SHARMA DEVI Vs. REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT EXAMINATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against notice dated 14-4-1992, whereby the petitioner was required to furnish the following bond as a condition precedent to allow her to appear in the 11 nd year B.T.C. examination: "Main Shrimati Sharma Devi likhit rup se bayau karti hun ki yadi mere vaidhanik abhyarthitwa ke virudk aek bhi arop siddha ho jata hai to mere BTC (dwitiya varsh) pariksha, 1992 ka parikshaphal nirasta kar diya jay aur vibhag/shasan dwara koi bhi dand swikar hoga tatha mai nyayalaya ki saran kadapi na lungi."

(2.) THE minimal facts necessary to highlight the controversy involved in the case may be stated as thus : THE petitioner was admitted to two-year B.T.C. Course in the year 1988-89. She passed 1st year examination and was thereafter admitted to Ilnd year. THE impugned notice dated 14-4-1992 was served on the petitioner before she could appear in the Und year examination. THE case of the respondents is that the petitioner secured admission to B.T.C. Course as a divorcee candidate on the basis whereof she was given weightage of 30 marks. It is alleged that but for this weightage being given to the petitioner as divorcee candidate she would not have been admitted to the B.T.C. Course. THE petitioner on the other hand denied that she was admitted on the basis of weightage being given to her as a divorcee candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner never applied as a divorcee candidate nor was she given any weightage on that court. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents having admitted the petitioner to two year B.T.C. Course are now estopped, by principle of promissory estoppel, from holding any inquiry as to the basis on which the petitioner was admitted and from taking any action prejudicial to her in that she has spent time, money and energy in prosecuting her studies on the basis of her admission.

(3.) SO far as the question of promissory estoppel is concerned, it may be observed that in case it is found, on inquiry by the Registrar, Departmental Examinations, that the petitioner secured admission on the basis of the forged certificate and the genuineness of which court net have been ascertained by the authorities at the time of admission, then in that event, the principle of estoppel against respondents would not be attracted and they cannot, on that basis, be precluded from cancelling the admissian of the petitioner as also the results of her 1st year as well as llnd year examination in which she appeared on the basis of the interim order dated 4-5-1992.