JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. These are three connected writ petitions filed separately by Rajesh Singh. Anil Kumar Gupta and Hausila Prasad Yadav who admittedly had appeared in the entrance examination test for admission to B.Ed, course for the session 1996-97 conducted by Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. The result of the entrance test was declared and published on 17.11.1996. The Registrar of the University issued letters to the petitioners in November/December. 1996 directing them to report before the Principal. Sant Kinaram Post Graduate College, Kaimoor Pecth. Robertsganj, Sonebhadra for admission to the B.Ed, course after depositing the required fees. All the three petitioners accordingly reported and after depositing the requisite fee joined the classes on different dates in December, 1996, Subsequently, the admissions of the three petitioners and one Sant Lal Yadav were cancelled by the Registrar of the University who communicated his decision by letter dated 24th January, 1997 to the Principal of the College. Accordingly, the petitioners were forced to discontinue their studies. The final examinations of B.Ed. were to commence from 26.7.1997.
2. By means of these three writ petitions, the order dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Registrar of the University has been challenged and it is prayed that it may be quashed and the petitioners be allowed to appear in the final examinations which were to commence from 26.7.3997. Under the interim order of this Court, the petitioners were allowed to pursue their further studies and to appear in the final examinations. Their results have not yet been declared.
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
4. Heard Sri D. N. Misra and Sri A. K. Misra appearing on behalf of Rajesh Singh and Anil Kumar Gupta and Sri Ganga Prasad on behalf of Housila Prasad Yadav as well as Sri H. N. Tripathi who appears on behalf of Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.
5. It is an indubitable fact that all the three petitioners were qualified and eligible for appearing in the entrance test for admission to B.Ed. course 1996-97. They did appear and were declared successful. They were also issued letters by the Registrar to seek admission in the college aforesaid after completing the necessary formalities. The petitioners started pursuing their studies after depositing the requisite fees. It appears that some clerical error was detected by the University in the result. A policy decision was taken that the students who belong to the backward class shall be admitted only if they secured minimum 200 marks in the entrance test and any candidate whose marks fell short of 200 shall not be considered for admission. Rajesh Singh, Housita Prasad Yadav and Anil Kumar Gupta, petitioners secured respectively 127, 149 and 161 marks in the entrance test and since the marks secured by them were less than 200, they could not be considered for admission to the B.Ed. course. According to respondent University, on account of the mistake of the computer, the names of the petitioners found a place in the result of successful candidates and consequently, letters were issued to them granting them admission and when the mistake was detected and realised, the admission of the petitioners were cancelled. Sri H. N. Tripathi urged that the University is always entitled to correct the clerical mistake and even though the petitioners were given admission and allowed to continue their studies after depositing the fees, they can be prevented from pursuing their further studies as their admission was the out come of clerical mistake. In support of his contentions Sri Tripathi placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 13.8.1996 Shruti Barnawal and others v. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others. (1996) 3 UPLBEC 1689. In that case, it was found that the 'daughter keys' were not prepared in tune with the 'master-key'. It was found that the clerical mistake in preparing the daughter keys had occurred because of the fact that no transposition table had been prepared in the three sets of key answers. It was also held that an error had occurred in the result by wrong feeding in the computer and since it was purely a simple case of clerical mistake which vitiated the result, the University Authorities were welt within their jurisdiction to correct the clerical mistake and publish the amended result. It have given due consideration to the said decision and find that it is not attracted on all fours to the fact of the present case. It also appears that a few celebrated decisions of the Apex Court were not noticed in the decision aforesaid.
6. The moot point for consideration is whether the petitioners who have been admitted in pursuance of the duly declared result and were pursuing the B.Ed. course after having deposited substantial amount of money as fees could be deprived of the benefit of the studies particularly when there was no fault on their part merely on the ground that the computer mistake was detected at a subsequent stage. I proceed on the assumption that the petitioners were admitted to the B.Ed. course on account of the mistake of the University. Obviously the petitioners were not at all at fault. It is well-settled principle of law that a student should not suffer for the mistake committed by the University or its authorities. On this point, there is a decision of the Apex Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v Karnataka University and another, 1996 (Suppl.) SCC 740. In that case, the appellants were admitted to certain private engineering colleges for the B.E. Degree Course, although they were not eligible for admission. The Apex Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the students whose admissions were subsequently cancelled and the order of cancellation was upheld by the High Court. At the same time, the Supreme Court took the view that the fault lay with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants and there was no reason why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the management of these Engineering Colleges. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appellants of that case to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission.
7. Rajendra Prasad Mathur's. case was relied on by the Supreme Court in Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and others. 1989 (15) ALR (SC) 356. In that case, it was submitted on behalf of the University that It was through mistake that the appellants were admitted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :
"We are unable to accept the contention. It has been already noticed that both the Dean and the Vice-Chancellor considered the objections raised by the officer-in-charge. Admissions, and thereafter direction for admitting the appellant was made. When after considering all facts and circumstances and also the objections by the office to the admission of a candidate, the Vice-Chancellor directs the admission of such a candidate, such admission could not be said to have been made through mistake. Assuming that the appellant was admitted through mistake, the appellant not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain the order withholding the admission of the appellant."
8. Relying upon the observations made in Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that the same principle which weighed with this Court in that case should also be applied in the instant case. The appellant was not at fault and there is no reason why he should suffer for the mistake committed by Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering.
9. A reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University and others, (1990) 3 SCC 23, in which the principles of promissory estoppel has been invoked against the University, It was observed that the University cannot punish the student for negligence of Principal or University authorities. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioners were admitted on account of the mistake of the computer, they being not at fault, it would be difficult to sustain the order dated 24.1.1997 passed by the Registrar of the respondent University. The respondent University even though due to mistake have declared the petitioners successful in the entrance test, sent them letters to join the college to pursue their studies in B.Ed. course after depositing fees and the petitioners on the assurance held out by the University authorities deposited the substantial amount of the fee and continued to pursue their studies. In these circumstances the University was estopped from cancelling the admission of the petitioners. The Principles of law laid down in Shri Krisrnan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR 1976 SC 376, is fully applicable to the case of the present petitioners also.
10. In the result all the three petitions succeed and are allowed. It is directed that the respondent-University shall declare the results of the petitioners of B.Ed., 1997 examination in which they have appeared in pursuance of the interim order of this Court within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Registrar of the University.