LL.B. Course duly applied for seeking admission to respondent No. 4 and submitted his form duly filled in. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner applied for admission in the open category. On 4-9-1982, it is stated respondent No. 4 granted provisional admission to the petitioner in the LL.B. (1st term) on the recommendations of respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner deposited his admission fee against a proper receipt attached as Annexure P-5 with the petition on Septembers. 1982 amounting to Rs. 223/-.
3. On commencement of the session 1982-83, petitioner started attending his classes and attended up to October 25, 1982, when he received Notice No. Law/328-36 (Annexure P-6) issued at the instance of respondent No. 5 under the signatures of respondent No. 4, whereby the admission of the petitioner stood cancelled on the ground that he along with other three candidates, whose names are also mentioned in the said notice secured admission on the basis of certificates, which were not found to be genuine. This notice is impugned in the present writ petition praying for the relief as indicated hereinabove,
4. The petition is contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 4 Head of the Department of Law submitted the counter-affidavit on behalf of all the respondents stating therein that the petitioner obtained the admission by misrepresentation of facts and on the basis of a fake certificate, hence his provisional admission is rightly cancelled by the Admission Committee. In the preliminary objections, it is also prayed that the petitioner's fundamental, statutory or any legal rights having not been violated, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on that ground as well as on the ground that the petitioner has not come with clean hands having concealed the material facts and obtained the provisional admission on misrepresentation. Refuting the allegations of the petitioner on merits, it is denied by the respondents that the petitioner applied for admission to the open merit category as alleged by him. Along with counter-affidavit, photostat copy of the application form for admission submitted by the petitioner is also filed, which contains with it the copy of the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner in Form VI-A indicating therein that the petitioner Arun Kumar belongs to the category of Actual Line of Control'. A copy of the Notice No. Law/132 dated September 4, 1982 notifying the provisional admission to the various categories is also annexed with the counter showing in the category of Actual Line of Control' at serial No. 4 name of the petitioner and the marks obtained by him totalling to 556 out of 1100 in the qualifying examination. It is categorically stated by the respondents that the petitioner produced the copy of certificate of the category with his application form and no student is granted' admission in the reserved category until he produced the certificate issued by the competent authority in original. In addition to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, an affidavit of one Mr. Sham Singh, Lecturer in Law of the Jammu University is also filed, wherein he has deposed that the petitioner had applied for admission to the Faculty of Law under the reserved category 'Actual Line of Control. He had produced photostat copy of the Certificate purported to have been issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu signed by Tehsildar, Akhnoor in support of his claim that he hails from Village Battal an area falling on the Actual Line of Control. It was on the satisfaction of this Lecturer, who was in charge for the scrutiny of admission forms that he put a note on the form 'may be admitted provisionally', whereupon the admission of the petitioner was notified in the specified category pursuant to which the fee was accepted from the petitioner only after showing the original certificate to the deponent. It is also stated in this affidavit that but for the said category, the petitioner would not have been given admission in the open merit category.
5. It is significant to note on reading the declaration notice, by which the admissions of the different categories are notified that the last candidate admitted on merits in the general category at serial No. 20 obtained 621 mark out of the total of 1100. It clearly indicates that petitioner having obtained only 556 marks could not be admitted in general category, he stands much below the last candidate admitted. It is only in the reserved category that the petitioner has been admitted of the Actual Line of Control, in that too he stood at serial No. 4 and other three are above him. Petitioner being a educated man on seeing the result of the admission notified, it is clear that he cannot deny this fact of having obtained the admission in the specified reserved category, he never raised a little finger by showing that his name wrongly appeared in the category; whereas he applied in the open merit. It will thus be deemed that the deposit of fee by him in accordance with the notified result creates an estoppel by conduct against the petitioner as well as an obligation on the University to treat him in that category, otherwise in open merits, he stands no chance of admission. As pointed out in his affidavit by Mr. Sham Singh, Lecturer in Law. there appears a note on the application form of the petitioner 'may be admitted provisionally'. It indicates that the authorities were not fully satisfied with the documents produced and there was something required to confirm the admission. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner after the counter-affidavit, it is not denied that the petitioner was granted provisional admission, however, the stand taken by the petitioner as is shown in the petition also is clear that he never claimed admission in the category of Actual Line of Control. In Clause 11 of the application Form, the categories are specified from (a) to (g). Clause (d) is the box showing the category of the Residents of areas adjoining the actual line of control and (e) is the Block containing residents of areas notified as bad pockets. Petitioner has put his mark as 'Nil'. It is only in Block (g), which indicates persons having excelled in cultural/extra curricular activities that he has put in Yes, which also confirms to the entry made in Clause 13. The petitioner thus disowns the certificate, the photostat copy of which is filed along with the certificate as Annexure RA-2 showing that he belongs to the category of 'Actual Line of Control'. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is entirely based on the said certificate, which runs counter to the entries in the application form. In this background the case of the petitioner is to be examined and further to see whether the respondents before cancellation of the admission of the petitioner complied with the principles of natural justice.
6. At the outset from the bare reading of the Form, of which the description is given hereinabove, it transpires that in accordance with the entries in the form, petitioner though claimed admission in the reserved category of persons having excelled in cultural/extracurricular activities, but never made any entry claiming entry in the category in which he has been admitted. Ignoring that category of extra-curricular activities, the petitioner can only succeed, if he is in a position to show that he made up the mark for admission in the open merits in accordance with the last candidate admitted. This is not the function of the Court at this stage to find out whether the petitioner was eligible in the category of extra-curricular activities in the Certificate, which he produced along with the form were sufficient to consider his case in that category. In the Brochure of the University, Clause 10 provides that seventy five per cent of the seats available in a course of study shall be filled up on the basis of open merit to be determined in accordance with criteria given in Statute 22 of these Statutes and Sub-clause (A) of Clause 11 provides as follows : --
'After selection as at Statute 10 is made, the remaining twenty five per cent of seats available in a course of study shall be filled up on the basis of merit to be determined in accordance with the criteria given in Statute 22 under each of the following categories to the extent indicated against each.'
Sub-Clause (B) of Clause 2 of this Sub-clause provides 2% reservation to the category of persons, who have excelled in cultural/extra-curricular activities. It is nowhere the case of the petitioner that he qualified himself for admission to the said category within the percentage prescribed or that the candidates taken in that category were lesser in merits to the petitioner so as to entitle him to get admission in that category or to consider his case in that category. Simple denial of the petitioner to say that he never applied for admission to the category of Actual Line of Control in the background of his acceptance by payment of fees in accordance with the list notified of the provisional admissions, coupled with the Certificate which he filed along with the counter by the respondents of the Actual Line of Control though runs counter to the entries in the form creates an estoppel against the petitioner to deny the factum of his admission in the category of Actual Line of Control. In the rejoinder affidavit also, petitioner has not made out any case in order to point out that he is entitled to the reserved category of extra-curricular activities or in the open merits. It is difficult to sustain his argument of his title to get the admission in the course applied for.
On the close scrutiny of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents and the rejoinder of the petitioner, it is difficult to hold that the provisional admission of the petitioner at any time matured into a confirmed admission disentitling the University authorities to cancel the same on finding faults with the certificates. In the absence of the positive stand by the petitioner to claim admission in the open merit and also that in the notice of admission, his name does not appear in the category applied for by him, no estoppel can be created against the University for cancellation of the admission. No personal interest can be attributed to the respondents by importing a certificate of Actual Line of Control or to disentitle the petitioner by cancelling his admission in that category and by taking the stand as indicated in their counter, because the provisional admission was to the benefit of the petitioner and by that cancellation on the basis of misrepresentation and fake certificate, University authorities are not going to be benefited in any manner. In this view of the matter, non-mention of the category of Actual Line of Control by the petitioner is of no significance, when the Certificate is found on the record, he was granted provisional admission on the basis of that Certificate in the category otherwise he was not entitled in the open merit. The last candidate admitted in the open merit.........according to the issued list secured 621 marks and as stated in the counter on subsequent admission, the minimum merit of the candidate admitted in the open merit was 615 marks, whereas the petitioner obtained only 556 marks, thus he was not eligible in that category of open merit on any ground By not admitting the petitioner in open merit, none of his legal or fundamental right is violated.
7. Statute 18 of the Brochure provides an alarming notice on the notice board of the Department concerned to all the candidates with a direction that the candidates shall be required to watch and take notice of such notifications and to comply in all respects with the instructions in the notifications failing which the selection shall be cancelled and no complaint will be entertained in that regard.
In the instant case, notice having been published notifying the category, in which the petitioner was admitted without making any complaint regarding the inclusion of the petitioner in that category works as an estoppel against him and not against the University.
8. An argument is also advanced on behalf of the petitioner by referring to Statute 17 of the Brochure containing the University Statutes that the power of the Admission Committee to cancel the admission or refuse to grant admission with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor is very limited. Unless the case is covered fully in the clauses of the said Statute, the respondents have no authority to cancel the admission and the case of the petitioner is not covered by any of those clauses so as to cancel the admission of the petitioner once granted. Clause (i) of the Statute 17 provides as follows : --
'A candidate who either fails to produce any requisite certificate in original within the time prescribed by the Head of the Department or provides information in his application Form which is found incorrect.'
This clause nowhere provides that an admission once granted though provisionally cannot be cancelled on the ground that the certificate produced is fake. The argument though attractive is devoid of any substance for two reasons. Firstly, because the said statute is not applicable to the cases of provisional admission and secondly, even applying the same if the certificate filed is not genuine, it shall be deemed that the requisite certificate is not produced empowering the Admission Committee in this very clause to cancel the admission. In the instant case, first of all the admission of the petitioner was provisional, which could be cancelled the moment the authority found that the certificate of the category was not genuine and secondly, because in the absence of such a certificate the petitioner was not eligible to retain the admission in the category of Actual Line of Control, the power, therefore, cannot be said to have been exercised illegally or without jurisdiction. It is, therefore, held that though the information supplied in the application form was not found incorrect, however, the certificate on the basis of which the petitioner obtained the admission in the category of Actual Line of Control' was not eligible for the same, the cancellation of his admission is legal and in accordance with the provisions of the statute.
9. Adverting to the argument attacking the cancellation on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, it is to be noted that the respondents have taken a clear stand that after the preliminary enquiry as to find out the correctness of the certificate, the authorities concerned came to the conclusion that the certificates produced of the 'Actual Line of Control' by the petitioner and other such candidates were fake and suspicious, notices were issued to them including the petitioner to show cause and to submit their replies to the Head of the Department so as to reach him before 30th September, 1982, a copy of that Notice No. 193-97 issued on September 24, 1982 is also placed on record with the counter-affidavit, which indicates the opportunity to the petitioner to explain why his admission should not be cancelled forthwith. The notice was issued to four candidates including the petitioner, it is accompanied with the report that the said notice was refused, thereupon another notice was issued to the parents ot the candidates including the father of the petitioner on September 27,1982 informing him that notice was served on his son/ward, who was asked to advise his son/ward, failing which action will be taken as indicated in the notice. When no reply was received from the candidates, another Notice No. Law/231 dated 6-10-1982 was issued calling upon the petitioner and the other candidates named therein that in case they fail to give any reply by 12th October. 1982, their cases will be processed for cancellation of their provisional admission. This notice was circulated in the Sections of the LL.B. 1st term and was also placed on the notice board. When no reply was received from the petitioner, the matter was placed before the Admission Committee followed by the communication on the decision of the Admission Committee by the Head of the Department dated 16-10-1982 and hence a report was sent by the Head of the Department on 16-10-1982 to the Registrar, University of Jammu proposing for cancellation of the admission and for placing the same before the Vice-Chancellor for approval in terms of the University Statute. The Vice-chancellor thereupon approved the cancellation of the admission of the candidates including that of the petitioner, which was communicated by Assistant Registrar (Admissions) vide letter dated October 23, 1982 to the Head of the Department of Law, University of Jammu, Jammu followed by the impugned notice of the cancellation issued on October 25, 1982, whereby the admission of the petitioner stood cancelled.
It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the notice dated 6-10-1982 was also notified on the Notice Board of the Department, which fulfils the requirement of Statute 17 of the University Statutes and thus it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the cancellation of the admission.
10. A number of authorities have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner to support their contention on the plea that the principles of natural justice have been violated in the instant case and also to point out that since he has appeared in five semesters in the LL.B. Course under various orders of the Court passed on Civil Miscellaneous petitions during the pendency of the petition at this stage maintaining the cancellation of the admission will cause huge and irreparable loss to the petitioner. It will be convenient to deal with each and every authority in short in chronological order. AIR 1984 SC 1420 (Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India) deals with the case of Reservation in M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Courses, wherein on facts the circumstances cannot be equalised with the case in hand, because no such question is raised in the present petition touching the ratio of that case. In AIR 1978 Madh Pra 86 (Bal Krishan Tiwari v. Registrar of Awadhesh Pratap Singh, University Rewa), the Full Bench of that Court was dealing with the case of cancellation of examination and principles of estoppel and violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case the petitioner was permitted to appear in the LL.B. (Part I) examination of that University by the University authorities and was granted admission card. The candidate appeared as an ex-student before the cancellation of examination, no opportunity of hearing was given to the candidate and after he completed the entire examination under the card issued by the University it was held that it was not a case falling within the category where the candidate practised fraud on the authorities or was guilty of misstatement or of suppression of facts in his application form on the basis of which the examination was granted. The facts of that case are thus distinguishable from the facts of the present case, firstly, because as noted above the University authorities proceeded to cancel the provisional admission with all promptness extending not beyond the period of seven weeks and secondly, because the opportunities were given to the petitioner to explain and show cause why his provisional admission be not cancelled. In' this view of the matter, the said authority cannot be pressed into service and there is no equity in favour of the petitioner to legalise his admission simply because at his own risk and responsibility by obtaining orders from the Court on interim applications, he appeared in the examination during the pendency of the writ petition. As observed in that authority by referring to decision of Lord Selborne in Maddison v. Alderson, (1883) 8 AC 467, said :
'Courts of equity would not permit the statute to be made an instrument of fraud.'
11. Reliance is also placed on AIR 1977 J and K 1 (Haridayal v. State of Janimu and Kashmir), a case where the admission of a candidate in the Medical College was subsequently cancelled by authorities without giving the student an opportunity of being heard. In that case it was, therefore, held that the principles of natural justice have been violated, the order of cancellation was invalid, whereas in the instant case it has been held that the opportunities having been given with all promptness to the petitioner, the principles of natural justice have not been violated and hence no benefit can be taken from the said decision. AIR 1976 SC 376 (Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra) is also relied on by the petitioner to support his contention. Their Lordships in that case were dealing with the case of such a student, who was granted admission card to appear in the examination and the stand taken by the University in the case was not consistent. On the one hand University took the stand that the petitioner despite his undertaking to produce the permission from the Department where he was employed failed to do so and, secondly because he was found short of the attendance required for the examination. The steps were taken by the University authorities after the candidate was allowed to appear at Part II Law Examination of the University, it was, therefore, held : --
'If the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the Examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate.'
The said dictum when applied to the facts of the present case is not applicable on facts. Two other authorities cited, AIR 1973 Him Pra 56 (Kanshi Ram Pradhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh) and AIR 1972 Orissa 154 (State of Orissa v. Sarat Chandra Panigrahi) are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. The powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 103 of the State Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari are now well defined: The High Court in a writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and set aside the orders of the Tribunal or of any authority in a writ jurisdiction by appreciating the same as appellate Court. Unless it is shown that the authority while passing the order acted in violation of law effecting the legal rights or fundamental rights of a citizen, which the Tribunal passed without jurisdiction. It cannot be interfered with by the High Court. In the instant case, it is found that the principles of natural justice having not been violated and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner having been infringed, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this petition. The Admission Committee with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor, who under the University Statutes had the jurisdiction to cancel a provisional admission acted within their jurisdiction. Their Lordships dealing with this aspect held in AIR 1976 SC 232 (Swarn Singh v. State of Punjab) :---
' It is well settled that certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court.'
The above said dictum when applied to the facts of the present case leaves no doubt in holding that the cancellation of the revisional admission on the basis of the preliminary enquiry made by the authorities concerned and the orders passed by the Admission Committee with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor cannot be interfered with in this petition.
13. On the totality of the circumstances, I, therefore, find that the petitioner failed to bring out a case entitling him to get the relief-prayed for in the writ petition. In the absence of any positive case of the petitioner to show that he was entitled to get admission in the open merit or in the category of persons having excelled in cultural/extra-curricular activities, it is difficult to hold that the order of the cancellation of his admission from the category of the 'Actual Line of Control' for the want of the Certificate prescribed was in any manner violative of the provisions of any law or the Constitution of the State or of India. The petition, therefore, fails, which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
In this view of the matter, as the cancellation of the provisional admission of the petitioner, which was notified to him with all promptness, it is difficult to validate the appearance of the petitioner, which was allowed to him in the examination during the pendency of the petition at his own risk and responsibility from time to time. In consequence whereof all the pending C.M. Ps. No. 1399 and 1605 of 1982, 2172 of 1985 and 81 of 1986 are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Interim orders passed stand vacated.