Y.B. SURYAVANSHI, J.

(1.) The orders passed in this petition M. P. No. 1226/88 would also govern M. P. Nos. 1281/88 and 1258/88 since the common question involved in all those petitions under Art.226, Constitution of India is; whether these petitioners who have secured less than 40% aggregate marks in their Graduation are/were yet entitled for admission to LL.B. Part I Examination of Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya (for short, called R.D. University).

(2.) M. P. No. 1226 of 88

(1) This petition by Mukesh Kumar Tiwari is against the respondents 1 and 2 viz. Registrar, R. D. University and the Principal N.E.S. Law College, Jabalpur. The petitioner in 1986-87 passed B.Com. Examination, securing 39.1% aggregate marks (Mark-Sheet Annexure-1) in July, 87. On basis of that marksheet, the Principal, N.E.S. Law College admitted him for LL.B. First Year Course (Fees Receipt Annexure-2). In due course, he paid the Examination Fees on 25-11-87 to N.E.S. Law College (Annexure-3). He further avers, that while he was busy preparing for the examinations, he received the impugned letter dated 21-03-88 (Annexuere 4) which was a copy of the memo sent by the R. D. University to the Principals of N.E.S. Law College, Jabalpur and Sanjay Gandhi Law College, Katni, intimating, (the petitioner) that admission for LL.B. Part I could be granted only to the students securing minimum 40% aggregate marks, and therefore, the application form is rejected, and the examination fees be refunded. According to the petitioner, neither at the time of admission in the college nor any time during the educational session, he was informed that he is ineligible for studies or for appearing in the Examination of LL.B. Part I, which has resulted in waste of studies and time and has rendered his future prospects gloomier. According to the time-table of the scheduled Examinations (Annexures), the Examination was to be held, from 23-4-88 to 9-6-88; that, he requested the R. D. University dt. 30-3-88, stating that after paying the requisite fees, for no fault of the petitioner, he was given admission in the college and he engaged himself in studies but cancellation of his application form would waste his year and therefore, he be permitted to appear in the Examination. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the impugned orders dt. 21-3-88 (Ann. 4) and for directions that he be permitted to appear in the LL.B. Part I Examination.

(2) Only respondent 1 R. D. University filed the return stating that there can be no admission to LL.B. Part I Class unless the person holds a Bachelors Degree, as required under Ordinance No. 22, Cl. (2) which requires that a person shall be eligible for admission to LL.B. Part I Examination with at least 40% marks in the aggregate; that the University had also issued instructions to various colleges affiliated to the University for guidance for admission of students (Guiding Principles for Admission Ann. R1/I). It was further contended, that Cl. 21 of the Ordinance is in pari materia with the Ordinance No. 22, Cl. 2 extracted in the Return; that, those instructions were issued prior to the commencement of the educational session 1987-88; that the colleges ought not to have admitted the students obtaining less than 40% marks but it appears that the College authorities were mixed up in order to inflate their strength in class ignoring the Ordinance; that, the University came to know of those admissions only when their admission forms for Examination were submitted; that, on scrutiny of the forms, it was found that the students who had obtained less than 40% marks in some cases were allowed to appear in the Examination; that, the University detected the mistake later on; that, the university had never represented that the students can be allowed to seek admission even if they have obtained less than 40% marks; that, the students had played fraud as also the institutions which had given them admission; that, the mere fact that they had paid fees or had appeared in the Examination would not entitle them to continue further studies in the LL.B. First Year or Second Year; that, the University had no option but to cancel the results in cases where the persons had appeared in the examination, and in other cases where the forms were not issued or admission cards not issued; that, the admission cannot be against the eligible requirement under the Statute; that the Bar Council of India has resolved that if the candidate obtains 39.5% marks, he should not be admitted in the Three Years Law Course; that S.49(1), S.7 of the Advocates Act state that the Bar Council is vested with the responsibility of maintaining standards of legal education, and as such, it has right to lay down condition of eligibility for admission to law course; that, the rule imposed by the Bar Council of India is actually binding on the Universities, and the Universities had prescribed the same in their Ordinance; that the University had never accepted the position or had condoned the admissions made by the Colleges; that, therefore, the action taken by the University was according to law; that for those reasons, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3) The petitioner in M. P. No. 1226/88 filed a rejoinder stating, that according to para 6 at page 1 of the University Circular Annexure-R-1/I, the N.E.S. Law College, which is a private institution, was competent to admit the petitioner in the month of July, 1987 and therefore, he was eligible for seeking admission; that, furthermore, under Clause (vi)(Ka) after para 6, there is a provision that the candidate who had participated in sports, events etc. at State level, shall be given relaxation of 5% of marks; that, the petitioner had participated in 22nd M. P. State Basket Ball Championship conducted by Jabalpur Ordnance Factory Basket Ball Association and he was awarded a certificate and therefore, also he is eligible for admission; that, the petitioner never misrepresented that he secured 40% or more than 40% marks at the time of admission, or on the occasion of filing the form, but rightly stated of having secured in B.Com. Degree less than 40% marks; that accordingly, he never practised any fraud and there is absolutely no foundation for any misrepresentation or fraud as alleged by the respondent-University; that, in giving the admission, this petitioner was led to believe that whatever disqualification or in eligibility be suffered from was expressly or impliedly condoned by the respondents; that, he was allowed to prosecute the studies in the college and was required to spend lot of time, energy and money; that, there was no valid justification for depriving him of his prospective professional career merely because the authorities had been negligent in informing themselves correctly of his qualification; that, the principles of "estoppel by negligence" operates against the respondents; that, the action of cancellation of the Examination Form was violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not given any opportunity, whatsoever, to meet the grounds stated in the impugned orders; that, given the opportunity, he would have satisfied the authorities that being a sportsman of the State level, he was entitled to be admitted for prosecuting his studies of LL.B. Part I in the appropriate college as per provisions of Universitys circular.

(4) Pausing here, it may be stated that under this Courts order dt. 22-04-88 on the eve of the forthcoming examinations, the petitioners were permitted provisionally to appear in the examination with a direction that their results be not declared. In this context general results for LL.B. Part I were declared on 26-06-88; Hence the prayer of this petitioner is that he is entitled for the declaration of the result and if he is declared as passed, he is entitled for admission in LL.B. Part II, and in case he could not clear Part I Exam. then he would be entitled for supplementary examination. In the return, the University had already stated in para 7 that the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination "provisionally under Courts order" but for reasons stated in the return, he is not entitled to this relief as prayed for.

(3.) M. P. No. 1258 of 88 The petitioner is Alok Kumar Goenka. The three respondents are: Registrar, University, Secretary, Education Department, and Madhya Pradesh Bar Council of India through Secretary. The petitioner is a regular student of LL.B. Part I (Three Years Course) from a private college, Sanjay Gandhi Law College affiliated to the said University. He deposited the requisite fees on 10-7-86 (Ann. A-1). According to the petition, the petitioner (as per para 5) enquired from respondent 1 University, whether there can be any relaxation in admission rules for LL.B. and (as per para 6 of the petition) respondent 1 University, vide Annexure-3, dt. 13-11-86, sent reply that for the admission, terms can be relaxed. (In fact contra this letter addressed to the petitioner by University refers to the petitioners letter dt. 06-08-86 and states that the last date of the admission was 14-08-86 and no permission could be granted thereafter. It further informs him that there are no rules of the University in respect of relaxation for admission on merit basis); that the petitioner on 19-11-86 sent a reply to Universitys letter stating that he had already been granted admission on payment of requisite fees on 10th July, 1986 and therefore, the matter for grant of permission to appear in the examination may be reconsidered; that respondent 1 University issued "provisional" admission-card for main Examination 1987 (Ann. A-V); that, accordingly, the petitioner appeared in all papers in the First Year of LL.B. and respondent 1 declared the results (Ann.A-VI) dt. 18-07-86 under which he was declared successful in five papers out of seven; that accordingly, the petitioner applied for Supplementary Examination for clearance in remaining two papers and respondent 1 University vide Ann. A-VII issued admission card; that the petitioner appeared in Supplementary Examination but his result has been withheld; that, meanwhile, respondent 1 University issued the impugned letter Annexure-A-VIII informing the petitioner that his admission to LL.B. Course in Sanjay Gandhi Law College was irregular on the grounds that he had not secured 40% marks at the last qualifying examination i.e. B.Com. Degree and therefore, the Standing Committee of Academic Council in its meeting held on 02-12-87, has resolved that his result vide Ann. A-VI, be cancelled. The petitioner states that right from year 1986, he was kept in dark about admission for appearance in examination, though he has specifically asked for a decision vide Ann. A4 dt. 18-11-86; that he received the Form of Examination, was issued the admission-card, and the result was declared and even he was allowed to appear in Supplementary Examination, but instead of giving the result of Supplementary Examination, those impugned orders (Ann.A-VIII) have been passed by the University; that he hails from a business class family, having other relations who are Law Graduates; that, all along he was making representations that the condition regarding 40% marks be relaxed; that the orders of respondent 1 are belated, mala fide and arbitrary; that respondent 3 Bar Council of India through the University had published an Advertisement (Ann. A-IX) inviting students having passed 10 + 2 system H.S.E. and therefore, this is a case of discrimination in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the prayer is that the impugned orders dt. 06-04-88 (Ann.A-VIII) cancelling petitioners result; and for direction to declare the result of the Supplementary Examination given by the petitioner by virtue of Annexure-A-VIII; and further to issue a writ to accept the form of Examination of First Year of LL.B. to clear it in case the petitioner has failed in last Supplementary Examination.

(4.) MP. No. 1281 of 88 The petitioner is Gajendra Singh and the three respondents are Registrar-University, Secretary Bar Council of India, and Secretary Department of Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. The petitioner, according to the instructions issued by respondent 3 above, was admitted in (Private Institution) Sanjay Gandhi Law College, Katni; that he had secured 39.25% marks in B.Com. that being a member of N.C.C. he is entitled for relaxation of 5% marks; that the respondent 1 University did not issue the admission Card for annual Examination of LL.B. Part I, though it was shown that he has paid fees at the time of admission vide Annexure-P-1 dt. 27-10-1987 and also submitted receipt of Legal Writing (Paper) dt. 22-3-88, and the Certificate dt. 28-1-87 having attended the N.C.C. Camp (Annexure-P-II); that vide application (Annexure-P-III) dt. 8th April, 1988 he had sought permission to appear in the Examination and stated, that because he had obtained 39.25% marks in B.Com. Exam. (Ann. P-IV), he had been deprived of appearing in the Examination, though he was admitted as a regular student in the Law College. The petition is on the grounds that by virtue of instructions issued by the respondent 3, Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, followed by respondent 1 Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, the petitioner is entitled to appear in LL.B. Part-I; that he had secured 39.25% marks in the last qualifying Examination i.e. B.Com., and is further entitled for relaxation of 5% being the Member of N.C.C.; that, the action of respondent 1 in withholding the admission is arbitrary and illegal; that when first Law University started on All India basis, it is prescribing minimum qualification of passing of 10+2 Examination with 50 percent marks (Annexure-P-IV); the insistence and prescribing the qualifying marks to be 40 percent in Graduation Examination is mala fide and unreasonable because there is distinction between the student who has passed Higher Secondary Examination and a student who has done Graduation. Hence, the prayer is to direct the respondent 1 University to issue admission card to the petitioner, and also to permit him to appear in the LL.B. First Year Examination 1988, and also to declare the result of his examination; further prayer is, to quash the bar imposed by respondent 2 of obtaining 40% marks in Graduation as qualification for admission to LL.B. Part-I.

(5.) The learned counsel Shri M.V. Tamaskar appeared in all those Writ Petitions on behalf of University Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur. The Return has been filed only in Misc. Petition No. 1226 of 1988 stating, that since it involves only the question of law, the same may be considered and adopted for the other two Misc. Petitions viz. M.P. No. 1258 of 1988 and Misc. Petition No. 1281 of 1988. Except the respondent No. 1 University in M. P. No. 1226 of 1988, all other respondents in all the three petitions have not filed any returns.

(6.) The learned counsel, Sarvashri R.K. Samaiya, R.C. Mishra and M.V. Tamaskar, heard. The points which arise for consideration are as follows :

(i) Whether the petitioners were ab initio disqualified for admission for LL.B. Part-I in view of obtaining less than minimum 40% marks required under Ordinance 22, Clause 2 of the University (ii) Whether the petitioners Mukesh Kumar Tiwari (in M.P. No. 1226/88) and Gajendra Singh (in M.P. No. 1281/88) are entitled to 5% relaxation in marks in view of Note K(on) in the guidelines for admission of students issued by the University (Annexure-R/1/1) and also in view of instruction issued by the Education Department dated 27-06-1981 (Annexure-A-II in M.P. No. 1258/88); (iii) What is the effect of Annexure-R/1/1 and Annexure-A-II, vis a vis, the Ordinance of the University; (iv) Whether the petitioners being students of private colleges, were not bound by the embargo of 40% marks in view of para 6 of Annexure-R/1/1; (v) Whether the Bar Council of India had deleted the minimum requirement of 40% of marks, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to admission; (vi) Whether the petitioners are entitled to admission on principles of promissory estoppel; (vii) Whether the impugned orders are bad also because the principles of natural justice have not been followed and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners for hearing

(7.) To facilitate the discussion, the relevant extracts from the Ordinance, instructions of the Education Deptt. of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the guidelines issued by the University and also the Resolution of the Bar Council of India are quoted for discussing the concerned points. Points No. 1 : Extract of Ordinance No. 22 clause 2 is as follows :

"2. Subject to his compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, a person shall be eligible for admission to LL.B. Part-I Examination if he (1) Holds a Bachelors degree of this University or an equivalent degree of any other statutory University recognised as such by this University, with at least 40% marks in the aggregate, and subject to the fulfilment of the condition laid down in para 3 below; and (2) has prosecuted a regular course of study for one academic year in the University Department of Law or in the Law College admitted to the privileges of this University, except in the case of non-Collegiate women candidates, as stated in para (5) below : Provided that the requirements regarding minimum percentage of marks required for admission to LL.B. course shall be relaxed up to 5% in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."

It is not disputed that all the three petitioners had not secured 40% marks in the aggregate, as required under the said provision. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners were disqualified for admission in LL.B. Part-I, so far as the Ordinance is concerned.

(8.) Points No. 2 and 2 : The contents of relevant guidelines issued by the University for admission of students for graduate and post-graduate institutions and law colleges (Annexure-R/1/1) referred during the course of arguments are quoted hereafter. It says that keeping in mind the minimum standards, and requirements of U.G.C., the policy of the State Government for improvement in the standard, the guidelines have been issued.

(9.) Similarly, extracts from the instructions for admission in graduation and postgraduation and Law Colleges contained in Annexure-A/2 (M.P. No. 1258/88) issued by the Education Department of the Govt. of M.P. are as follows :

(10.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon para 2 Note in Annexure-A/2 urged that the petitioner Mukesh Kumar Tiwari had produced a certificate showing that he represented his institution and participated in 22nd M.P. Basketball Championships in the year 1983 conducted by the Jabalpur Ordnance Factorys Basketball Association. Therefore, with relaxation of 5% in the marks, he was qualified for admission. As already mentioned above, in the Ordinance there is no provision for relaxation of marks. In the absence of any provision being shown for relaxation in the Ordinance, no such relaxation on the basis of Govt. instructions can be given. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Tamaskar, urged that the above paragraph relates to admission in other institutions, and does not govern admission for LL.B. Classes. According to him, para. 16 of the instructions of the Govt. (A/2) quoted above and para 21 of Ann. R/1/1 specifically lay down that a graduate or a post-graduate with M. A. degree obtaining minimum of 40% marks alone can be admitted for LL.B. Classes. We are of the view that this specific provision about admission for law classes contained in paras, 16 and 21 above are in consonance with the Ordinance, and the instructions relating to relaxation of 5% marks relate for sports activities to institutions other than admission to law colleges. So far as the petitioner Gajendra Singh is concerned, his case on the above ground, is still worse than that of Mukesh Kumar Tiwari. All he did, as the certificate shows, is that he merely attended N. C. C. course from 19-08-1984 to 2306-1985 for one year (Ann. P-2 in M.P. No. 1281/88). He does not come even within the scope of the concerned paragraph of the instructions relied upon for relaxation of 5% marks. Note Ka in Annexure-R/1/1 is similar to note in para A of the Govt. instructions. on the other hand, Note 6 Kha of R/1/1 mentions about relaxation of 5% marks in case of SC/ST candidates. But contrary to the proviso in the Ordinance 22, Cl. 2, it says, that this relaxation could not be granted so far as law classes are concerned. This guideline issued by the University is obviously against the Ordinance which provides for relaxation of 5% marks in case of SC/ST candidates.

(11.) From the above discussion as regards points (ii) and (iii) we are of the view that the petitioners Mukesh Kumar Tiwari and Gajendra Singh are not entitled to 5% relaxation in marks; and the instructions relating to such relaxation relied upon by the petitioners does not apply for admissions in law colleges. However, it is up to the University to clear the inconsistencies in their instructions vis a vis the Ordinance so far as relaxation of 5% marks in respect of SC/ST candidates are concerned.

(12.) Point No. 4 : the learned counsel for petitioners relied upon paragraph 6 of the instructions of the University contained in Annexure-R/1/1. On a careful consideration of para 6, we are unable to persuade ourselves to the contention that the requirement of minimum marks of 40% would be applicable in case of admission in Govt. colleges and would not be attracted in case of admission in non-Govt. colleges. The basic requirement, which the University thought in its wisdom viz. the improvement of standards of education would be defeated if such distinction is made. It is even doubtful whether this general provisions widely stated is applicable for law classes. On the other hand, what is unambiguously mentioned in para 22 of the guidelines (Annexure-R/1/1) is crystal clear, namely, that admission in law classes wold require 40% minimum marks. Therefore, we disagree with the submission that the petitioners being students in private colleges would not be within sweep of the Ordinance 22, Cl. 2. There is no such provision in the Ordinance either, which is important and guidelines/instructions cannot take place of Ordinance.

(13.) Point No. 5: Apropos the decision of the Bar Council of India in the matter of minimum marks for admission into law courses, we have been shown Annexure-6 (in M.P. No. 1226/88) in two pages, dt. 11th July, 1988 and 3rd August, 1988, respectively. It says, that the Council reviewed the Rules relating to minimum marks prescribed for entry into law course with reference to recommendations of the Legal Education Committee and other circumstances. It is noticed that there is no uniformity in the minimum pass marks prescribed by various Universities for different degree courses, and other qualifying examinations, and different standards of evaluation and marking are followed in different universities. Under the amended rules, it is open to the universities to have either the three year degree course or five year degree course. "Therefore, the council is of the opinion that it may be left to the Universities to prescribe minimum standards for entry to law courses having regard to the primary object of improving standards of legal education. "The matter is, therefore, left to the Universities to prescribe their own standards for admission.

(14.) The learned Counsel for the respondent/University referred to Sobhena Kumar S. v. Mangalore University, AIR 1985 Kar 223 and urged that u/S. 7 read with S.49 of Advocates Act the bar Council is invested with the responsibilities of ensuring standards of legal education, and it is also empowered to prescribe minimum conditions of eligibility for admission to law course. This power of the Bar Council is binding on the University. Therefore, the University cannot prescribe any condition of eligibility for admission to law degree courses which is lower than the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the Bar Council. But nothing prevented the University from prescribing a higher condition of eligibility. That was a case where the petitioners had secured less than 40% marks for eligibility to admission to law college. Admissions granted by the Principal of the private colleges was disapproved by the University; the minimum condition for eligibility prescribed by the University was 40% marks in the degree course and the same condition was prescribed by the Bar Council also. However, the Bar Council passed a Resolution that a candidate who had secured more than 39.5% marks though less than 40%, is eligible for admission to three year degree course in law. That is how it had been held, " that the power of Bar Council of India to prescribe minimum conditions of eligibility is certainly binding and the universities could not prescribe any conditions of eligibility for admission which is less than the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the Bar Council. If the University does so, the Bar Council could refuse to recognise the law degree conferred by the said University for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate. But nothing prevents the University from prescribing a higher condition of eligibility." However, this way a Single Bench decision but the ratio in Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823 [LQ/SC/1964/20] was relied upon.

(15.) From what has been shown to us, the Bar Council Resolution stated above left to the University to prescribe the "minimum standards for admission to law courses" and it is difficult to understand how those submissions in this matter are helpful to the petitioners case.

(16.) Points Nos. 6 and 7 :- Apropos promissory estoppel, it was urged, that the petitioners paid fees which were accepted by the Principals of the Colleges; and they were permitted to continue their studies; that, the respondents were negligent in delaying the matters and therefore, at this stage, the University cannot take the action which it did. The petitioners, it is urged, should not suffer for the mistake, particularly on the part of the Colleges. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Tamaskar appearing for the University emphasised that so far as the petitioner Alok Kumar Goenka is concerned, he paid the requisite fees for admission on 10-6-86, and vide his letter dated 06-08-86 referred in Annexure-P-III dt. 13-11-86 soon after admission had requested for relaxation to which the University duly replied. In case of the petitioner Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, the fees were paid on 25-11-87, and the University communicated the impugned orders vide Annexure-4 dt. 21-3-88. So far as the admissions in the private Colleges are concerned, that matter, at that stage, is considered by the College authorities. Under Ordinance No. 6 which relates to Examination (General) in view of Cls. 6 and 7, the University comes in picture only when those application forms together with examination fees and mark sheets are forwarded by the Principal to the Registrar, and not before the last date prescribed for the purpose by the University; then follows the scrutiny, and that is why, it seems, the University decisions take their own time. The cases before us nowhere indicate that the University had accepted the admissions for appeared in the examination, and is now relegating from those decisions. Therefore, the delay in those cases is not so inordinate as it might otherwise appear. It cannot be lost sight of that the University made specific allegations that the Colleges to influate the strength of their classes or for other reasons best known to them, admitted those students who were not otherwise eligible. And the Prospectus of University also specifically refers to Ordinance 22 and gives information about conditions of Admissions and courses which obviously is meant for candidates. Thus, so far as the University is concerned, they have acted under the Statute (Ordinance) and there is neither any acquiescence nor conivance. It is a well established principle that there cannot be an estoppel against the statute.

(17.) Case law was cited on both sides. The learned counsel Shri Samaiya referred to (a) D.B. Decision Dinkar v. S.L. Agrawal, 1975 0 MPLJ 852. Therein, the petitioner who was prosecuting his studies in third year of M.B.B.S. Course in the Medical College, received a letter on 16-9-72 from the Dean that his admission to the M.B.B.S. Course had been cancelled because he had not taken physics as a subject and was, therefore, not qualified to appear in the Pre-Medical Examination held in the year 1970 to which examination he was "wrongly admitted". That was a case where it was observed, that there are reasons to believe that having passed the said test of Pre-Medical Examination, the Board could, in his discretion, condone the initial disability. The authorities had taken action under R.9 of the Rules for Pre-Medical Examination which enabled such person to be "removed from the College by the Dean or such authority as the State Government may specify, if " any false or incorrect statement in the application form" has been given to avoid disqualification for admission to appear in examination. The petitioner in that case had not given any false or incorrect statement and in the circumstances, it was held, that "absence of notice to show-cause was a clear violation of the rules of natural justice" and, therefore, the order of cancellation cannot stand. The facts are quite distinguishable. The petitioners before us have not been granted any admission for examination by the University, and the University came to know only afterwards that they are not qualified since they did not fulfil the requirement of minimum marks. (b) The other decision referred was Balkrishna Tiwari v. Registrar, Avadhesh Pratap Singh University Rewa, 1978 MPLJ 172. Therein, the petitioner appeared in the LL.B. Part-I Examination held in the month of April, 1976. His result was "withheld" on the ground that he was not eligible to appear in the Examination and his admission card was cancelled, and consequently, his examination also. He was a regular student in 1967 in Sagar University. After his failure in the Examination, he applied to the Registrar for permission to appear in LL.B. Examination of Rewa University (supra) and "the Registrar had issued a letter according him permission to appear in Examination." He appeared in all the papers in the examination held in April, 1976 but on 14-05-76 he was informed that the admission card has been cancelled because he was "not an ex-student candidate of the Rewa University". The candidate had not practised any fraud. The authorities had allowed him to appear in the examination. The expression "Ex-student" in Ordinance 6(1) of M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam admitted of two interpretations, and as one of the interpretations was capable of being argued in favour of the petitioner, it was observed by the Full Bench that there was violation of natural justice in not affording opportunity to the petitioner before cancelling the admission; and on principle of promissory estoppel he could not be made to suffer for the mistake of the authorities who had not acted with care and caution. The petition was accordingly allowed. However, in para 17, the Full Bench observed that cases where occasion arises for refusal to permit a candidate to appear in examination or cancel his examination may broadly be categorised in four classes : -

"(1) Where the candidate practises fraud on the authorities or is guilty of mis-statement or suppression of facts in the application form. In such a case there is no question to estoppel arising; (2) Where there is some technical defect or deficiency which could be condoned under the Rules or Regulations. If in such a case an admission card is issued and the candidate has appeared even in one paper, estoppel will operate against the authorities as they will be deemed to have represented that the defect had been condoned. Where the examination has not yet begun whether the authorities will be estopped from cancelling admission card will depend on facts of each case; (3) Where the candidate is patently ineligible, there can be no estoppel as there can be no estoppel against Statute; (4) Where question of eligibility depends on interpretation of Statute or rules and two interpretations are possible reasonably, it will depend on the facts whether estoppel will operate or not when once the candidate has appeared even in one paper after issue of admission card. In such a case the authorities may be taken to have accepted the interpretation favourable to the candidate."

So far as the rules for natural justice are concerned, they are not codified and they depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the petitions before us, those candidates were "patently ineligible" in view of the Ordinance and therefore, the rule of estoppel does not operate against Statute. Moreover, the University, which, according to the scheme of Ordinance No. 6, steps in at the stage of granting admission cards for examination, had not condoned or acquiesced in the matter nor, had inordinately delayed its decision, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case. The Prospectus meant for candidates and all concerned also refers to eligibility clause of Ordinance 22 about minimum marks. (c) In Dolly Devendra Kumar Shah v. State of M. P., 1984 MPLJ 331 [LQ/MPHC/1983/316] a candidate was "provisionally selected" for M.B.B.S. Course "subject to the verification" of his document by Dean, but no time limit was prescribed. Candidate was selected as SC (Scheduled Caste) candidate and was admitted in College on 26-03-81. On inquiry, of which the candidate had no notice, the Collector found that the petitioner does not belong to S.C. The college was intimated. The candidate was therefore, "expelled" vide order dt. 27-11-81. Since the verification of the documents was not done within a reasonable time, "the provisional admission was held to have ripened into an admission". However, on facts of that case, the D. B. further held, that the order of expulsion was not liable to be interfered with on the ground that it was passed without hearing the petitioner. (d) In Dr. Zakiuddin Malik v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986 MP Vidhi Nirnaya 39 a candidate had attended one or two semesters and later on it was found that he was "admitted by mistake" and therefore, his admission cannot be cancelled at that stage. All these cases seem to have been decided on their own facts and circumstances. (e) In a recently, reported decision in Rajesh Namdeo v. Avadhesh Pratap Singh University Rewa, 1988 MPLJ 9 two students were admitted to the course of LL.B. Part-I on the direction of the Education Minister "as special cases" even though they had secured less than 40% marks in the last qualifying examination as then prescribed by R.5 of Part 4 of the Bar Council of India Rules framed u/S. 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Subsequently, the examination of two students was "cancelled as they were not qualified under the rules having obtained less than 40% marks. Rule 5 provided the minimum marks 40% which was a condition precedent for the eligibility for admission. It was observed by D.B. that mere acquiescence of permission granted by respondent 3 Satna College to the petitioners on the recommendation of the Minister cannot operate as estoppel. The same being contrary to the statutory rule. That was a case where one of the petitioners was admitted "only provisionally" and it was held, that the cancellation of his admission subsequently was not unjustified or bad in law. The Full Bench decision in Para 8 was referred and distinguished.

(18.) Therefore, on facts and circumstances of this case we find that there was no question of violation of the principles of natural justice. Similarly, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on principles of promissory estoppel either. The college authorities neither filed any return nor any rejoinder after the respondent-University filed its return. For reasons best known to them, wilfully or inadvertently, they may have granted admission but those were contrary to the guiding principles issued by the University and were certainly contrary to Ordinance 22, Cl. 6 and Prospectus. It is up to the University to consider for such appropriate action as it may deem proper against the erring affiliated colleges granting such admissions against the Ordinance. The University, at proper stage, had to intervene and on finding, which is not disputed, that the petitioners did not obtain the minimum 40% marks, it chose to pass the impugned orders challenged in the petitions. The orders are valid.

(19.) In the result, all the three petitions are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.