SURESH CHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The core question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the action of the opposite parties in cancelling the examination result of the petitioner is hit by the principle of estoppel.

(2.) The gist of the facts set out in the writ application may be shortly stated thus :- The petitioner, a student of Rayagada College appeared at the Annual B.Sc. (Honours) Examination held under the Berhampur University (opposite party 1) in 1981 with Chemistry as honours subject and Physics and Mathematics as pass subjects. On 27-7-81 the result of the said Examination was declared by the University and the petitioner was declared to have passed without honours. After publication of his result, the petitioner took the College Leaving Certificate from the Principal of the College (opp. party 2) and got himself admitted into the Law College, Cuttack, and was prosecuting his studies in the said institution when he came to know of a notification issued on 11-5-1982 by the Deputy Registrar, Berhampur University (Annexure-4) notifying that the petitioner was declared to have failed in the aforementioned Examination. On his representation to the Vice Chancellor of the University, the petitioner was intimated on 22-7-82 (Annexure-5) that he would be given two chances to appear compartmentally in Physics only, in the Supplementary B.Sc. Examination, 1982 and the Annual B.Sc. Examination, 1983. The petitioner has averred in the writ application that on enquiry he learnt that he secured 30 marks in Physics Practical. The minimum percentage to pass in the subject was 40. It is the case of the petitioner that from the mark sheet issued to him by the University on 3-8-1981 he was led to believe that he secured 132 marks out of 300 in the three papers in Physics, that is, two theory papers and one practical. On the aforesaid averments the petitioner contended that since the authorities of the Berhampur University by their representation led him to believe that he had passed the B.Sc. Annual Examination held in 1981 and acting on such representation he had taken further action in getting himself admitted to the Law College and prosecuting his studies for several months thereby spending money and time, the authorities were estopped from cancelling his result subsequently.

(3.) The opposite party 1 in its counter affidavit has alleged, inter alia, that release of the petitioner's result declaring him to have passed in the Annual B.Sc. Examination was an outcome of mistake since the petitioner secured only 30 per cent marks in Physics practical whereas the minimum marks to be secured in order to enable him to pass in the said paper was 40. Therefore he should have been declared to have failed in the Examination. This mistake having been detected subsequently, the order cancelling the declaration that the petitioner had passed the examination was issued. The opposite party further alleged that the petitioner has not disclosed all the relevant facts in the writ application. The actual marks secured by the petitioner had been communicated to the Rayagada College before the petitioner took the College Leaving Certificate from that institution. Indeed the mark sheet is issued to every student seeking College Leaving Certificate with the certificates. Admission to any other institution is made on the basis of the College Leaving Certificate and the mark sheet accompanying the certificate. Therefore the submission of the petitioner that on the basis of the marks list under Annexure-2 he took admission into the Law College is not correct. It is further stated by the opp. party that the petitioner knowing fully well that he failed to secure the requisite percentage of marks in Physics Practical, to enable him to pass in that subject, applied to the University for a subject-wise mark list by paying Rs. 5/- instead of obtaining a paper-wise marks list on payment of Rs. 8/-. The latter would have shown the marks secured in each theory and practical paper separately. It is the contention of the opp. party that the petitioner was aware of the position that he could not be declared to have passed in the Examination having failed to secure the minimum percentage of marks in the Physics Practical Examination and therefore there was no question of the petitioner being misled by the representation held out by the authorities of the University and further to have acted to his detriment on the basis of such representation. In short, the contention is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the principle of estoppel has no application. Regarding the opportunity to appear in two compartmental examinations in Physics, the opp. party has stated in the counter that on the representation made by the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor which was received on 5-6-1982, requesting for permission to appear compartmentally in the Supplementary B.Sc. Examination of 1982, he was permitted to appear in Physics compartmentally in the Supplementary Examination, 1982 and in the Annual Examination 1983.