RAHUL SHARMA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition has been filed, praying to allow the petitioner to take the examinations of B.A. 1st year Class, on the ground that the admission fees was taken by the respondent No.2 -College and his compartment examination had been declared in January, 2014. It is submitted that the University has also issued the roll number on the website but the hard copy has not been given to the petitioner on the ground that he has been placed in two compartments in the +2 examination.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that vide communication dated 29.03.2014 (Annexure P -5), the College had written to the University that the case of the petitioner may be considered for eligibility since the PUPIN (Registration number) had been issued. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench Judgment of Gujarat High Court in Gujarat University & another Vs. Mukat Navnitlal Kapadia & others 1993 (2) GCD 762 and the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Anirudh Sharma Vs. H.N.B. Garhwal University Srinagar 2013 AIR (Uttaranchal) 16.

(3.) THERE is no denial of the fact that the petitioner had got compartment in Chemistry and Mathematics in the + 2 examinations of June, 2013 and he cleared the same only subsequently, in January, 2014 by way of giving supplementary examination. At the time of admission in July 2013, he was not eligible as per the abovesaid clause. Once the eligibility criteria itself was missing, the petitioner was well aware that the said clause existed in the prospectus under which he took admission and took a chance. Now, it does not lie in his mouth to rely upon the principle of promissory estoppel. The Apex Court in Central Airmen Selection Board Vs. Surender Kumar Das, (2003) 1 SCC 152, held that the principle of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles and a person who has misled the authorities cannot invoke the said principle. The observations read as under: -