Arpit Singh vs Ggsiu & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5023 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          Judgment reserved on:     20.09.2011
                          Judgment delivered on:    13.10.2011

+     W.P.(C) No. 8765/2010 & CM Nos. 13016/2011,
      6707/2011

Arpit Singh                                        ......Petitioner

                     Through: Mr. Anil Goyal, Advocate.


                          Vs.

GGSIU & Anr.                         ......Respondents

              Through: Mr.   Mukul   Talwar,         Advocate        for
                       Respondent No.1.
                       Mr.   Laliet  Kumar,          Advocate        for
                       Respondent No.2


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may          Yes
    be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported             Yes
    in the Digest?




WP(C) No.8765/2010                                           Page 1 of 23
 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to set aside the order

dated 16.12.2010 whereby the migration of the petitioner was

cancelled by the respondent University.

2. The factual background that has led to the filing of

the present petition is that the petitioner was a student of 1st

year, B. Tech. in Lord Institute of Technology, Hyderabad and

sought migration to respondent No.2 Maharaja Agrasen

Institute of Technology which is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh

Indraprastha University, Respondent No.1 herein, based on the

No-Objection granted by Maharaja Agrasen Institute of

Technology, in the Second Year B.Tech.(Mechanical

Engineering) (2nd Shift Course). The said migration of the

petitioner was approved by Respondent No.1 University but

subject, however, to the completion of formalities detailed in the

letter dated 27.8.2010 within a period of a fortnight from the

date of the issue of the letter so as to enable the University to

issue the Enrolment number. The documents that the petitioner

was required to submit and the formalities which he was

required to comply with within the period of a fortnight from the

date of the issue of the said letter. In the said letter, the

University also made it explicitly clear that any violation on the

part of the candidate with respect to depositing the fee or

submission of result, as mentioned above, shall result in

automatic withdrawal of the said offer for which the candidate

will be responsible. The petitioner was also requested to submit

the said documents at the Academic Reception Counter, Room

No.108, Administrative Block of the University for further

action.

3. The petitioner, who, in fact, had failed in the subject

of Engineering Drawing of Second Semester had on 14.9.2010,

submitted the Mark Sheet of his First Year B.Tech. Internal &

External Examination and also deposited the requisite fee of

Rs. 10,060/- with respondent No.1/University, besides depositing

the requisite fee with respondent No.2./College. That thereafter

the petitioner started attending his classes in the Second Year

B.Tech. Course from September, 2010 onwards and, in fact, had

appeared in the Internal Examination conducted by respondent

No.2/College from 28.10.2010 to 13.11.2010 and from

29.11.2010 to 4.12.2010 wherein he scored 73.33% in

aggregate. The petitioner had thereafter deposited a sum of Rs.

2,000/- on account of University dues against bank challan dated

4.12.2010 with the Union Bank of India, Maharaja Agrasen

Institute of Technology Branch. The petitioner was also issued

Admit Card by Respondent No.2 University for appearing in the

3rd Semester External Examination of the University. After

fulfilling all the said formalities, the petitioner was astonished to

receive the letter dated 16.12.2010 issued by respondent No.1

University, thereby directing cancellation of Migration due to

non-submission of the documents by the petitioner to fulfill the

eligibility criteria laid down for the migration. Feeling aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court to seek

quashing of the said order dated 16.12.2010 passed by

respondent No.1.

4. In the reply as well as additional affidavit filed by

Respondent No.1 University, the stand taken is that the

migration order dated 27.08.2010 by respondent No.1

University was subject to fulfilling certain mandatory conditions

by the petitioner which he failed to comply with within the

prescribed period as laid down and, therefore, the said offer of

migration was rightly revoked by the respondent University. It is

also the stand of respondent University that the petitioner

cannot be on the rolls of two different Universities at the same

time, i.e., one where he was to appear in the compartmental

examination viz. Lord Institute of Technology, Hyderabad and

the second where he sought his migration, i.e., respondent No.2

college which is affiliated with the respondent No.1 University.

It is also the stand of respondent No.1 that the migration offered

by respondent No.1 to the petitioner automatically stood

revoked on the failure of the petitioner to provide the necessary

proof of having passed 1st and 2nd Semesters in the said

stipulated period of a fortnight. It is further the stand of the

respondent no.1 University that the petitioner had never

informed respondent no.1 University about any compartment

paper and, in fact, the Rules do not permit migration of any

student if he has not passed all the subjects of his 1st year. It is

also the case of respondent no.1 University that deposit of any

fee by the petitioner with the University will not confer any legal

right on the petitioner to seek confirmation of his migration as

the payment was made by the petitioner directly to the account

of the University i.e, Punjab & Sind Bank, Kashmere Gate

Branch and the receipts are not approved/counter signed by the

University officials. It is also the case of respondent no.1 that

the said branch of the bank receives hundred of payments on

daily basis in favour of the University and any such payment

made by the petitioner, not authorized by the University, would

not create any right in favour of the petitioner and the same

defence was raised by respondent no.1 University with regard to

issuance of Admit Card by respondent no.1 University in favour

of the petitioner. It is thus the case of the respondent that the

Admit Card issued by the respondent to the petitioner did not

contain any enrolment no. as the enrolment no. is issued by the

Examination branch of the University only upon due verification

and confirmation by the Academic Branch of the University. It is

also the stand of respondent no.1 University that there are many

other individuals who were offered migration by the University

and subsequently the migration offer was revoked in respect of

those students who had compartment in any of the subjects of

the 1st Year. It is also the case of the respondent no.1 University

that the petitioner, in fact, had played a fraud on the Authorities

by concealing the fact that he had failed in the subject of

Engineering Drawing in his Second Semester which fact he did

not disclose even after the offer of migration was made by the

University Authority vide letter dated 27.08.2010. The

University has also taken the stand that it follows a uniform

policy and no exception can be made in the case of the

petitioner, while other similarly placed students, who also had a

compartment, were denied migration.

5. Respondent No.2 College, on the other hand, had

taken the stand that it was for the petitioner to have fulfilled all

the requirements, as was directed to him by the University vide

letter dated 27.08.2010 and on the fulfillment of such

requirements, it was for the University to allow migration. It is

also the stand of respondent no.2 College that the 1st Year result

of the petitioner was declared in the first week of August, 2010,

therefore, he could not have submitted his 1st Year result along

with his application submitted in the month of July, 2010. It is

also the stand of respondent no.2 that it kept on reminding the

petitioner to comply with all the conditions as intimated to him

vide letter dated 27.8.2010 but the petitioner kept on evading to

submit the Mark Sheet of the 1st Year. Counsel for respondent

no.2 also submitted that the petitioner was well aware that he

was not entitled to seek his migration because of his failure in

one of the subjects of Second Semester in the said course, and

the respondent no.2, in principle, supported the action taken by

the University in cancelling his migration in the 3rd Semester of

B.Tech. Programme for the Session 2010-2011.

6. Mr. Anil Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently contended that the petitioner is now already in the

3rd year and any direction of this Court against the petitioner

will not only affect the academic career of the petitioner due to

the loss of his precious year, but will also result in the wastage

of one seat which cannot be filled at this stage. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had at no

stage misrepresented the facts and had submitted his Mark

Sheet along with the letter dated 14.9.2010 with the Academic

Branch of respondent no.1 University and it is only thereafter

that respondent had accepted the requisite fee and then later

issued the Admit Card in favour of the petitioner. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also argued that even respondent no.2

College had also accepted the fee and allowed the petitioner to

attend the classes and to appear in the Internal Examination

which were held from 28.10.2010 to 13.11.2010. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also argued that the petitioner had

ultimately passed the said examination of Engineering Drawing

in which he appeared in the month of December, 2010 and,

therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, in fact, had failed

in the said subject of Second Semester. Learned counsel also

argued that any compartmental/supplementary examination will

be deemed to have been passed in the 1st Year only and the

same cannot be treated to have been passed in a subsequent

year. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was

that the result of the compartment examination would relate

back to the year in which he had appeared in the said

examination at the time of the final examination along with the

results. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the

respondents should be estopped from taking any contrary

position by cancelling the migration after having accepted the

Mark Sheet of the petitioner, accepting his fee, issuing an Admit

Card, allowing the petitioner to attend his classes in the 2nd Year

and permitting him to appear in the Internal Examination.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on

the Division Bench judgment of this Court in LPA No.400/2011

University of Delhi vs Varun Kapur decided on 4.5.2011. On the

doctrine of promissory estoppel, being applicable to the case of

the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the following judgments:-

1. Sumit Bhatia -vs- Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2007(99) DRJ 518.

2.Deep Gupta -vs- Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, 2009(1) AD(Delhi) 222.

3.Javed Akhtar -vs- Jamia Hamdard, 2007(1) AD(Delhi) 542.

4.Radhika Garg -vs- Delhi University & Ors., 2005(119) DLT 225.

5. Puja Lal -vs- University of Delhi, 1997(66) DLT 217.

6. Liye Belliappa -vs- C.B.S.E., 2002(3) AD(Delhi) 81.

7. Kanishka Aggarwal -vs- University of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 Delhi 105.

8. Sanatan Gauda -vs- Berhampur University, 1990 (3) SCC 23.

9. Ashok Chand Singhvi -vs- University of Jodhpur & Ors., 1989 (1) SCC

399.

10. A. Sudha -vs- University of Mysore, 1987(4) SCC 537.

11. Charles K. Skaria & Ors. -vs- Dr.C. Mathew & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1230.

12. Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Ors. -vs- Dr. Md. S. Iskander Ali, AIR 1980 SC 1242(??)

13. Rajendra Prasad Mathur -vs- Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448.

14. Prashant Srivastava -vs- C.B.S.E., 2000(88) DLT 538.

15. Kumari Madhuri Patil -vs- Addl. Commissioner, AIR 1995 SC 94.

16. Aditya N. Prasad -vs- The University of Delhi & Ors. decided on 23.11.2010 in WP(C) No.12475/2009.

17. Deepika Chaudhary -vs- University of Delhi, 1996(5) AD (Delhi) 148.

18. Randhir Singh -vs- State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1995 Raj.44.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the records.

8. It is not in dispute between the parties that the

petitioner was a student of Lord Institute of Technology,

Hyderabad which is affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological

University, Hyderabad in B.Tech(Computer Sciences) 1st year

and sought his migration vide letter dated 16.7.2010 in B.Tech

(Mechanical and Automation) 2nd shift to respondent No.2

Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, which is affiliated to

the respondent no. 1 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha

University. That vide letter dated 27.8.2010, the respondent

No.1 allowed the said migration to the respondent no.2 institute

subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions which were duly

enumerated in the said letter. It would be relevant to produce

the said letter as under:

"IPU-7/JR(Acad)/change of college/Univ.Mig/2010-11/5804

Date 27/8/2010

The Director Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (2 nd Shift) PSP Area Sec - 22 Rohini Delhi - 86

Subject : Inter University Migration from Lord Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad to Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (2nd Shift) in the 3rd semester of B.Tech programme for the session 2010-11.

Sir,

This is with reference to application of Mr. Arpit Singh on the subject cited above. I am directed to inform you that the competent authority is pleased to approve the request of migration of Mr. Arpit Singh, in the 3rd Semester from Lord Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad, B.Tech (CSE) to Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (2nd Shift) B.Tech (MAE) programme for the session 2010- 11, subject to submission of the following documents/completion of formalities within a fortnight from the date of issue of this letter to enable the University to issue the Enrolment Number:

1. Marksheet of 12th class with Minimum aggregate of 55% marks in PCM provided the candidate has passed in each subject separately. Candidate must additionally have passed English as a subject of study.

2. Marksheets of 1st year (1st and 2nd Semester) of B.Tech programme (the candidate must have cleared all the papers).

3. Fee receipt of Rs. 10,000/- (to be deposited in the University's Account Branch).

4. Fee receipt of Rs. 45,000/- along with additional fee, if, applicable, (to be deposited at respective institute).

Any failure on the part of the candidate with respect to depositing the fee or submission of result as mentioned above shall result in automatic withdrawal of this offer for which the candidate will be responsible.

You are requested to submit the above mentioned documents at Academic Reception Counter, Room No.-108 Administrative Block GGSIP University for further action please.

Sd/-

(Col. P.K. Umapnyu) Joint Registrar, Academic"

9. It is explicit from the abovesaid conditions, that the

petitioner was required to submit his class 12th marksheet with

minimum aggregate of 55% in PCM provided that the candidate

has passed in each subject separately and the second being that

he should submit the marksheet of the 1 st year (1st and 2nd

Semester) of B.Tech programme and the said order also

categorically states that the candidate must have cleared all the

papers. It also stipulates that the same should be submitted

within a fortnight of the said order.

10. The case of the petitioner herein is that as per the

said order, he deposited the requisite fee on 14.9.2010 and

submitted the relevant documents on the same very day and in

the marksheet submitted by him it is clear that he has failed in

the subject of Engineering Drawing in the Second Semester. The

contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that after the

said submission of documents and fee, no intimation was given

to the petitioner regarding his migration being cancelled till the

impugned order dated 16.12.2010 and the petitioner had even

started attending the classes from September onwards and

appeared in the examination as well. The petitioner also pleaded

that right form the day of migration the respondent had

knowledge about the compartment of the petitioner in

Engineering Drawing and despite that the respondent issued the

Admit Card to the petitioner and thus by the rule of promissory

estoppel the respondents are estopped from canceling the

migration of the petitioner. The petitioner prayed to this court

that now the petitioner having completed one year of his study,

any adverse order would do irreparable loss and injury to him

and his academic career and thus the court should consider the

case of the petitioner compassionately.

11. The University on the other hand has taken a stand

that as the petitioner failed to supply the proof of having passed

the first and second semester within 15 days of the offer letter,

his migration stood automatically revoked and it is wrong that

he is a student of the respondent no.2 college. The stand of the

respondent no.1 is that the petitioner has played fraud upon the

authorities in concealing the fact of his compartment and

therefore if the fact of his compartment was known to the

respondent university then even the migration offer would not

have been issued to the petitioner. The University has

categorically taken a stand that the migration of other similarly

situated students has been cancelled and it follows a uniform

policy and no exception can be made in the case of the

petitioner.

12. The respondent no.2 college has also endorsed the

stand of the respondent no.1 and submitted that no marksheet

of the first and second semester as contended by the petitioner

was submitted by him at the time of application for migration in

July 2010 as the result of the first year was only declared at the

end of August, 2010. The respondent no.2 also submitted that

any leniency shown to the petitioner would tantamount to the

violation of norms of the university and college and this court

should not take any compassionate view favouring the

petitioner.

13. The migration letter dated 27.8.2010, reproduced

herein above, stipulated certain mandatory conditions subject to

fulfillment of which the migration of the petitioner would have

attained finality. The condition number 2 which is relevant for

deciding the present matter is that the petitioner was required

to submit his 1st year marksheet, both of the first and second

semester, wherein he should have cleared all his exams. The

petitioner being fully aware of the said condition submitted his

marksheet on 14.9.2010 wherein he had failed in the subject of

Engineering Drawing. It is thus evident that the petitioner

knowing fully well the condition of clearing all the papers in the

first year submitted the marksheet. It is clear that the petitioner

has acted in a deceitful manner and played fraud upon the

authorities in submitting the marksheet although knowing fully

well that he was not eligible for the said migration. The

petitioner has thus approached this court with unclean hands

and the petitioner can be denied relief on this ground alone.

14. Another facet of the mandatory conditions as

stipulated in the migration order was that the said requisite

documents were to be submitted within a fortnight and on non

submission within the said time frame, the migration order

would be automatically revoked. The petitioner admittedly

submitted the documents as per his stand on 14.9.2010 and the

migration letter was of 27.8.2010 and hence the petitioner was

late in submitting the documents as well and therefore his

migration stood revoked automatically on this ground as well.

15. Another argument of the petitioner was that the

authorities accepted the fee deposited by him and issued the

Admit Card which would go on to show that the migration order

had been complied with. On the said argument, the University

took a stand that the said branch of the bank receives hundreds

of payments on daily basis and the fee receipts of the petitioner

were neither approved nor countersigned by any of the officials

of the University. This court finds merit in the said submission of

the respondent University that the depositing of the fee would

not create any right in favour of the petitioner as otherwise

depositing of fee by anyone to the Bank would be construed as

creating a right of admission by such student in his favour. The

University is an establishment and not an individual and hence

the mere deposit of fee in the University account will not be

considered as binding the University to give admission to such

individual and does not by any stretch of imagination create a

vested right of admission.

16. It also cannot be overlooked that as per the said

migration letter, the petitioner was required to submit the

requisite documents to enable the University to issue an

Enrolment Number. Even in the forms required to be filled by

the student for depositing the fee in the respondent no.2

institute, against the column of Enrolment Number, the

petitioner has filled up "Migration -7" which goes on to show

that the petitioner was aware that his migration had not been

approved as he was not yet issued the Enrolment Number,

which could have only been issued had the University accepted

the documents submitted by him. Another fact which goes on to

reinforce the fact of the migration being not approved by the

University is that in the Admit card issued to the petitioner, no

Enrolment Number was mentioned, and rightly so, as the

Enrolment Number is issued by the Examination Branch of the

University only upon verification and confirmation by the

Academic Branch of the University, which was not done in the

case of the petitioner as he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria

stipulated in the migration order.

17. Hence, in the face of the abovesaid position, the

argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the deposit of fee

and the issuance of the Admit Card would create estoppel on the

University does not cut any ice. Also, the plethora of judgments

cited by the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the

case at hand. Even otherwise, the language of the letter dated

27.8.2010 is luculent where it makes the migration a contingent

act, which would be finalized only upon the fulfillment of the

conditions stipulated therein.

18. The petitioner also argued that if at this stage any

adverse order is passed then it would jeopardize the academic

career of the petitioner as he has already reached the third year

of the B.Tech Course. Undoubtedly, under the interim directions

of this court, the petitioner was allowed to undertake his course

of study and appear in the examinations but with the caution

that his fate would be dependent upon the final decision in the

writ petition and no equity would flow in his favour by allowing

him the said interim relief. It is a settled legal position that the

courts while deciding academic matters would not pass any

orders based on misplaced sympathy and compassion as it would

lead to setting a malefic precedent. Here it would be relevant to

refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guru

Nanak Dev University vs. Parminder Kaur Bansal

(1993)4SCC401 wherein it was held that :

5. Sri Gambhir, learned Counsel for the University says that the very implication of the idea of regularisation contained within it the promise that the initial admission itself was irregular. He submitted that the University was confronted with a fait-accompli by virtue of interlocutory orders. The final order in the writ petition did no more than validate and perpetuate the interlocutory error without any pronouncement on or adjudication of the basic issues of eligibility. Sri Gambhir aired a serious grievance that this type of orders would introduce an element of indiscipline in academic life and expose the system to ridicule and render any meaningful control of academic work impossible. He relied upon certain pronouncements of this Court to support his contention that in academic matters courts should be vary in directing the admissions to colleges by means of interim directions which would create complications later and expose even the beneficiaries of such orders to, difficulties when the final adjudication goes against them.

learned Counsel for the respondents, however, sought to maintain that the two candidates had now completed the 12 months of their internship and it would be hard on them if their internship is reckoned from the date of the passing the M.B.B.S. examination.

6. Sri Gambhir is right in his submission. We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of

academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. Decisions on matters relevant to be taken into account at the interlocutory stage cannot be deferred or decided later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. In the present case, the High Court was apparently moved by sympathy for the candidates than by an accurate assessment of even the prima facie legal position. Such orders cannot be allowed to stand. The Courts should not embarrass academic authorities by itself taking over their functions.

19. It is also the stand of the respondent that the

migration of the similarly placed students has been cancelled

and the case of the petitioner cannot be treated any differently.

This court finds merit in the argument of the respondent that

there is a uniform policy being followed by the University in

such like cases and the case of the petitioner cannot be made to

stand on a higher footing than others by giving him the

advantage of approaching the court. Also, the Apex Court has

sounded the word of caution time and again for the courts not to

interfere in academic matters and passing orders which would

make the academic institutions defy their own rules and

regulations as it would lead to the lowering down of the

academic standards of the institution. It would be relevant here

to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

A.P.Christians Medical Society vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh & Anr. (1986)2SCC667 wherein it was held as under:

"Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly acceed to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws. The case of the medical college started by the Daru-Salaam Trust appears to stand on a different footing as we find from the record placed before us that permission had been granted by the State Government to the Trust to start the medical college and on that account, the University had granted provisional affiliation. We also find that the Medical Council of India took strong and serious exception to the grant of provisional affiliation whereupon the University withdrew the affiliation granted to the college. We are unable to treat what the University did in the case of the Daru-Salaam Medcial College as a precedent in the present case to direct the University to do' something which it is forbidden from doing by the University Act and the regulations of the University. We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time. We are happy to note that the University acted watchfully and wake-fully, issuing timely warnings to those seeking admission to the institution. We are sure many must have taken heed of the warnings issued by the university and refrained from seeking admission to the institution. If some did not heed the warnings issued by the university, they are themselves to blame."

20. The petitioner in the present case approached the

court at his own peril to try his luck knowing fully well that he

was guilty of concealment of facts. The situation is the

petitioners own Frankenstein and now he cannot be allowed to

take leverage of the same. This court would like to issue an

admonition to the petitioner and the others contemplating to

approach the portals of law for relief, that any disclosure about

their disingenuousness, perfidious or duplicitous conduct during

the course of hearing would lead to drawing an adverse

inference and dismissal of such cases outrightly.

21. In the light of the above discussion, this court does

not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby

dismissed.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J October 13, 2011