HARIBANSHNARAYANYADAV Vs. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to publish his result of the Teachers Training Course (1986-88 session) commencing from 20th September, 1988 at Chotanagpur Primary Teachers Training College, Main Road, Ranchi-1 and to direct the respondents to pay reasonable compensation to him for inordinate delay in publishing the result on flimsy ground.

(2.) The petitioner has passed his High School in 1986 and a certificate was issued indicating his date of birth as 11th July, 1970. He applied for admission in the Teachers' Training Course in the said institution. His application form which contained the date of birth was approved and he was admitted in the said institution in the session 1986-88. He completed 2-years Teachers' Training Course and filled up the form which was forwarded by Respondent No. 3 the Principal of Chhotanagpur Primary Teachers' Training College, Ranchi. After scrutiny of the form submitted by the petitioner, admit card was issued to him in which the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 11th July, 1970 Thereafter the petitioner appeared in the said examination and was shown successful having secured Ist division but the result was shown having been withheld as the petitioner was under age. As the scrutiny was made by the respondents at all level when the form was filled up and also the admit card was issued, the petitioner did not state incorrect facts. Hence after complying with the entire procedure the petitioner was issued admit card and once the same was issued the respondents were estopped from withholding the result of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was under age by 11 days. In case there was any such thing the same could have been detected at the stage of submission of the form or issuance of the admit card.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel would apply as there was deliberate promise made by the respondents for admissions to the said teacher's training course (1986-88 session) in the said institution and the petitioner filled up the form for admission showing his date of birth as llth July, 1970. The said initial form was accepted and the examination form was also accepted and the particulars furnished by the petitioner, including the date of birth, were accepted to be correct The admit card (Annexure-2) was issued to petitioner showing his date of birth as 11th July, 1970 and the petitioner having appeared in the said examination the promise made by the respondents has affected the legal relationship of the petitioner. He completed the course and having appeared in the said examination and even having been shown as passed in Ist Division, it would be inequitable if the promisor is not bound when the promisee has acted on the said promise and has changed his position by pursuing bis studies for 2 years in the said course. In such matter the promisor is bound by the Doctrine of promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel or quasi estoppel. The impugned order (annexure-3 to the writ petition) has the effect of withholding the result of the petitioner which was manifestly erroneous. It was further submitted that once a student has been admitted even though by inadvertance of the principal of authority of any college and there being no fraud on the part of the student and he was allowed to appear at the examination there was no justification to withhold the publication of the result Reliance was placed on Shri Krishna v. The Kurukshetra University, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 376, and Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 1448.