Rajkumar Gadpayle Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - therefore, the respondents are estopped to impose the said condition as it is well settled that in the matter of education, prospectus, brochures or rules which are published bind not only the students but also to the educational institutions and the authorities concerned. dhande counsel for the jawahar lal nehru krishi vishwa vidhyalaya, jabalpur, further contended that the orders dated 8-4-1995 and 17-8-1995 were well known to every-body including the students. it is well settled that when once the policy is known and 'acted upon, it cannot be arbitrarily deparated from without formulating other policy and making that policy known to all concerned.orders.k. dubey, j.1. petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions having passed entrance test examination, 1995 successfully, conducted by the professional examination board of madhya pradesh (for short 'board') for seeking their admission in b.v. sc. and a.h. 5 years degree course in any of the colleges of the state of madhya pradesh, were denied admission for academic session 1995-96, on the ground that they are not eligible in view of the orders of the state government, agriculture department, no. b-4-46/95/14-2-dated 8-4-1995 and the order in continuation no. 8-4-46/94/14-2 dated 17-8-1995 (annexure rule 1-a and annexure p.8 of w.p. no. 2943 / 95), as the petitioners do not belong to the category of 'krishak' having not studied and passed two examinations from rural area out of the.....

Judgment:
ORDER

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. Petitioners in all the aforesaid petitions having passed Entrance Test Examination, 1995 successfully, conducted by the Professional Examination Board of Madhya Pradesh (for short 'Board') for seeking their admission in B.V. Sc. and A.H. 5 years degree course in any of the Colleges of the State of Madhya Pradesh, were denied admission for academic session 1995-96, on the ground that they are not eligible in view of the orders of the State Government, Agriculture Department, No. B-4-46/95/14-2-dated 8-4-1995 and the order in continuation No. 8-4-46/94/14-2 dated 17-8-1995 (Annexure Rule 1-A and Annexure P.8 of W.P. No. 2943 / 95), as the petitioners do not belong to the category of 'Krishak' having not studied and passed two examinations from rural area out of the Primary, Middle, High School and Higher Secondary School Examination. Hence the petitioners have approached this Court by their separate writ petitions under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other suitable writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to admit them for pursuing their studies of Five Years Course of B.V. Sc. and A.H.

2. Facts in brief are thus. The Board published the Rules for Conduct of the Pre-Engineering Test, Pre-Medical Test, Pre-Agriculture Test Examination 1995 (Annexure P-1) (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 1 of Chapter I lays down that the Rules relate to only conduct of the examination for admission to various courses, which also give general information relating to eligibilities for admissions, such as Educational qualifications, age, bona fide residence, reservation in various categories, definition or categories, the forms of the certificates which are required to be submitted for the purpose. Rules for admission, called as 'Pravesh Niyam' framed by Director of Technical Education, M.P. State Health and Family Planning Department, Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Jabalpur and Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Raipur are not yet finalised. On finalisation 'Pravesh Niyam' shall be published in 'Raogar Aur Nirman' which shall be final. Rule 1.1 of the Rules speaks that the Rules for conduct of the examinations, shall be applicable on all the candidates who are desireous of seeking admission in professional course of PET, PMT and PAT. A merit list and waiting list of the students who have cleared the Entrance Test Examination for grant of admission shall be prepared in accordance with the Rules and according to merit list the successful students would be admitted on fulfilment of the conditions as laid down in Rule 1.4. Conditions laid down in Rule 1.4 do not lay down any condition that a candidate belonging to the 'Krishak' category shall be entitled to admission only if out of the Primary, Middle and Higher Secondary School Certificate Examinations has at least passed two examinations as a rural student of a school of rural area. Rule 1.7 speaks of horizontal reservation. Rule 1.7.4 defines 'Krishak' (K) means the son/daughter of a bona fide agriculturist, resident of the State of Madhya Pradesh, whose principal/main livelihood is dependent on agriculture and not from other occupation or service and to that effect a certificate is to be annexed in the format of Form No. 13. Rule 1.9 deals with TEST ADMIT CARD. All the petitioners gave their first choice to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course. The Board conducted the examination in May, 1995 of which result was declared in July, 1995. As the petitioners were in the merit list they were issued ADMIT CARD for counselling for admitting the petitioners in B.V. Sc. and A.H. Degree course in the reserved category of 'Krishak'. At the time of counselling the petitioners were asked to file an affidavit of living appeared in at least two examinations (Primary, Middle or High School or Higher Secondary School) from an examination centre in the rural area (Annexure P.8), which the petitioners could not possess, hence the petitioners were denied admission.

3. Final Rules for admissions were published in 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' on 6-4-1995. Rules so published do not contain any condition of passing of two examinations from the schools of rural area, by a student, who applied for seeking admission in category of 'Krishak'. However, because of internal communications dated 8-4-1995 and 17-8-1995 issued by the State Government to the Board and Universities and other endorsees to that effect, which was neither published nor made known to such students prior to appearance in Entrance Test Examination or thereafter.

4. The petitioners contend that the petitioners have been illegally denied the admission. If the Rules would have been known to the petitioners prior to appearance in the Entrance Test Examination, the petitioners would not have opted or given their second choice to seek admission to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course as they possess all the eligibilities except added by the internal communications. The respondents have played with the career of the students as now the petitioners in the midst of the Session cannot seek admission elsewhere or in other degree course. Therefore, the condition imposed at the time of the counselling is illegal, arbitrary and cannot bind the petitioners as it is not disputed that the petitioners are sons of 'Krishaks' whose livelihood is solely dependent on Agriculture and, therefore, the condition imposed by the Communication dated 17-8-1995 cannot be an impediment for grant of admission as neither it was a condition in the Examination Conduct Rules nor it is in the Admission Rules. Therefore, the respondents are estopped to impose the said condition as it is well settled that in the matter of education, Prospectus, Brochures or Rules which are published bind not only the students but also to the Educational Institutions and the Authorities concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited, Bachhiter Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395; Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 1199; Punjab University v. Subash Chander, (1984) 3 SCC 603 : (AIR 1984 SC 1415); P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 : (AIR 1990 SC 405); Mary Philipose v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 Ker 149 (FB); Manoj Kumar Kathuria v. Haryana Agricultural University, AIR 1993 Punj & Har 219.

5. An unreported decision rendered at Bench of this Court at Gwalior by T.S. Doabia, J. in Writ Petition No. 1295 of 1995 decided on 10-11-1995 in case of Soneram Bhakad v. State of M.P. was cited which dealt with the controversy relating to examination of 1995 wherein this Court took the view that the respondents cannot impose the additional condition of passing of the two examinations by changing the basis of selection and grant of admission.

6. A statement was made at the Bar by Shri S.L. Saxena, counsel for the Board and Shri V.K. Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State that the additional condition of passing of two examinations from the schools of rural area was not published either in 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' or in any of the newspapers nor was made known to the students by any other media or mode, though it was forwarded to the Board and the Universities and to other endorsees for taking action.

7. However, learned Govt. Advocate contended that the publication of the order of imposing additional condition issued for and on behalf of the Governor was not necessary as it was to find out in reality that a student belongs to 'Krishak' category or not which can only be when such student must have studied in rural area and cleared two examinations. It was also submitted that plea of estoppel would not be available to the petitioners as no representation or assurance was given to the petitioners for admission in horizontal category of 'Krishak'. The decision rendered in case of Soneram Dhakad (supra) was distinguished and it was submitted that the Rules for conduct of examinations by the Board relate to examinations and not admissions. For seeking admission in the reserved category of 'Krishak' a candidate must fulfil the eligibilities as laid down, otherwise the purpose and policy of granting admission to sons and daughters of bona fide agriculturists is frustrated. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Ku. Nivedita Jain, AIR 1981 SC 2045; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543; Jatinder Kumarv. State of Punjab, AIR 1984 SC 1850; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477, it was submitted that relaxation can always be given in qualifying marks or the conditions can be imposed so as to advance the purpose to achieve the object of reservation in view of Articles 15(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution.

8. Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 2993/95 adopting the arguments advanced by the learned Govt. Advocate and Shri A.G. Dhande counsel for the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Jabalpur, further contended that the orders dated 8-4-1995 and 17-8-1995 were well known to every-body including the students. Moreover the petitioner applied for appearing in the Entrance Test Examination for M.B.B.S. course and gave his second choice for B. V. Sc. and A.H, Course. The petitioner has not applied for his admission in the category of 'Krishak'. Therefore, the plea of estoppel is not available to the petitioner who cannot be heard to say that he is not required to fulfill-the additional condition of passing of two examinations from rural area.

9. After hearing counsel and giving my due consideration to the decisions cited at the Bar and the contentions raised, I am of the opinion that all the petitions' deserve to be allowed. It is not disputed that the petitioners have cleared their Entrance Test Examination for admission to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course in the category of 'Krishak' who were placed in merit accordingly. The dispute is only to the additional condition imposed vide order dated 8-4-1995 (Annexure R.1-A) of which a further clarificatory order was issued on 17-8-1995 (Annexure P. 8). It is also not disputed that the condition imposed of passing of two examinations from the rural area was not published in 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' or any newspaper or was communicated to the students by any mode or media. Rule 1 of Chapter I of Annexure P-1 attaches a finality to the published Rules for Admission in 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' a newspaper. The word 'Prakashit' means published; brought to light or made known through its publication in 'Rojgar Aur Nirman to those who are concerned, contextually speaking the word published is more than mere communication to concerned officials or departments. To publish means to make public, to circulate, to make known to people in general, an advising of public or making known of something for a purpose. 'Blacks legal Dictionary, page 1223, Sixth Edition'. Therefore, the word 'Prakashit' in the educational world is the connotation of the expression so as to know not only by the students but also the teaching community that what are the requirements for advising by means of publicity than minimal communication to the concerned official don.

10. True, the Admission Rules are not statutory; rules are framed under Art. 162 of the Constitution in exercise of the executive powers of the State, but such rules would be binding. The rules have laid down policy to grant admissions to the students of certain categories on fulfilment of certain conditions. It is well settled that when once the policy is known and 'acted upon, it cannot be arbitrarily deparated from without formulating other policy and making that policy known to all concerned. See the decision of the Supreme Court in A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1545.

11. In the field of education prospectus, brochure, syllabus, give an information to the students; even if it is not considered to be statutory and is merely instructive or informative, it is not open to Universities or authorities to depart with impunity from the administrative instructions laid down in the prospectus, brochure or syllabus. As a matter of fact, from the conditions laid down in the instructions, particularly when there was no reservation for adding conditions by means of orders issued after filing of the forms and publication of Admission Rules, the respondents have represented to the students that if they fall within the particular category in merit they will get the admission. Because of this representation in the Rules for conduct of examination and Rules for Admission without reservation of any additional condition, the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes in aid of the petitioners and thus the petitioners have made out a case for an action based on promissory estoppel, for that I place reliance on an unreported decision of the Division Bench rendered at Gwalior Bench of this Court, to which I was a Member with Dr. T.N. Singh, J. in M. P. No. 133/1989 (Rajendra Kumar and other v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior and others decided on 8-12-1989.

12. Clause 1 of Chapter I of the Rules specifically lays down that Rules for admission shall be finally published through media of 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' which shall be deemed to be final, hence in that situation it was incumbent upon the respondents to publish the additional condition imposed for seeking admission. That condition having not been published or made knwon to all concerned certainly respondent State or the ; Universities are estopped to impose the said condition and to direct to produce the certificate of passing of the two examinations from the rural area.

13. In case of Punjab University v. Subhash Chander, (1984) 3 SCC 603 : (AIR 1984 SC 1415) the Supreme Court has ruled that the rules prevailing at the time of the examination and not those adopted at the time of the admission would be applicable. Any change after the examination, in the rules relating to the admission can only operate : prospectively.

14. In case of Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 1199 , the Supreme Court has observed in a case relating to the admission to Post Graduate Course in Medical College, that the advertisement prescribing the minimum qualification the admission which, are judged on the same basis and not on others, as the State would be bound by it unless shown : otherwise. A student cannot be denied admission on the basis of Government Order.

15. In the Rules which were published in, the 'Rojgar Aur Nirman' the definition of 'Krishak' remained unaltered which according to clause I of Chapter I of the Rules for' Conduct of Examination was final, therefore the respondents were estopped to deny the admission on the basis of the Government orders dated 8-4-1995 and 17-8-1995. Hence, I respectfully agree with the view taken by Doabia J. in case of Soneram Dhakad (supra).

16. The decision relied by the learned counsel respondents relate to relaxation of: qualifying marks in relation to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates by the Executive Order which is not the case here. The decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 477) (supra) also is not applicable as it deals with the reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other Backward classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, in the interest of the members of that section of the Society.

17. In the result the petitions are allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the cases of individual petitioners for admission ignoring the condition of studying and appearing in two examinations from the rural area. That be done within a period of 10 days so that the students may not suffer in their studies. No costs.