GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. MUKAT NAVNITLAL KAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents nos.1 and 2 in Special Civil Application No. 1192 Or 1993 are the appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal. The 1 respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal is the petitioner in the Special Civil Application. Respondents nos. 2 to 4 in this Letters Patent Appeal are respondents nos.3 to 5 in the Special Civil Application. We propose to refer to the parties as per their nomenclature in the Special Civil Application.

(2.) The petitioner impugned the Notification hearing No. 20 of 1993 dated 8.1.1993 whereunder the result of the petitioner and his performance in B. Ed. examination held in April 1991 were treated as null and void on the ground that he had resorted to unfair means while seeking admission to B. Ed. class during the academic year 1990-91 and his admission to B. Ed. class was also cancelled. The petitioner for the academic year 1990 made an application seeking admission to the B. Ed. Course hereinafter referred to as the Course on 2nd March 1990. The said application was acknowledged by the Gujarat University under acknowledgment dated 24th March 1990 and 12th May 1990 The petitioner was issued the requisite eligibility certificate. It is not disputed before us that so far as the application of the petitioner for admission to the Course was concerned it was thoroughly scrutinised by an Admission Cell specifically set up therefore by the Gujarat University and the admission of the petitioner to the course happened only after such thorough scrutiny. The petitioner on Admission Card being issued went through the course under respondent no.4-College and on completion of the course the petitioner was permitted to take examination conducted by the Gujarat University in April 1991. The Petitioner obtained 732 marks out of 1000 marks and passed the examination in first class with distinction. The marks sheet dated 15.6 was issued to the petitioner by the Gujarat University. After the lapse of one year proceedings were prosecuted to deprive the petitioner of what he secured as above on the ground that he obtained admission to the course putting forth the degree in M. Com. obtained from Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya which is not a recognised institution. The ultimate result of these proceedings was the impugned notification. The learned Single Judge was requested to view the question from the angle of estoppel and the learned Single Judge did view the question from that angle he countenanced the pleas of the petitioner and granted him reliefs by quashing the impugned notification and directing what all he secured as above to stand and there was also a direction to issue the appropriate notification to effectuate the reliefs accorded. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) Mr. S.N. Shelat learned counsel for respondents nos.1 and 2/appellant herein would submit that when Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is not a recognised institution the M.Com. degree which the petitioner obtained from that Vishwavidyalaya could not be of any avail to him for seeking admission; when the obtaining of a M.Com. degree from a recognised institution is the pre-requisite for such admission. Here we find a case where there has been no play of fraud and no suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner. It is not as if the Gujarat University and its officials could not verify the position despite the exercise of due diligence. There was absolute lack of due diligence on their part and they did not care to verify the position and allowed things to rest. There was ample time and opportunity for them to verify the position. Yet they did not. In such a case as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Shri Krishnan vs. The Kurukshetra University Kurukshetra AIR 1976 SC 376 it would not be a case of either suggestion false or suppression veri on the part of the petitioner. He by himself did not misrepresent any thing. The application of the petitioner as already noted did go through a scrutiny by the Admission Cell of the Gujarat University specifically constituted therefore. Only after such scrutiny and the grant of eligibility certificate the petitioner went through the course in respondent no. 4-College. It is claimed that long after the petitioner going through the course and taking the examination and coming out successfully passing in first class with distinction a complaint was received and further there has been a Notification by the University Grants Commission in June 1991 saying that Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya is not a recognised institution. If there had been due diligence at the appropriate level and time this position which is inequitable indeed to the petitioner would not have emerged. It is only in this context we arc obliged to take note of the principle of equitable estoppel and render justice as the facts of the case demand. The doctrine of equitable is grounded on the principle that where a person having the means to know the material facts remains inactive or negligent or abstains from taking the requisite steps at his command to ascertain the material facts so as to repudiate the transaction in time and thereby the other person is induced to suppose and act that there is nothing reprehensible in the transaction it would amount to acquiescence on the part of the former and the transaction though could be impeached originally becomes unimpeachable. It is true that ordinarily one cannot be estopped to assert direct violation of any statutory provision but equitable estoppel being eminently a rule of justice is supposed to prevail over all other rules. As already noted the petitioner could not be stated to have committed any fraud and he could not be slated to have suppressed any thing and whatever infirmity the seeking of admission by the petitioner to the course suffered must be deemed to have been acquisced in by the University and its authorities. Accordingly finding no warrant for interference in Letters Patent Appeal we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal Dismissed.