Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEVJANI CHAKRABARTI & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/05/1984
BENCH:
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
BENCH:
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
SEN, A.P. (J)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 1444 1984 SCR (3) 815
1984 SCC (3) 612 1984 SCALE (1)856
ACT:
Punjab University Act, Section 20 (5) and section 31-
Power of the Syndicate, to make rules relating Jo the
pattern of education-No rule can be said to be retrospective
merely because they subsequently applied to students who had
earlier started their educational careers.
HEADNOTE:
With the introduction of the system known as "10 plus 2
plus 3" in the educational institutions in the country, the
Association of the Indian Universities decided the
equivalence of this 10+2+3 system with the old 11+3 years
degree course system still prevalent is some. States and it
suggested that in all States where the pattern of education
is such as to require 14 years for the first degree i.e.
11+3 years the new plus 2 stage of the Central Board of
Secondary Education be treated as equivalent to a pass in
the first year of the three years degree course or for
admission to the first year of the two years degree Course.
The appellant Punjab University, decided on 10.2.1971 that
the 12th standard examination conducted by the
Boards/Universities under the new 10+2+3 system be
recognised as equivalent to the Pre-Medical/Pre-
Engineering/B.A. Part I/B.Sc.Part I/B. Com. Part I
examination according to the combination of the subjects.
Subsequently, on 4.6.1978 the Punjab University decided to
treat the 11th standard of the new 10+2+3 system as
equivalent to the Pre-University examination of the
University. These recognitions of the equivalence of these
two examinations continued till the beginning of the year
1980. But on 18.4.1980 the Punjab University decided that
the first year student of the plus 2 course in the 10+2+3
system of the Central Board’s schools who does not take a
public examination at the end of the first year. should not
be considered as equivalent to the student who has passed
the pre-University examination of the Punjab University for
joining the Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering/B.A. Part I/B. Sc.
Part II B. Com. Part I of the University. On 7.5.1980, the
Punjab University decided that the 12th Standard Examination
in the new 10+2+3 system conducted by any recognised
Board/Council/University shall be treated as equivalent to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
the pre-University Examination of the University.
The respondents in CA 1977/80, namely 1 to 37 who had
passed the 12th Standard Examination in the 10+2+3 system of
the Central Board of Education and respondents 38 to 92 who
had been promoted from the 11th Standard to the 12th
Standard in that system challenged the two decisions
816
of the Punjab University dated 18.4.1980, and 7.5.1980 by
filing W.P. 1917 of 1980 contending that in view of the
earlier decisions of the University namely, Annexures P. 2
and P. 3 dated 10.12.1977 and 4.6.1978 respectively they had
joined the classes in the plus 2 course with the object of
joining the colleges affiliated to the University in the
next class of equivalence as also Engineering and Medical
Colleges and that the University cannot, therefore, change
those decisions by the subsequent decisions, (Annexures R. 2
and R. 3) to their detriment. They invoked the doctrine of
promissory estoppel in regard to that ground of attack on
those two decisions. The second ground of attack by the
petitioners in W.P. 1917 of 1980 was that the decisions
Annexures R. 2 & R. 3 are retrospective in operation and
they have taken away their vested right and that the
University has no power, either under the Punjab University
Act or under any statute, regulation or rule to make any
regulation rule or ordinance adversely affecting their
vested rights retrospectively.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench rejected the
contention of the petitioners before them that the Syndicate
has no power which the Senate has under s. 31 of the Act and
held that the Syndicate has similar powers under s. 20 (5)
of the Act. They rejected the further contention that there
is any bar of promissory estoppel against the University in
regard to the matter and, however, held that petitioners 1
to 37 had joined tho 10+2 course in the Central School lying
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab University
in 1978 and had passed the 12th Standard Examination and had
planned their education in a particular manner to join the
colleges affiliated to the Punjab University in the second
year of the 3 year degree course and other courses after
passing the 12th standard examination in the plus 2 system.
They held that Annexure R. 3 will deprive petitioners I to
31 and Annexure R. 2 will deprive petitioners 38 to 92 of
right to seek admission in Engineering and Medical Colleges
after passing the 12th Standard in the 10+2 system. and
Annexures R. 2 and R. 3 take away that right and are
retrospective in nature. In coming to this conclusion the
learned Judges of the Division Bench relied very strongly
upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Punjab University vs. Subhash Chander, 1976
P.L.R. 920. In view of their decision in W.P. 1911 of 1980,
another Bench allowed another W P. 2349 of 1980 filed by the
respondents in C.A. 2667/83. Hence the appeals by the
University.
Allowing the appeal, the Court.
^
HELD: 1. The decisions dated 10.12.1977, 4.6.1978,
18.4.1980 and 7.5.1980 respectively are intra vires the
powers of the Syndicate to make rules etc. under section
20(5) of the Punjab University Act in the same manner as the
Senate can do under s. 31 of that Act. [819F]
2. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated
17.5 1984 rendered in Subhash Chander v. Punjab University
(Civil Appeal No. 2828/ 1977 arising out of 1976 P.L.R. 920)
and reversing the said decision of the Punjab High Court
relying on which the two Judgments now under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
817
appeal, were passed, in the present case also the two
impugned decisions are prima facie prospective in operation
and they did not become retrospective merely because they
subsequently applied to students who had already started
their educational careers. However, this decision will not
effect the right which might have been granted to the
petitioners in the writ petitions on the basis of the
Judgments of the High Court which have been reversed in
these appeals [820F; 821E-F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1381 of
1980
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order
dated the 7th July, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Civil Writ Petition No . 1917 of 1980.
And
Civil Appeal No. 2667 of 1983.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order
dated the 8th July, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Civil Writ No. 2349 of 1980.
Jawahar Lal Gupta, Janendralal and B.R. Agarwal for the
Appellant.
Randhir Jain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VARADARAJAN, J. These appeals by special leave are by
the Punjab University and directed against two Division
Bench judgments of the Punjab and, Haryana High Court in
writ Petitions 1917 of 1980 and 2349 of 1980, allowing those
Writ Petitions without any order as to costs W P. 2319 of
1980 was allowed at the motion stage on 18.7.1980 as being
covered by the decision in W P. 1917 of 1980 which was
disposed of on 7.7.1980. Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. is a party
to both the judgments and he sat with Harbans Lal, J for
hearing W.P. 1917 of 1980 and with M.M. Punchi, J. for
hearing W.P. 2349 of 1980. In these circumstances, it is
necessary to state only the facts relating to W.P. 1917 of
1980 alone briefly.
The system known as "10 plus 2 plus 3 system" was
introduced in the educational institutions in the country
some years ago. The Association of Indian Universities
decided the equivalence of this 10+2+3 system with the old
11+3 years degree course system which was prevalent in some
States and it suggested that in all States where the pattern
of education is such as to require 14 years for the first
degree, i e. 11+3 years, the new plus 2 stage of the Central
Board of Secondary Education be treated as equivalent to a
pass in the first year of the three-years degree course or
for admission to the first year of the two years degree
course. This suggestion was
818
conveyed by the Association of the Indian Universities to
the Chairman of the Central Board of Secondary Education by
a letter dated 18.4.1978. The appellant, Punjab University,
decided on 10.2.1977 that the 12th standard examination
conducted by the Boards/Universities under the new 10+2+3
system by recognised as equivalent to the Pre-Medical/Pre-
Enginerering/B.A. Part I/B.Sc. Part I/B.Com Part I
examination according to the combination of the subjects.
Subsequently, on 4.6.1978 the Punjab University decided to
treat the 11th standard of the new 10+2+3 system as
equivalent to the pre-University examination of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
university. Copies of those decisions dated 10.2.1977 AND
4.6.1978 were Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 respectively in W.P.
1917 of 1980. These recognitions of the equivalence of those
two examinations continued till the beginning of the year
1980. But on 18.4.1980 the Punjab University decided that
the first year student of the plus 2 course in the 10+2+3
system of the Central Board’s schools who does not take a
public examination at the end of the first year should not
be considered as equivalent to the student who has passed
the pre-University examination of the Punjab University for
joining the Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering/B.A. Part I/B. Sc.
Part I/B.Com. Part I of the University. On 7.5.1980, the
Punjab University decided that the 12th Standard Examination
in the new 10+2+3 system conducted by any recognized
Board/Council/University shall be treated as equivalent to
the pre-University Examination of the University. These
decisions dated 18.4.1980 and 7.5.1980 are Annexures R-2 and
R-3 respectively in W.P. 1917 of 1980.
Petitioners 1 to 37 in W.P. 1917 of 1980 had passed the
12th standard examination in the 10+2+3 system of the
Central Board of Education and petitioners 38 to 92 in the
Writ Petition had been promoted from the 11th standard to
the 12th standard in that system. These 92 petitioners filed
W.P. 1917 of 1980 challenging the Punjab University’s
decisions (Annexures R-2 and R-3) dated 18.4.1980 and
7.5.1980 contending that in view of the earlier decisions of
the University, namely, Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 dated
10.2.1977 and 4.6.1978 respectively they had joined the
classes in the plus 2 course with object of joining in the
colleges affiliated to the University in the next class of
equivalence as also Engineering and Medical Colleges and
that the University cannot, therefore, change those
decisions by the subsequent decisions, Annexures R-2 and R-3
to their deteriment. They invoked the doctrine of promissory
estoppel in regard to that ground of attack on those two
decisions. The second ground of attack by the petitioners
819
in W.P. 1917 of 1980 was that the decisions Annexures R-2
and R-3 are retrospective in operation and they have taken
away their vested right and that the University has no
power, either under the Punjab University Act or under any
statute, regulation or rule to make any regulation, rule or
ordinance adversely affecting their vested rights
retrospectively.
The defence of the appellant-University was that the
decisions, Annexures R-2 and R-3 were taken in the place of
the earlier decisions, Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 in the
interest of eduction on the ground that the 11th standard
examination in the new 10+2+3 system was not a public
examination and the standard of education in the schools
where that system was in vague was low and even the marking
system in the examination was lenient. The University
further contended that even the syllabi in the equivalent
examination in the schools and colleges were not the same.
The University stated that the Committee of Experts which
was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University
when the students in the engineering colleges started an
agitation, went into the question and submitted a report
suggesting the change in regard to equivalence in view of
the difference in the syllabi and the deficiency in the
teaching imparted in some subjects in the schools. The
University, therefore contended that the new decisions
Annexures R. 2 and R. 3 were taken bonafide and are only
prospective in operation and that the doctrine of promissory
estoppel pleaded by the petitioners in the Writ Petitions
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
does not apply to the University.
The decisions Annexures P. 2, P. 3, R. 2 and R. 3 are
of the Syndicate which has power to make rules etc under s.
20 (5) of the Punjab University Act in the same manner as
the Senate has similar power under s. 31 of that Act. The
learned Judges of the Division Bench rejected the contention
of the petitioners before them that the Syndicate has no
power which the Senate has under s. 31 of the Act and held
that the Syndicate has similar powers under s. 20 (5) of the
Act They rejected the further contention that there is any
bar of promissory estoppel against the University in regard
to the. matter and, however, held that petitioners 1 to 37
had joined the 10+2 course in the Central Schools lying
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab University
in 1978 and passed the 12th Standard Examination and had
planned their education in a particular manner to join the
colleges affiliated to the Punjab University in the second
year of the 3-year degree course and other courses after
passing the 12th standard examination in the plus 2
820
system. They found that similar is the case of petitioners
38 to 92 in W.P. 1917 of 1980 who had been promoted from the
11th to the 12th standard in the plus 2 system. They held
that Annexure R. 3 will deprive petitioners 1 to 37 and
Annexure R. 2 will deprive petitioners 38 to 92 of the right
to seek admission in Engineering and Medical Colleges after
passing the 12th Standard in the 10+2 system, and Annexures
R. 2 and R. 3 take away that right and are retrospective in
nature. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judges of
the Division Bench relied very strongly upon the decision of
a full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Punjab
University v. Subhash Chander. The learned Judges
accordingly allowed W.P. 1917 of 1980 on the sole ground,
namely, that Annexures R. 2 and R. 3 are bad as being
retrospective in operation without an order as to costs and
held that Annexures R. 3 and R. 2 will not stand in the way
of petitioners 1 to 7 and 38 to 92 respectively before them
from seeking admission to higher classes or in Engineering
and Medical Colleges on the basis of the old decisions,
Annexures P. 2 and P. 3. The Other Division Bench which
heard W.P. 2349 of 1980 allowed that petition without any
order as to costs as being covered by the decision in W P.
1917 of 1980.
We are of the opinion that these appeals have to be
allowed. The learned Judges of the High Court allowed the
Writ Petitions only on the ground that the new decisions
Annexures R. 2 and R. 3 are retrospective in operation and
that they cannot affect the writ petitioners before them
from seeking admission to higher classes or in Engineering
or Medical Colleges on the basis of tile earlier decisions
Annexures P. 2 and P. 3, relying mainly upon the decision of
the Full Bench in Punjab University v. Subhash Chander
(supra). We have, in our separate judgment delivered today
in C.A. 2828 of 1977, which arose out of that Full Bench
decision, reversed that decision and held that there is
nothing retrospective in the order challenged in that case.
In that case one Subhash Chander was admitted to the
integrated M.B.B.S course in the Daya Nand Medical College,
Ludhiana in the year 1965. At the time of his admission,
under Regulation 25 read with r. 7.1, a student who fails in
one subject/paper was entitled to grace marks at 1 per cent
of the total aggregate marks of all the subjects for which
he appeared. But in 1970 the rule was amended to the effect
that the grace marks will be 1 per cent of the total
aggregate marks for any particular subject of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
examination in which he has failed Subhash Chander appeared
for the Final M.B.B.S. examination in 1974 and secured
821
106 out of 200 marks in the practical examination and 95 out
200 marks in the theory examination in Midwifery, which was
one of the four subjects for which he appeared. at that
time. He had passed the examinations in the other three
subjects for which the total aggregate was 1200 marks. Under
the old rule he would have been entitled to 16 grace marks
at 1 per cent of the total aggregate of all the four
subjects, namely, 1600 marks. But he was allowed only 4
grace marks under the new rule being 1 per cent of, the
aggregate for the subject in which he had failed namely,
Midwifery. The High Court accepted his contention that
amendment of the rule made in 1970 was retrospective in
operation though it was made applicable to Subhash Chander
only in 1974 merely because he had joined the integrated
course in 1965 when the rule regarding the award of grace
marks was more liberal. In allowing the appeal against the
judgment of the Full Bench we have held that (there was no
question of the rule having any retrospective operative as
it was framed in 1970 and it did not say that it was
operative from any earlier date and it was applied to
Subhash Chander only in 1974. It could not be stated to be
retrospective ill operation merely because it was applied to
Subhash Chander who had joined the course in 1965 before the
amendment was made in 1970.
In the present case also the new decisions are prima
facie prospective in operation and they did not become.
retrospective merely because they subsequently appl ed to
students who had already started their educational careers.
We, therefore, allow these appeals but without any order as
to costs and set aside the judgments of the High Court and
dismiss the Writ Petitions. However, this decision will not
effect the right which might have been granted to the
petitioners in the writ petitions on the basis of the
judgments of the High Court which have been reversed in
these appeals.
S.R. Appeals allowed.
822