TRIPURESHWAR MALLIK Vs. COUNCIL OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for adjudication in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to the protection under the principle of estoppel against the action of the opposite parties.

(2.) The petitioner filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the decision of the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa (opposite party No. 1) communicated to him in the letter dated 14-9-1989 of the Principal of the Cuttack College (Annexure 4) and to direct the opposite parties to accept the position that he had passed the Annual Higher Secondary Examination of 1989 as a compartmental candidate.

(3.) The facts regarding which there is no dispute are stated hereunder: The petitioner, a student of the Cuttack College, appeared as a regular collegiate candidate at the Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 1988 with Roll No. 116 C 096; he failed in the said examination securing 43 marks in English and 53 marks in Economics but secured pass marks in the remaining subjects and also the aggregate; being eligible to appear as a compartmental candidate in the two subjects in which he failed, he appeared in the second Higher Secondary Examination, 1988 in English and Economics; he was assigned the Roll No. 116 C 100; he passed in Economics with 71 marks but failed in English securing only 26 marks. Thereafter the petitioner again appeared in the Annual Higher Secondary Examination, 1989 with Roll No. 116 C 158 in English only and passed in the subject securing 62 marks. He was issued the mark sheets (Annexures 2(a) and 2(b), the college leaving certificate dated 8-7-89, the conduct certificate of the same date (Annexures 3(a) and 3(b) indicating therein that he had passed the Higher Secondary Examination. Thereafter on 14-9-89 the Principal of the College (opposite party No. 2) intimated him of the impugned decision (Annexure 4) that the Council cancelled his result and he should surrender the college leaving certificate and the provisional mark-sheets issued to him. Though no specific reason was stated in the letter of the Principal as stated in the writ application, the petitioner, presumed that his result was cancelled since he had not passed in the two failed subjects, that is, Economics and English at a time, from the return filed by the Council the petitioner's presumption has been proved correct. The action of the Council cancelling the petitioner's result has been challenged as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principle of natural justice and hit by the principle of estoppel.