LALY Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petitions 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983 are filed on 29 -11 -1983 ; whereas Writ Petitions 12144 and 12145 of 1985 are filed on 6 -8 -1985. Originally, Writ Petition No. 20794/83 was filed on behalf of 70 students. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, B.Ed. examination results of the petitioners except petitioners 2, 5 and 26 are announced ; therefore, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petition may be confined only to petitioners 2, 5 and 26 only. They have also paid additional Court fee. Therefore, though the Writ Petition is filed on behalf of 70 students, it is now confined only to the aforesaid three petitioners whose results have not been announced by respondent 1 on the ground that they are not eligible to be admitted to the course. Consequently, the Writ Petition 20794/83 is renumbered as W. Ps. 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983.

(2.) IN Writ Petitions 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983, the petitioners have sought for quashing Regulation No. 1 of the Regulations framed by the Academic Council and approved by the Chancellor of the 1st respondent -University of Bangalore for B.Ed. degree course (Day Course) applicable from the academic year 1983 -84 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). Whereas in W.Ps 12144 and 12145 of 1985, the petitioners have sought for striking down Regulation No. 2 of the Regulations. They have also sought for a declaration that the first respondent has no authority to fix the eligibility marks to be obtained in the degree examination of the University in respect of the seats reserved for admission of Students belonging to S.C/S.T. and other Backward classes to B.Ed degree course contrary to the Government Order issued in that behalf and the Rules made by the Government.

(3.) ON the contrary, it is the case of the University that the executive power of the State does not extend to the field which is covered by the Legislation and it is the University which, under Section 57 read with Section 27(2)(c) of the Act, alone is entitled to prescribe the perpercentage of marks for admission to a particular course of study under the University and accordingly, the University has framed the Regulations prescribing 45% of the aggregate marks to be obtained in the final year of the degree examination by all the candidates seeking admission to B.Ed. course except those belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes etc., who have to secure 40%; therefore, it is not open to the State Government to reduce the perpercentage of marks fixed by the University on qualifying marks It is also the case of the University that whether the order of the State Government is passed under Article 15(4) of the Constitution or any other power it is done in the exercise of the executive power; therefore merely because the Government Order provides for lesser perpercentage of marks for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Tribes and other Backward communities it cannot over -ride the Regulations framed by the University and to that extent, the order of the State Government is inoperative. The further case of the University is that the admissions of the petitioners were not intimated to the University well in advance ; therefore the doctrine of equitable estoppel is not attracted in the instant case. It is stated that the petitioners in W.Ps 12144 and 12145 of 1985 were admitted by the college in the month of July, 1985, whereas the list for approval was sent to the University only on 30th September, 1985 and the University informed the Collage after due verification on 7 -2 -1986 that the admission of the petitioners could not be approved as they had not secured requisite perpercentage of marks in the qualifying examination. In the case of petitioners in W.Ps. 20794, 20794A and 207948 of 1983 they were admitted in June 1983, in the year 1983 -84 whereas the list for approval was sent to the University on 31st October, 1983, the University informed the Collage on 5 -3 -1984 itself that some of the students admitted by the college were not eligible for being admitted to the course, as they had not secured the requisite perpercentage of marks in the qualifying examination. In addition to this, it is the case of the University that the question of taking advantage of the delay if any on the part of the University does not arise in these cases because the petitioners were very well aware of the fact that they were not eligible to be admitted to the course having regard to the provisions contained in the Regulations; therefore the petitioners in W.Ps. 12144 and 12145 of 1985 have approached this Court on 6 -8 -1985 even before the list was sent for approval to the University; therefore there was no question of any representation having been made by the University to the college or to the petitioners and they having acted upon such representation. It is also the ease of the University that in a case where the University his acted in accordance with the Regulations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply because in such an event, it will result in directing the University to do a thing contrary to law. In the case of petitioners in W.Ps. 20794, 20794A and 20794B of 1983, these petitions are filed in November, 1983 immediately after seeding the list for approval and without even waiting for the intimation from the University. This according to the University, makes it clear that the petitioners were very well aware of the fact that they were not eligible for admission to the course. On the whole, the case of the University is that in these cases there is no scope whatsoever for the application of the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel.