Ramakrishna Vs. the Vice Chancellor, University of Agricultural Sciences - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
constitution of india - articles 226 & 227 and regulations governing post graduate programes -- regulation 12.1.4 -- admission of petitioner for m.sc. (agril. engg) in post harvest processing and food engineering was cancelled for not earning the minimum cgpa of 7.00 out of 10.00 at the end of ii semester of 1993-94. petitioner challenged this. held -- as immediate action was into taken on the grade report submitted by the teachers to the academic limit within time in terms of regulation 13.2, the action taken nearly two years thereafter is wholly inequitable and unfair, as by then the petitioner was doing his forth semester. ;counsel appearing for the respondent-university however argued that in terms of regulation 12.1.4 the petitioner was obliged not only to achieve a cumulative grade point 7 out of 10 at the end of the second semester but to maintain that average even at later stages of his study. he urged that if the petitioner has failed to maintain the prescribed grade point in the 3rd and the 4th semesters also, he may have in any case to go out of the course making it futile for him to question the validity of the university's action based on his second semester performance. ;it is true that the requirement of maintaining the requisite grade point, applies not only to the performance of the students in the second semester but also to the later semesters. in other words, the failure on the part of a student to achieve the requisite grade point at any stage of the course, can result in the termination of his admission. the fact however remains that the petitioner's admission in the instant case has not been cancelled by the university on account of his failure to maintain the grade point, in the third and the fourth semester examination. as to what has been the petitioner's level of performance in the third and the fourth semester, has not been disclosed by the respondents, so also the question whether the petitioner's admission on account of his failure to maintain the grade point during the third and the 4th semester can be made a basis for termination of his admission does not fall for consideration in the present writ petition nor am i inclined to express any opinion on the permissibility of any such action at this stage. all that this court is presently concerned with is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's admission on the ground of his failure to maintain the grade point at the end of the second semester is legally sustainable. for the reasons already stated above my answer to this question is in the negative. - mines and minerals (regulation and development) act (67 of 1957) section 11: [p.d. dinakaran, cj & v.g. sabhahit, j] grant of mining lease cancellation sought on the ground that mining may cause trouble to people in village concerned wherein pooja and festival is being conducted every year on ground level maintainability neither survey number of areas nor any material produced by petitioners to show that alleged pooja and festival is being conducted in or around the impugned quarry petitioners even failed to establish existence of any temple around quarry which has got religious sanctity - cancellation of grant of mining lease cannot be granted. - he is aggrieved of a memo dated the 9th september, 1996 issued by the registrar, of the respondent-university, whereby his admission has been cancelled in terms of regulation 12.1.4 of the regulations governing post graduate programmes on account of his failure to earn the minimum c. it is stated that academic standards of the courses, offered by the respondents are matters that are decided by academic bodies and that the university having framed the regulations and prescribed a standard for the course undertaken by the petitioner, his failure to come up to the prescribed standard would disentitle him to continue in the course or seek any relief from this court. 3. counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that while a candidate undergoing the post graduate course, is required to earn a cumulative grade point of not less than 7,00 out of 10.00 at the end of the ii semester and those who failed to satisfy that requirement are not entitled to continue the course yet in order that a candidate may be asked to leave the course or his admission be cancelled on that ground, it is essential that the other requirements of the regulations are scrupulously complied with. having thus, induced the petitioner to believe that his admission to the 3rd semester was perfectly justified, contended the learned counsel, it was not open to the university to cancel the same two years later in september 1996 by which time he had already reached the 5th semester. that is so because, once a student gets into the 3rd semester and pursues the studies by spending time, energy and money, it would be unfair, on the part of the university to belatedly turn him out on the ground that he had failed to maintain the grade point at the end of the second or any other semester. it is fairly well settled that forms and modes of making representations are infinite. that precisely is the situation here also. both on the doctrines of legitimate expectation as also estoppel by representation, the student concerned would be entitled to question any belated attempt made by the university to turn him out of the course on the ground that he had failed to achieve the requisite grade points. it is also admitted that it was for the first time on 9th september, 1996 that is nearly two years after the petitioner had taken the second semester examination, that he was for the first time informed of his having failed to maintain the requisite grade point at the end of the second semester. if the petitioner had failed to achieve the prescribed grade point, in the second semester examination, nothing prevented the university from asking him to leave within 15 days of the commencement of the next semester on the basis of the grade reports submitted by the teachers to the academic unit within that time in terms of regulation 13.2. this, the university did not do, either because the teachers had not submitted the reports or even if the same were submitted, the authorities slept over the matter. on the other hand, if the reports had been received showing thepetitioner to have failed to maintain the prescribed grade point, the reason for not taking action for nearly two years, have also not been explained. his continuance in the course undoubtedly implies a change of his position to his detriment which he would not have accepted had he been informed at the appropriate stage that he had failed to maintain the requisite grade point. cancellation would be unfair even on the doctrine of legitimate expectation created in the mind of the petitioner that he had been or was being allowed to continue in the course for nearly two years, only because he had either achieved the prescribed grade point or his failure to do so has been condoned but for which he would have been asked to leave. he urged that if the petitioner has failed to maintain the prescribed grade point in the 3rd and the 4th semesters also, he may have in any case to go out of the course making it futile for him to question the validity of the university's action based on his second semester performance. in other words,the failure on the part of a student to achieve the requisite grade point at any stage of the course, can result in the termination of his admission. the fact however remains that the petitioner's admission in the instant case has not been cancelled by the university on account of his failure to maintain the grade point, in the third and the fourth semester examination. as to what has been the petitioner's level of performance in the third and the fourth semester, has not been disclosed by the respondent, so also the question whether the petitioner's admission on account of his failure to maintain the grade point during the third and the 4th semester can be made a basis for termination of his admission does not fall for consideration in the present writ petition nor am i inclined to express any opinion on the permissibility of any such action at this stage. all that this court is presently concerned with is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's admission on the ground of his failure to maintain the grade point at the end of the second semester is legally sustainable.ordertirath s. thakur, j.1.the petitioner is a 5th semester post graduate student undergoing a masters course in agriculture engineering. he is aggrieved of a memo dated the 9th september, 1996 issued by the registrar, of the respondent-university, whereby his admission has been cancelled in terms of regulation 12.1.4 of the regulations governing post graduate programmes on account of his failure to earn the minimum c.g.p.a. of 7 out of 10 at the end of ii semester of 1993-94. the memo reads thus ;-'the admission of mr. r.ramakrishna jd no. paj 3261 student of m.sc.,(ag.engg) in post harvest processing and food engineering is treated as cancelled for not earning the minimum cgpa of 7.00 out of 10.00 at the end of ii semester of 1993-94. this is in accordance with the regulation 12.1.4 governing the post-graduate programme under semester system of the university.by ordersd/-registrar'2. in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, the university has justified its action on the ground set out in the memo. it is urged that as per the said regulation, post graduate degree students are required to earn the prescribed over all grade point average at the end of ii semester and also to maintain the said average throughout failing which their admission is liable to be cancelled forcing them to discontinue the course. it is stated that academic standards of the courses, offered by the respondents are matters that are decided by academic bodies and that the university having framed the regulations and prescribed a standard for the course undertaken by the petitioner, his failure to come up to the prescribed standard would disentitle him to continue in the course or seek any relief from this court.3. counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that while a candidate undergoing the post graduate course, is required to earn a cumulative grade point of not less than 7,00 out of 10.00 at the end of the ii semester and those who failed to satisfy that requirement are not entitled to continue the course yet in order that a candidate may be asked to leave the course or his admission be cancelled on that ground, it is essential that the other requirements of the regulations are scrupulously complied with. it was contended that in terms of regulation 13.2 the teachers are obliged to send the grade result of each student to the academic unit within two weeks of the commencement of the next semester which in the case of the petitioner does not appear to have been done, with the result that the petitioner was permitted to join the 3rd semester during the academic year 1994-95 without any objection from the respondents. having thus, induced the petitioner to believe that his admission to the 3rd semester was perfectly justified, contended the learned counsel, it was not open to the university to cancel the same two years later in september 1996 by which time he had already reached the 5th semester. the university, it was argued, was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission at this distant point of time, on what was termed as a tenuous plea that the petitioner had not attended the prescribed grade point at the end of the second semester.4. regulations 13.2. and 13.3 of the regulations governing the course, and relevant for our purpose read thus :-'regulations 13.2 & 13.3:-teachers shall send the grade reports of each student to the academic unit within two weeks of commencement of the next semester. in case of students whose course work is incomplete for reasons other than attendance 'ic' (incomplete) grade may be sent by specifying the reasons for grading as incomplete.the course grade reports once filed by the teacher with the academic unit, shall be final. however, in case of discrepancy in reporting the grade arising out of genuine mistakes;i) the representation either from the teacher or from the student, should be submitted to the director of instruction of the college through the head of the department concerned within one year.ii) such representation shall be considered by a committee consisting of the concerned director of instruction. head of the department and another professor of the college to be nominated by the director of instruction. in case the head of the department himself has offered the course, the director of instruction shall nominate some other head of the department.iii) the recommendation of the committee shall be considered by the dean and the decision will be implemented by the university.'5. a plain reading of the above would show that the teachers concerned are obliged to send the grade reports of each student, to the academic unit within two weeks of the commencement of the next semester. it is important to note that even in the case of students whose course work is incomplete for reasons other than attendance, in incomplete grade report specifying the reasons why the grading is incomplete has to be submitted by the teachers concerned. it is also apparent that the grade reports once filed by the teachers is final except in the case of discrepancies if any arising out of genuine mistakes in which event, the regulations envisage a representation being filed either by the teacher or the student concerned. the representation so made is required to be considered by the committee consisting of the concerned director of the instructions and others mentioned in regulation 13.3.(ii). what is significant is that the teachers are required to submit the gradereports within the prescribed period for it is on the basis of the said reports that the right of the students to continue in the course is determined. a student who fails to maintain the prescribed standard forfeits his right to continue in the course and can therefore be asked to quite it follows that if the university proposes to invoke regulation 12.14 for bending a student out from the course, it can and ought to do so on the basis of a grade. report received from the teachers concerned under regulation 13.2. on the other hand if the submission of the grade report is delayed or its non-submission ignored by the university authorities, it is most likely to create an impression in the mind of the candidates concerned, that they have acquired the necessary grade point average thereby entitling them to continue pursuing the course in the next higher semesters. to prevent any such impression which may in a large number of cases be even contrary to the actual performance of the students concerned, it is essential that the teachers do their part of the duty under regulation 13.2 within the prescribed period. that is so because, once a student gets into the 3rd semester and pursues the studies by spending time, energy and money, it would be unfair, on the part of the university to belatedly turn him out on the ground that he had failed to maintain the grade point at the end of the second or any other semester. the student can in any such situation justifiably claim that he would have neither continued his studies nor changed his position to his determinate if only he had been informed about his disqualifications at the appropriate stage. it would also give rise to a legitimate exception in the mind of the students that they have been or shall be allowed to continue the course as though the requisite grade point had been achieved by him. more important than the expectation of the student, the university shall be estopped from questioning the existence of the state of affairs, which the student could by reason of its silence presume to be in existence. stated differently, the student could say to himself 'i have achieved the prescribed grade point in my 2nd semester examination for otherwise the university would not have allowed me to continue in the 3rd semester of the course' it could also be assumed by the student that even if the prescribed grade point had hot been achieved by him, the university must be deemed to have condoned the same or else there was no reason why it would not have asked him to quit. both these inferences constitute representations made by theuniversity to the student by the former's conduct. it is fairly well settled that forms and modes of making representations are infinite. while representations are most commonly made by words written or spoken, they can and very often are made even by acts aid conduct. representation may be inferred in certain situations even by silence or inaction. in the case of representation by silence, apart from the fact that the represented had altered his position to his detriment, all that is required to be established is that the represent or was under a duty to speak, make the disclosure, or take the steps, the omissions of which is relied upon as creating the estoppel. the juristic basis or the theory behind this principle is stated by spenser bower turner in their book estoppel by representation 2nd edition at page 46 thus:'the parties to a transaction are entitled to assume, as against one another, omnia rite esse acta; each of them is entitled to suppose that the other has fully discharged all such obligations (if any) of disclosure or action towards himself as may have been created by the circumstances. if, therefore, he receives from that other no intimation, by language or conduct, of the existence of any fact which, if existing, it would have been the letter's duty, having regard to the relation between them, the nature of the transaction, or the circumstances of the case, to reveal, be has legitimate ground for believing that no such fact exists, or that there is nothing so abnormal or peculiar in the nature of the transaction, or in the circumstances of the case, as to give rise to any duty of disclosure, and to shape his course of action on that assumption; in other words, he is entitled to treat the represent or's silence or inaction as an implied representation of the non-existence of anything which would impose, or give rise to, such a duty, and, if he alters his position to his detriment on the faith of that representation, the represent or is estopped from afterwards setting up the existence of such suppressed or undisclosed fact.'as to whether the represent or was under an obligation to speak or act would vary from case to case and situation to situation having regard to the nature of the legal relationship in which they are placed qua each other. it is therefore neither possible nor otherwise advisable to lay down any broad or general tests of universal application. what is however clear is that a duty to speak can beclearly inferred where the represent or is in the exclusive knowledge of what constitutes the very basis of his future action. disclosure of the facts or the duty to speak is therefore the clearest in such cases, for not only does the represented wait in exception of what may determine his future course of action, but even the represent or cannot take an exception to the same without making such a disclosure. that precisely is the situation here also. the university alone is in command of the crucial facts the disclosure whereof could determine whether the student was to sail smooth on the course or be thrown out of it. its obligation to speak and to disclose to the students whether they have achieved the prescribed grade point cannot therefore be denied. both on the doctrines of legitimate expectation as also estoppel by representation, the student concerned would be entitled to question any belated attempt made by the university to turn him out of the course on the ground that he had failed to achieve the requisite grade points.6. coming then to the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared in the second semester examination in the year 1993-94. it is also not denied that he was allowed to continue his studies in the iii semester during the academic year 1994-95 and that he is currently in the 5th semester. it is also admitted that it was for the first time on 9th september, 1996 that is nearly two years after the petitioner had taken the second semester examination, that he was for the first time informed of his having failed to maintain the requisite grade point at the end of the second semester. that being so it indeed was a case of belated reaction on the part of the university making it wholly unjust unfair and inequitable. if the petitioner had failed to achieve the prescribed grade point, in the second semester examination, nothing prevented the university from asking him to leave within 15 days of the commencement of the next semester on the basis of the grade reports submitted by the teachers to the academic unit within that time in terms of regulation 13.2. this, the university did not do, either because the teachers had not submitted the reports or even if the same were submitted, the authorities slept over the matter. what exactly was the reason for the delay in cancelling the petitioner's admission has not been disclosed. if the teacher had delayed the submission of the grade reports then what was the reason for such delay is also not known. on the other hand, if the reports had been received showing thepetitioner to have failed to maintain the prescribed grade point, the reason for not taking action for nearly two years, have also not been explained. the result is that during the intervening period of nearly two years, the petitioner continues to pursue his studies all the time carrying the impression that he had the right to do so for otherwise the university would not have permitted him to stay on. his continuance in the course undoubtedly implies a change of his position to his detriment which he would not have accepted had he been informed at the appropriate stage that he had failed to maintain the requisite grade point. continuance in the course involves not only time, effort and energy but financial burden also. according to the petitioner he had to go out of station in connection with his research work for completing his thesis in the 3rd and the 4th semester involving an expenditure of rs. 20,000/- or so. these averments have not been disputed by the respondent-university in the objections filed by it. it is therefore manifest that the petitioner was, on account of the representation made by the respondent by its conduct, induced to change his position to his detriment which he would not have done but for the said representation making the cancellation of his admission wholly inequitable and unfair. cancellation would be unfair even on the doctrine of legitimate expectation created in the mind of the petitioner that he had been or was being allowed to continue in the course for nearly two years, only because he had either achieved the prescribed grade point or his failure to do so has been condoned but for which he would have been asked to leave.7. counsel appearing for the respondent-university however argued that in terms of regulation 12.1.4 the petitioner was obliged not only to achieve a cumulative grade point 7 out of 10 at the end of the second semester but to maintain that average even at later stages of his study. he urged that if the petitioner has failed to maintain the prescribed grade point in the 3rd and the 4th semesters also, he may have in any case to go out of the course making it futile for him to question the validity of the university's action based on his second semester performance.8. it is true that the requirement of maintaining the requisite grade point, applies not only to the performance of the students in the second semester but also to the later semesters. in other words,the failure on the part of a student to achieve the requisite grade point at any stage of the course, can result in the termination of his admission. the fact however remains that the petitioner's admission in the instant case has not been cancelled by the university on account of his failure to maintain the grade point, in the third and the fourth semester examination. as to what has been the petitioner's level of performance in the third and the fourth semester, has not been disclosed by the respondent, so also the question whether the petitioner's admission on account of his failure to maintain the grade point during the third and the 4th semester can be made a basis for termination of his admission does not fall for consideration in the present writ petition nor am i inclined to express any opinion on the permissibility of any such action at this stage. all that this court is presently concerned with is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's admission on the ground of his failure to maintain the grade point at the end of the second semester is legally sustainable. for the reasons already stated above my answer to this question is in the negative.9. in the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned memo dated 9th september, 1996 is hereby quashed.10. the parties shall however bear their own costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Tirath S. Thakur, J.

1.The petitioner is a 5th Semester Post Graduate Student undergoing a Masters course in Agriculture engineering. He is aggrieved of a memo dated the 9th September, 1996 issued by the Registrar, of the Respondent-University, whereby his admission has been cancelled in terms of Regulation 12.1.4 of the Regulations governing post Graduate programmes on account of his failure to earn the minimum C.G.P.A. of 7 out of 10 at the end of II Semester of 1993-94. The memo reads thus ;-

'The admission of Mr. R.Ramakrishna JD No. PAJ 3261 student of M.Sc.,(Ag.Engg) in Post Harvest Processing and Food engineering is treated as cancelled for not earning the minimum CGPA of 7.00 out of 10.00 at the end of II Semester of 1993-94. This is in accordance with the regulation 12.1.4 governing the Post-graduate Programme under semester system of the University.

By Order

sd/-

Registrar'

2. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the Respondent, the University has justified its action on the ground set out in the memo. It is urged that as per the said Regulation, post graduate degree students are required to earn the prescribed over all grade point average at the end of II Semester and also to maintain the said average throughout failing which their admission is liable to be cancelled forcing them to discontinue the course. It is stated that academic standards of the courses, offered by the respondents are matters that are decided by academic bodies and that the University having framed the Regulations and prescribed a standard for the course undertaken by the petitioner, his failure to come up to the prescribed standard would disentitle him to continue in the course or seek any relief from this Court.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that while a candidate undergoing the post graduate Course, is required to earn a cumulative Grade Point of not less than 7,00 out of 10.00 at the end of the II Semester and those who failed to satisfy that requirement are not entitled to continue the course yet in order that a candidate may be asked to leave the course or his admission be cancelled on that ground, it is essential that the other requirements of the Regulations are scrupulously complied with. It was contended that in terms of Regulation 13.2 the teachers are obliged to send the Grade result of each student to the academic unit within two weeks of the commencement of the next semester which in the case of the petitioner does not appear to have been done, with the result that the petitioner was permitted to join the 3rd Semester during the academic year 1994-95 without any objection from the Respondents. Having thus, induced the petitioner to believe that his admission to the 3rd Semester was perfectly justified, contended the learned Counsel, it was not open to the University to cancel the same two years later in September 1996 by which time he had already reached the 5th Semester. The University, it was argued, was estopped from cancelling the petitioner's admission at this distant point of time, on what was termed as a tenuous plea that the petitioner had not attended the prescribed Grade point at the end of the second semester.

4. Regulations 13.2. and 13.3 of the Regulations governing the course, and relevant for our purpose read thus :-

'Regulations 13.2 & 13.3:-Teachers shall send the Grade reports of each student to the Academic Unit within two weeks of commencement of the next Semester. In case of students whose course work is incomplete for reasons other than attendance 'IC' (incomplete) grade may be sent by specifying the reasons for grading as Incomplete.

The course Grade reports once filed by the teacher with the Academic Unit, shall be final. However, in case of discrepancy in reporting the grade arising out of genuine mistakes;

i) The representation either from the teacher or from the student, should be submitted to the Director of Instruction of the College through the Head of the Department concerned within one year.

ii) Such representation shall be considered by a Committee consisting of the concerned director of instruction. Head of the Department and another Professor of the College to be nominated by the Director of Instruction. In case the Head of the Department himself has offered the course, the Director of Instruction shall nominate some other Head of the Department.

iii) The recommendation of the Committee shall be considered by the Dean and the decision will be implemented by the University.'

5. A plain reading of the above would show that the teachers concerned are obliged to send the Grade reports of each student, to the academic Unit within two weeks of the commencement of the next Semester. It is important to note that even in the case of students whose course work is incomplete for reasons other than attendance, in incomplete Grade Report specifying the reasons why the grading is incomplete has to be submitted by the teachers concerned. It is also apparent that the Grade Reports once filed by the Teachers is final except in the case of discrepancies if any arising out of genuine mistakes in which event, the Regulations envisage a representation being filed either by the teacher or the student concerned. The Representation so made is required to be considered by the Committee consisting of the concerned Director of the Instructions and others mentioned in Regulation 13.3.(ii). what is significant is that the teachers are required to submit the Gradereports within the prescribed period for it is on the basis of the said reports that the right of the students to continue in the course is determined. A student who fails to maintain the prescribed standard forfeits his right to continue in the course and can therefore be asked to quite It follows that if the University proposes to invoke Regulation 12.14 for Bending a student out from the course, it can and ought to do so on the basis of a Grade. Report received from the Teachers concerned under Regulation 13.2. On the other hand if the submission of the Grade Report is delayed or its non-submission ignored by the University Authorities, it is most likely to create an impression in the mind of the candidates concerned, that they have acquired the necessary Grade Point average thereby entitling them to continue pursuing the course in the next higher Semesters. To prevent any such impression which may in a large number of cases be even contrary to the actual performance of the students concerned, it is essential that the Teachers do their part of the duty under Regulation 13.2 within the prescribed period. That is so because, once a student gets into the 3rd Semester and pursues the studies by spending time, energy and money, it would be unfair, on the part of the University to belatedly turn him out on the ground that he had failed to maintain the Grade point at the end of the second or any other semester. The student can in any such situation justifiably claim that he would have neither continued his studies nor changed his position to his determinate if only he had been informed about his disqualifications at the appropriate stage. It would also give rise to a legitimate exception in the mind of the students that they have been or shall be allowed to continue the course as though the requisite Grade Point had been achieved by him. More important than the expectation of the student, the University shall be estopped from questioning the existence of the state of affairs, which the student could by reason of its silence presume to be in existence. Stated differently, the student could say to himself 'I have achieved the prescribed Grade point in my 2nd semester examination for otherwise the University would not have allowed me to continue in the 3rd semester of the Course' it could also be assumed by the student that even if the prescribed Grade point had hot been achieved by him, the University must be deemed to have condoned the same or else there was no reason why it would not have asked him to quit. Both these inferences constitute representations made by theUniversity to the student by the former's conduct. It is fairly well settled that forms and modes of making representations are infinite. While representations are most commonly made by words written or spoken, they can and very often are made even by acts aid conduct. Representation may be inferred in certain situations even by silence or inaction. In the case of representation by silence, apart from the fact that the represented had altered his position to his detriment, all that is required to be established is that the represent or was under a duty to speak, make the disclosure, or take the steps, the omissions of which is relied upon as creating the estoppel. The juristic basis or the theory behind this principle is stated by Spenser Bower Turner in their book Estoppel by Representation 2nd edition at Page 46 thus:

'The parties to a transaction are entitled to assume, as against one another, omnia rite esse acta; each of them is entitled to suppose that the other has fully discharged all such obligations (if any) of disclosure or action towards himself as may have been created by the circumstances. If, therefore, he receives from that other no intimation, by language or conduct, of the existence of any fact which, if existing, it would have been the letter's duty, having regard to the relation between them, the nature of the transaction, or the circumstances of the case, to reveal, be has legitimate ground for believing that no such fact exists, or that there is nothing so abnormal or peculiar in the nature of the transaction, or in the circumstances of the case, as to give rise to any duty of disclosure, and to shape his course of action on that assumption; in other words, he is entitled to treat the represent or's silence or inaction as an implied representation of the non-existence of anything which would impose, or give rise to, such a duty, and, if he alters his position to his detriment on the faith of that representation, the represent or is estopped from afterwards setting up the existence of such suppressed or undisclosed fact.'

As to whether the represent or was under an obligation to speak or act would vary from case to case and situation to situation having regard to the nature of the legal relationship in which they are placed qua each other. It is therefore neither possible nor otherwise advisable to lay down any broad or general tests of universal application. What is however clear is that a duty to speak can beclearly inferred where the represent or is in the exclusive knowledge of what constitutes the very basis of his future action. Disclosure of the facts or the duty to speak is therefore the clearest in such cases, for not only does the represented wait in exception of what may determine his future course of action, but even the represent or cannot take an exception to the same without making such a disclosure. That precisely is the situation here also. The University alone is in command of the crucial facts the disclosure whereof could determine whether the student was to sail smooth on the course or be thrown out of it. Its obligation to speak and to disclose to the students whether they have achieved the prescribed grade point cannot therefore be denied. Both on the doctrines of legitimate expectation as also estoppel by representation, the student concerned would be entitled to question any belated attempt made by the University to turn him out of the course on the ground that he had failed to achieve the requisite Grade Points.

6. Coming then to the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner had appeared in the second semester Examination in the year 1993-94. It is also not denied that he was allowed to continue his studies in the III Semester during the academic year 1994-95 and that he is currently in the 5th Semester. It is also admitted that it was for the first time on 9th September, 1996 that is nearly two years after the petitioner had taken the second semester examination, that he was for the first time informed of his having failed to maintain the requisite Grade Point at the end of the second Semester. That being so it indeed was a case of belated reaction on the part of the University making it wholly unjust unfair and inequitable. If the petitioner had failed to achieve the prescribed Grade Point, in the second Semester Examination, nothing prevented the University from asking him to leave within 15 days of the commencement of the next semester on the basis of the Grade reports submitted by the teachers to the academic unit within that time in terms of Regulation 13.2. This, the University did not do, either because the teachers had not submitted the reports or even if the same were submitted, the Authorities slept over the matter. What exactly was the reason for the delay in cancelling the petitioner's admission has not been disclosed. If the teacher had delayed the submission of the Grade reports then what was the reason for such delay is also not known. On the other hand, if the reports had been received showing thepetitioner to have failed to maintain the prescribed Grade Point, the reason for not taking action for nearly two years, have also not been explained. The result is that during the intervening period of nearly two years, the petitioner continues to pursue his studies all the time carrying the impression that he had the right to do so for otherwise the University would not have permitted him to stay on. His continuance in the course undoubtedly implies a change of his position to his detriment which he would not have accepted had he been informed at the appropriate stage that he had failed to maintain the requisite Grade Point. Continuance in the course involves not only time, effort and energy but financial burden also. According to the petitioner he had to go out of station in connection with his research work for completing his thesis in the 3rd and the 4th Semester involving an expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- or so. These averments have not been disputed by the Respondent-University in the objections filed by it. It is therefore manifest that the petitioner was, on account of the representation made by the Respondent by its conduct, induced to change his position to his detriment which he would not have done but for the said representation making the cancellation of his admission wholly inequitable and unfair. Cancellation would be unfair even on the doctrine of legitimate expectation created in the mind of the petitioner that he had been or was being allowed to continue in the course for nearly two years, only because he had either achieved the prescribed Grade Point or his failure to do so has been condoned but for which he would have been asked to leave.

7. Counsel appearing for the Respondent-University however argued that in terms of Regulation 12.1.4 the petitioner was obliged not only to achieve a cumulative Grade Point 7 out of 10 at the end of the second Semester but to maintain that average even at later stages of his study. He urged that if the petitioner has failed to maintain the prescribed Grade Point in the 3rd and the 4th Semesters also, he may have in any case to go out of the course making it futile for him to question the validity of the University's action based on his second Semester performance.

8. It is true that the requirement of maintaining the requisite Grade Point, applies not only to the performance of the students in the Second Semester but also to the later Semesters. In other words,the failure on the part of a student to achieve the requisite Grade Point at any stage of the course, can result in the termination of his admission. The fact however remains that the petitioner's admission in the instant case has not been cancelled by the University on account of his failure to maintain the Grade Point, in the Third and the Fourth Semester Examination. As to what has been the petitioner's level of performance in the third and the fourth Semester, has not been disclosed by the Respondent, so also the question whether the petitioner's admission on account of his failure to maintain the Grade Point during the third and the 4th Semester can be made a basis for termination of his admission does not fall for consideration in the present writ petition nor am I inclined to express any opinion on the permissibility of any such action at this stage. All that this Court is presently concerned with is whether the cancellation of the petitioner's admission on the ground of his failure to maintain the Grade Point at the end of the Second Semester is legally sustainable. For the reasons already stated above my answer to this question is in the negative.

9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned Memo dated 9th September, 1996 is hereby quashed.

10. The parties shall however bear their own costs.