TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chandigarh Engineering College, a Constituent College of Punjab University. These appeals relate to a few such transfers. 3. The five appeals before as arise from five writ petitions filed in the High Court in Punjab and Haryana. The particulars of the writ petitioners (R.R.I to 5) are: Darshijit Singh (R-1) 109.25 240.50 12050/92 Sunit Kapur(R-2) 28 228 13228/92 Anil Kr. Batra(R-3) 152.75 217.25 12628/92 Subhadra Yadav(R-4) 118.5 183.75 14991/92 Rohit Tangri(R-5) 173.25 202.25 4. With the marks obtained by them, RR 1 to 4 could not be admitted in any engineering college in the State, on merit. Only Respondent No.5 could get admission on the basis of his merit, but in the Bhatinda engineering college, affiliated to the Punjabi University (as distinct from Punjab University). Respondents 1 to 4 sought for and obtained admission in Guru Nanak Dev engineering college, Ludhiana, in the management quota. This College is affiliated to Punjab University. 5. All the five respondents applied for transfer to Chandigarh Engineering College. It is evident that while in the case of respondents 1 to 4 the transfer was an intra-university transfer, in the case of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 2. The applicant must have obtained permission of the Principals of the two colleges concerned for migration. The Principal of the Institution to which the candidate wants to migrate may reject the application without assigning any reason. The application of a candidate for migration will be rejected by the Principal of the institution to which migration is sought: (a) if there is no vacancy in the class; (b) if the candidate does not fulfil all the qualifications necessary for admission to the college as laid down in the admission rules of the college; (c) if the conduct and behaviour of the student has not been satisfactory in the previous college; and (d) if the marks obtained in Joint Entrance Test (JET) by the applicant seeking migration, are below the marks obtained by the last candidate admitted in the 1st year class on the corresponding branch of Engineering of the Institution of that particular year against the category to which he belongs. The category shall be determined on the basis of the college prospectus of the relevant year of the Institution to which the migration is sought. (emphasis added) 5. The m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter-collegiate matters given in part-D of this chapter. If a college fails to do so, the Syndicate may take such action as it may deem necessary under Regulation 11.1 under this chapter . Regulation 15 in this chapter obliges the principal of every affiliated college to submit annually a report to the syndicate indicating inter alia the number and distribution of students. Chapter VIII(D) deals with admission and migration of students and tuition fees. Regulation 31.2 occurring in this chapter specifies the conditions subject to which alone the student can be transferred from one college to another. It is in conformity with the Rules made by the Syndicate on the subject. 11. Regulation 33 declares that notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 31.1 and 31.2, the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to authorise migration of a student from one college to another or to allow admission of a student . 12. Since the Chandigarh Administration finances the engineering colleges within the Union Territory of Chandigarh (including the Punjab engineering college, Chandigarh, to which Respondents 1 to 5 sought transfer), it has enunciated certain guidelines governing Migration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inistration, the following are the relevant conditions of migration: (i) Principals of both the colleges should agree to it; (ii) there must be a vacancy available in the relevant faculty in the transferee college; (ii) transfer shall be permitted only in third and fifth semesters; (iv) the student being transferred should not have obtained (in the J.E.T.) less marks than the last student admitted in that faculty in the transferee college; (v) transfer is permissible only on the ground of security or medical grounds; and (vi) the student seeking transfer should not have been admitted in any quota i.e., he should have been admitted on merit. (This condition makes explicit what is implicit in the Rules framed by the syndicate.) 15. It may be relevant to emphasise at this juncture that while the Rules and Regulations referred to above are statutory, the policy guidelines are relatable to the executive power of the Chandigarh Administration. It is axiomatic that having enunciated a policy of general application and having communicated to it all concerned including the Chandigarh engineering college, the Administration is bound by it. It can, of course, change the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Principal pointed out again that the migration of the said students is contrary to the rules and regulations of the Punjab University and the policy guidelines of the Administration, besides pointing out that the sanction of additional seats for accommodating them in the Chandigarh College can be sanctioned only by the Government of India in consultation with the All India Council for Technical Education (Council). He followed up this letter by another letter on August 24, 1992, which reads thus: Subject: Migration. This office have received 35 applications (13 applications for inter college migration and 22 applications for other University of Punjab University migration). A statement in duplicate showing the particulars of the applicants, reasons for migration and whether the Institute is approved by the AITCE has been recorded against each, for favour of further action at your end. It is added for the information of the authorities that there is no seat vacant at the College to accommodate the students who are seeking migration. Before deciding the cases, it may please be kept in view that the Administration has already sanctioned 10% additional seats more than th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge, having once given his consent for transfer of these respondents, was not justified in resisting the transfers after they were approved by the University and the Administration and (2) that the Principal was in error in taking the stand that additional seats in his College can not be sanctioned by the Syndicate and that it can be done only by the Central Government in consultation with the Council. 21. On February 11, 1993, we dismissed S.L.P. 1808/93 as having become infructuous inasmuch as it was directed against an interlocutory order pending the writ petition which itself came to be disposed of on January 20, 1993, as stated above. We have heard Sri Kapil Sibal for the appellants (Chandigarh Administration and Chandigarh Engineering College) and S/Sri G. Ramaswamy, Harish Salve and Sri Tawakley for the respondents. 22. The first question we have to address is whether the High Court was right in holding that the Principal of the Chandigarh Engineering College was precluded from objecting to the admission of the respondents in view of the consent given by him for their transfer earlier? It may be recalled that when the matter first came up before him, the Principal di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e University. University is a corporate body governed by law. The subject of migration of students is a matter governed by law. The Principal could only act within the said provisions - not outside them. Respondents had applied for transfer/migration in accordance with the said rules. They knew what the rules were. In any event, the Principal could accord his consent to the transfer only in terms of the said Rules. The Rules are emphatic. They left no choice to him. He had no option but to refuse his consent. The consent given by him was thus contrary to law. It was beyond his power i.e., ultra vires his powers. It should be noted that the violation was not a technical one. It was not a procedural or peripheral one. It touched the core, the substance of the Rules. It is worse that it was a conscious violation. Can it be said in these circumstance that he is bound in law by such consent or that he is estopped from reiterating his objections based upon the Rules before the actual admission of the Respondents? We think not. (We do not wish to express any opinion on the question whether he could do so even after the Respondents were admitted in his college.) The doctrine of Promissory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoking the rule of Promissory estoppel in these cases. As pointed out hereinbefore, the Respondents had not changed their position basing upon the representation - whether the representation consisted of the earlier consent of the Principal or the approval by University and Chandigarh Administration. Further, the said Rule can not, in any event, be invoked to perpetuate the violation of a provision of law, that too a provision couched in emphatic terms (leaving no discretion in the authority) and based upon sound public policy i.e., a mandatory provision. It is not necessary to say more than this for the purpose of these cases. The decisions of this Court on the doctrine of Promissory estoppel viz., Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies , M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana and Union of India v. Godfrey Phillips do not say otherwise. Indeed, it is reiterated in these cases that the said Rule is not available in respect of the ultra-virus acts of a statutory body/authority nor can it be invoked to compel the Government - a public authority - to carry out a promise which is contrary to law or ultra-virus its powers. Also see State of Kerala v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
