Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P. 29943/1999 dated 13-12-1999 declining the prayer to quash Ext. P3 and the consequential prayers to accept the applications for admission to the course of B.A. (Economics) in the Open Stream Scheme of the University of Calicut as valid and permit them to continue the course in accordance with law and also to accept Exhibit P4 and similar applications submitted by the appellants as valid and enroll the appellants for the B.A. course as applied for by them.
2. The petitioners in the original petition are the appellants herein. It is the case of the appellants that as per the scheme advertised in Exhibit P1 prospectus issued by the University of Calicut, persons who have completed the age of 18 years without regard to any other qualification can apply for admission to the B.A./B.Com. Degree course in the Open Stream Scheme under the University. For this purpose it Is necessary that the applicants have to appear at an entrance examination and to pass the same with minimum 35% marks. The degrees offered in the B.A. course are in History, Economics, Polititics, Sociology and Malayam, in addition to the B.Com. Degree. Clause 8 of the prospectus deals with the scheme of entrance examinations, which provides for 3 papers of 100 marks each. Paper I General English, Paper II in Hindi or Malayalam is compulsory for all the applicants. Paper II for the entrance examination comprises of one among the following elective subjects : (1) Indian History, (2) Politics, (3) Economics, or (4) Commerce. Clause 8 of Exhibit P1 is reproduced hereunder :--
"8. Scheme of Entrance Examination :
There are three papers of 3 hours duration for the Entrance Examination, each carrying a maximum of 100 marks.
Paper I General English 3 hours 100 marks Paper II Hindi or Malayalam 3 hours 100 marks Paper III
1. Indian History (or) 3 hours 100 marks
2. Politics (or) 3 hours 100 marks
3. Economics (or) 3 hours 100 marks
4. Commerce 3 hours 100 marks Candidate should appear in Paper I General English and in Hindi or Malayalam under Paper II and in any one of the four subjects under Paper III.
Those who desire to join for the B.Com. Degree course should select commerce under Paper III and those who want to take Malayalam Language and literature for B.A. should select Malayalam under Paper II.
There is no restriction with regard to selection of language under Paper II and subject under Paper III for other courses except that selection confine within the languages and subjects mentioned above and offered from this institution. Students can write the examination in Paper III subjects of the entrance examination either In Malayalam or in English."
It is provided in the prospectus that those who desire to Join the B.Com. Degree shall compulsorily write commerce as elective for Paper III and those who want to join B.A. Malayalam should compulsorily sit for the Malayalam paper for Paper II. It is also specifically provided that there will be no restriction with regard to selection of language under Paper II or subject under Paper III for any other course.
3. The appellants who were desirous to Join B.A. (Economics) course had appeared in the entrance examination selecting Commerce as the elective subject under Paper III for the purpose of the entrance examination. They were declared to have passed the entrance examination. However, under Exhibit P3, an undated and unsigned memo, they were informed that since they have opted for Commerce as the subject in Paper III of the Entrance Examination, they will not be considered for admission to the B.A. Degree course and that they will be given admission, if they applied, in the B.Com. Degree course only. Since Exhibit P3 is totally against the prospectus issued by the University and since the actions of the University in rendering Exhibit P3 were violative of the promise held out by them in Exhibit P1, the appellants had preferred original petition challenging these actions as being illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.
4. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition for the reasons recorded in his Judgment. Being aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned single Judge, the petitioners have preferred the above memorandum of Writ Appeal.
5. We heard the arguments of Mr. P. Ravindran for the appellants and Mr. P. C. Sasidharan for respondents 1 and 2, the University of Calicut.
6. A counter-affidavit was filed by the University. According to the University, the appellants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in the Original Petition and the learned single Judge has correctly dismissed the Original Petition. It is submitted that the scheme of Distance Education of the University of Calicut is offering both B. A. and B.Com. courses under the Open Stream. The subjects offered for B.A. Degree are History, Economics, Political Science and Malayalam with Malayalam or Hindi as second language. The B.Com. course is offered with Co-operation as an elective subject and Malayalam and Hindi as second language. Admission to the course is based on the passing of the Entrance Examination conducted by the University. The examinations are conducted in three papers; (i) General English, (ii) Hindi or Malayalam, and in Part (iii) 4 subjects are offered, i.e. Indian History, Politics, Economics and Commerce. Mr. Sasidharan submitted that the candidates intending to Join in B.A. course for History, Economics, Politics, Sociology and Malayalam should appear in Indian History, Politics or Economics as elective in Paper III and candidates intending to seek admission to B.Com. course should take part of the examinations in Commerce. He invited our attention to the prospectus. According to him, it is specifically provided in the prospectus thatthosewhodesirestojoinB.Com. course should select Commerce in Paper III. It is also provided that there Is no restriction with regard to the selection of papers under Paper II and subject under Paper III for other courses except that the selection confine within the language and subjects mentioned offered from the Institution. It is also mentioned specifically in the prospepctus that a candidate intending to join B.A. Malayalam should select Malayalam as a paper under Paper II and candidate seeking admission to B.Com. should select Commerce under Paper III. It is argued by Mr. Sasidharan that the very intention of the University in conducting the entrance examination is to assess the basic knowledge of the candidate in a particular subject and the course is conducted under Open Stream and the eligibility for admission is that a candidate should pass entrance examination and should have completed 18 years and no other educational qualification is prescribed for admission to the course. The candidates intending to join the course should pass the eligibility test conducted by the University. If a candidate who passes the examination in Indian History, Politics or Economics is given admission to Commerce, the very purpose of the entrance examination will be defeated. According to the University, each and every candidate has informed of this fact and It has been specified by the University in the notification Itself that a candidate who had appeared for Commerce entrance examination under Paper III can seek admission only to B.Com. course. The appellants selected Commerce under Part III. From Exhibit P4 it is evident that the appellants have not even stated the elective subject selected under Part III in their application. Columns in this regard are kept blank. A candidate who is issued with hall ticket for B.Com. examination cannot be permitted to appear for B.A. Economics. Thus it is submitted that the very purpose of conducting entrance examination will be defeated if such a course is adopted by the University and only candidates who came out successful in the entrance examination alone are given admission under the Open Stream for degree courses. According to the learned counsel for the University, Exhibit P1 prospectus is crystal clear and the learned single Judge has correctly appreciated the contentions of the University and as the appellants have chosen Commerce, they can seek admission only to B.Com. Degree course.
7. We are unable to appreciate the contentions raised by the counsel for the University. We have carefully perused Clause 8 of the Exhibit P1 prospectus, the other Exhibits filed by the candidates and the judgment of the learned single Judge. A perusal of the prospectus -- Exhibit P1 -- itself would show that a person who intend to Join the B.A. degree course is expected to pass the entrance examination consisting of three papers. Paper I in English, Paper II -- second language -- in either Hindi or Malayalam and Paper III in either one of the elective subjects of Indian History, Politics. Economics or Commerce. If the applicants pass all three papers with 35% marks, he/she is entitled to be admitted to the B.A. degree course. So far as the B.A. degree is concerned, the prospectus makes it clear that It is open to the candidates to chose any one of the four subjects in Paper III. It is only for persons who desire to Join the B.Com. degree that the choice of subject paper is restricted to Commerce. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was not correct in taking the view that all persons who elect to write Commerce as the Part III subject are bound to enter the B.Com. course only. This finding, in our view, is opposed to the provisions of Exhibit P1 prospectus and as such the same is unsustainable.
8. Mr. Ravindran submitted that the respondents being statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State, are bound to act in a fair and reasonable manner. Having held out the promise under Exhibit P1 that the appellants are free to join the B.A. degree course upon passing the entrance examination with any one out of four elective subjects In Paper III, it is not open to them to subsequently turn around and unilaterally interpret the prospectus so as to restrict the rights of the appellants in this fashion. Exhibit P1 prospectus is not disputed. The terms of Clause 8 thereof are crystal clear. Under such circumstances, the learned single Judge ought to have accepted the contentions of the appellants that having acted upon the promise given by the University in Exhibit P1, the appellants have a legitimate expectation to be allowed to pursue the course of study chosen by them in accordance with the prospectus and that the denial of this benefit abruptly is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable.
9. All the appellants are the S.S.L.C. holders and because of the financial constraints, it is stated, they could not take up regular course of education provided by the University. Therefore, all the appellants have availed the facility provided by the University through school of Distance Education. All of them have appeared for the entrance examination and also opted for Commerce as the 3rd paper. All of them were successful in the entrance examination.
10. Mr. P. C. Sasidharan relied on the application forms issued by the University intended for B.Com. course and the cyclostyled letter, which was also enclosed along with the applications, according to which the students who have taken Commerce for entrance examination will not be entitled to admission for B.A. course. We have perused Exhibit P3 in Malayalam and Exhibit P3(a), the English translation, which reads as follows :--
"SCHOOL OF DISTANT EDUCATION SDE/F Section For the purpose of filling application for B.Com. Examination Refer Page 42 of Handbook 1999. Part III Commerce has got only three papers. If there are only two papers in the application form third one has to be attached.
For the attenton of those persons who had taken Commerce for the entrance and applied for BA.
Those who had taken Commerce in Part III and were successful in the entrance exam. would be given admission to B.Com. only.
Those who had given application for BA would not be given admission to BA."
This communication though it come along with the applications sent by the University to the appellant, is not seen authenticated by any responsible officer of the University. All the appellants Intended to join for B.A. and, therefore, they corrected the application forwarded to them by the University and submitted the same for admission to the course of B.A. One of such application received and submitted by the appellants correcting the same as B.A. degree course is produced and marked as Ext. P4. The last date for receipt of the application was 26-11-1999 and all the appellants have submitted the application correcting the same as B.A. In our opinion, the University has a duty to permit the appellants to continue the course of study chosen by them. The University has held out a promise to the appellants that they are free to choose the course of study, provided they pass the entrance examination. All the appellants have passed the entrance examination and, therefore, they are entitled to choose the course of study. The unilateral action of the University denying this benefit to the appellants, in our opinion, is arbitrary and the University being the instrumentality of the State, have a duty to act fairly. The appellants have a legitimate expectation to pursue the course of study of their choice in view of the specific promise given in the prospectus and the abrupt denial of this benefit is unsustainable, and without any authority of law.
11. The Impugned Judgment in so far as it proceeds to hold that the appellants having chosen Commerce as the elective subject for Paper III are entitled to join the B.Com. degree course alone is clearly unjustifiable. The learned Judge ought to have accepted the appellants' contentions in view of Clause 8 of Exhibit P1 prospecuts and granted the reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition. Since such relief is denied to the appellants, we are compelled to grant the relief prayed for in the Original Petition and in this appeal.
The Writ Appeal succeeds and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. Ext. P3 is quashed and a mandamus is issued directing the respondents to accept the appellants' applications for admission to the course of B.A. (Economics) in the Open Stream Scheme of the University of Calicut and permit them to continue the course. The respondents are directed to accept Exhibit P4 and similar applications submitted by the appellants as valid and enroll them for the B.A. course as applied for by them within two weeks from today.