PUNJAB U,NIVERSITY CHANDIGARH v. DEVJANI CHAKRABARTI & OTHERS

PUNJAB U,NIVERSITY CHANDIGARH A v.

DEVJANI CHAKRABARTI & OTHERS

. May 17, 1984 ' .. B '~ j

· Punjl:b University Act, Section 20 (5) and Section 31-Power of the Syndicate, to make rules, relating to the pattertr of education- No rule can -be S(lid to be retrospective merely because they subsequently applied to students who. had earlier started their educadonal careers. · ,. ·With the introduction of the system known as f'lO plus 2 plus 3" in the educat_ional L1sti1utions in the couutry, the Asscciation of the Indi'an ) Universities decided the equivalence of this 10+2+3 system with the ·old 11+3 yeafs degree course system still prevalent is some States and it suggested that in all States where the paitern 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 Seconda-ry Education be ireated as equivtilent to a pass in 1he first year ·or the three years degree course or fOr admission to the first Y~'<ff of the t\vo years degree Course. The ·appellant Punjab University, drcid~d on 10:2.1977 that the 12th standard• exa,mination conducted by the Bo~rds/Univcrsities under the new 10+2+3 system be recognised as equiva-lent to the· Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering/B.A. Part I/ E B.sc:Part I/B. Com. Part I examination according to the combination of the subjects. Subsequently~ on .4.(i.1978 the Punjab Uliiversity decid6d to ireat the 11th standard of the new to+2+3 system as equivalent to . the Pre~LTniversity cxaminatioi:;i. of the Universi_ty. These recognitions of the equivaleoce of th£se twO txaminations continued till the beginning of the year 1980. But on 18.4.1980 the Punjab University decided that the first year student of 1he plus 2 course in the 10+2+3 system of the . F Central Board's schools who does not take a pub-lie examination at the-' end cf the first year should not be considered ·as equivalent to the student who has passed lhe pre-University ·examination of-the PuQjab Unive.rsity for ,) joinirg the Pre-Medical/Prc.Enginceriog/B.A. Par! I/B. Sc. Part I/B Corn. Part I of the University. On 7.5.1980, the Punjab University decided that Ille 12th Standard ·Exainination in the new 10+2+3 system conducted " b)'. any recognised Board/Council/Unlv,er.sity shall be treated as equivalent G to the pre~lJniversity Examination df the University.

lhe respondents in C~ 1977/80, namely 1 to 37 who had passed the I "th Stardard Examination in tbe!O+ 2+3. system of the Central Board of Education and respondents 38 to. 9.! who had been promoted. from the 11th j . Standa~d to the 12th Standard in that system cha!Jeoged the two decisions H

• li16 SUPREME COUl!T l!EPOl!TS (1984) 3 s.C.R.

A of the Pqnjab 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 Universitynamely,.Annexures P. 2 and P. 3.dated 10.12.1977 and 4.6.1978 respec,tively they bad joined the classes in the plus 2 course with the object of joining .the coj\ege,s affiliated to. the University in the next class of . equivalence as alsq Engineering and Medical Colleges. and that the lJniversity cannot, therefore, change those decisions by the subsequent decisions, B (Ann~xures R. 2 and- R. 3) to their detrinient. They invoked the doctrin·e • of promissory cstoppCI in regard to th_at ground Or attack on ti:u::.c two decisions; The second groudd of<.1ttack by the petitioners in·. _W.P. 1917 of 1980 was that the d~cisions Annexures R-: 2·& R-. 3 are _retrospective .in operation and they have taken away their vested right and. that the Univer~ · sity bas no power, either under lhe· Punjab University Act or under any, statute, regulation or rule to make any regulatio'o,) rule or ordinance c ·adversely affecting their vested rights retrospectively,

The learned Judges of the D'ivision Bench rejected· the con_teotipn of the ·petitioners before them that- tb_e Syndicate bas no power which th6 Senate has under s.31 of the Act and held that the Syndicate has similar powe;rs under s.20 (5) of the ·Act. They rejected ·the further contention .that there is any bar of promissory estoppel against the University in regdrd to the mattt.."r and, however, held .that petitioiiers 1 to 37 had ·joined the t0+2'coursC in the Central School lying within the territOrial jurisdicti.oo of the Punjab Univorsity in 1978 and had passed the 12th Standard Exami- nation and had _planned their education in a particular manner to join the co1leges ~ffili_3ted t.o the Punj<ib University in the second year of· the 3 year degree course and other courses after passing the· 12th staildard exa .. mination in the plus 2 system, Thfy. held that Annexure R.J wiil deprive petitioners f to 37 and Anncxtire R.2 will dep.rive petitioners 38 t'o 92 of right to seek admission in Engineering and -Medical Colleges after passing the 12th Standard in the 10+2· system.' and Anrtexures R.2 and and R.3 take away that r_igbt ·and are retrospective in nature. In coming to this conciution the learned Judges of the DiVisioo Bt:nch relied vefy strongly upon the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High. Court F in Punjab University vs. Subflash C~ander, 1976 P.L.R. 920. In view of their decision in W.P. 1917 of 1980, another Bench allowed another W.P.' 2349 of 1980 fiied by the respondents Inc.A.. 2667/83. Hence the appeals· by the. University. . ·

2. In view of the decision ofthe Supreme Court dated 17.S 1984 H rendered in Subha.ih Chander v. Punjab University (Civil Appeal No. 2828/ 1979 arising out. of 1976 I!.L.R. ·920) and reversing the said decision of the Punjab High Court relying. on which the two Judgments . now uµder

PUNJAB v. D. Cl!A!<RABARTI (Varadarajqn, J.) • ·l · appeal, were pls<>ed,. in. the pre1e:1t ca<;e al'>O th3 two inpugl'l'd d~::id ons . ure prlma facie P~o:;p~ctiv~ in op.::raUo'.l and th:y did not b.::,;:on1c rctro<;v A

pcctive merely b;:c:1.uc;e they sub5equ~ntly applied. to stud.::nts who hld already started their edu:.itioual car.!ers: . H·Jw~·ver, thi:r decision will not effect the right which nlight have b·Jen grailted to th~ peti'~ipners in the writ petitions on the basis of the Judgments of the High Court which have been reversed io tllese appe1h [810F; 82lE·F] B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISD!Cf!ON: Civil Ap 1eal No. 13.81 of 1980 Appeal by Speci~l 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. A.nd c Civil Appeal No. 2667 of!983. Appeal.by Special leave from the Judgment and: Order dated t]\c 8th July, 1980.ofth,; Punjab and. Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 2349 of 1980. . Jawahar Lal Gupta, Janendralal abd B.R. · Agarwal for the D Appellant; . ·Randhir Jain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court ,was delivered by VAR<ADARAJAN; l· These appeals by special leave are 1'y the Punjab University and directed against two Division Bench judg- E men ts of th·o Punjab and Haryana High Court in writ Petitions 1917 of 1980 and 2349 of 1980, allowing those W1it Petiiions without an~ order as to costs. W.P. 23~9 of 1980 was allow;d at the motion stage on 18 7.1980 as being covered by the decision in W.P. 19 l 7 of 1980 which was disposed of on.7.7.IY80. Kulwant Singh Tiwan.a, J. is a. pa,·ty to both ti1e judgments and he sat with Harbans Lal,. J, for hearing W.P. 1917 of J980. 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 of1980 alone briefly. · The system known as "IO plus 2 plus 3 system" was introduced ,; in the educational institutions in the cobl.lltry some ·years ago. The G Association ·Of Indian ·universities c!ecided the equivalence of thiS · I 0+2+3 system with the . old I l + 3 ye'ars degree course systein which was prevalent in some States and it suggested that in all States where the pattern of education is such as to require I 4 years for the first degree, i.e. 11 +3 years, the new plu; 2 stage of the Central Board of Secondary Education be treated as equivalent to a pass in H the first year of the three-years dagree'course or for admission to the. first year 9f the two·years degree cou'rse. This suggestion was ·

818 SUPREME COURT REPoi!.ts (1984] 3s.c.R.

conveyed by the Associatio.n of the Indian Universitre.s 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 thJ new rn+2+3 system be recognised as equivalentto the Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering/]J.A. Part .!/B.Sc. '; B Part rm. Com Part I examination according to the combination of the subjects. Subsequently, on 4.6..1978 the Punjab University decided io treat the !Ith standard of the ~ew !0+2-f!3 system as . ~quivalent to Jhe pre-University examin.ation of the University. Copies. of tho~e dccis'ons dated 10.12.197'1 and 4.6.1978 ,were· Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 .respectively in W.P. 1917 of 1980. These ·C recognitions of the equ'lvalence of those tw'o·exami,nations continued till the beginning of the year 1980. But on 18.4.1980 the Punjab University derided that the first y,ear student of the plus·2 course in the 10+2+3 system of the Cent.ml Board's schools who does not take a public examination at the end of the f:trst year should not be considered as equivalent to the student who has p'1ss.ed the . pre- University examination of the Punjab University for joilling the Pre- Medical/Pre-Engineering/B.A Part I/B. Sc. Part I/B. <:'om. Part I oqhe Uniwrsity. On 7.5. 1980, the Punjab University decided that the· IZth Standard Examination· in the 'new· 10+2+3 ~ystem conducted by any .recognized Board/Council. University sh~ll M E treated as equ:valenl to the pre· University Examination of the University' These decisions dated 18.4.1980 and 7.5.1980 are Anaexures R·2 and R·.1 respectively in W.P, 1917 of !980. I 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 F . of Education and petitio~ers 38 to 92 in the Writ Petition ~ad been promoted frotrJ.the 1lth standard to the 12th standard in that system. These 92 pctititll1ers f:t!ed W.f>. 1917 of 1980 challenging the Punjab University's decisions (Annexui·es R-2 and R-3) dated 18.4.1980 and 7.5.1980 contending that in view of the earlier decisions of the , University, namdy, Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 dated 10.12.1977 0· and 4.6.1978 respectively they had joined the classes in the plus 2 course with object .,f joining the colleges ·affiliated to the University .in tlie next class of equivalence as also Engi- neering and Medical Colleses and that the University cannot, ' therefore, change those decisiOns by the subsequent decisions, H Anncxurcs R-2 and R-3 to their deteriment. They invoked the doctr- ine of promissory estoppel in regard to that g.round of attack on those two decisions. The sccoi1d ground of att~k by the petitioners

PlJNJl\il v. D. CHAKRABARTI (Varadarajmi. J.) 819 in. W.P. 1917 of 1980 was that the decisions Annexures R-2 aiid A 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, re~ulation or rule to make any regulation, rule . or ordinance adversely affecting their vested. rights retrospectively. B ' The: defence of the appellent-University was that' the deciswns, Annexures R-2 and R ·3 were taken in the place' of the earlier deci- • . sions, Annexures P.2 and P.3 in th" interest of eduction oi{ the ' 'f ground that the I Ith standard examonation in the new 10+2+3 system was not a pubPc 'examination and the standard ·of education in the schools where that system was in vague was low and even the- c 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 consti'tuted by the Vice-Chancellor of the University when the students in the engineer- D ing colleges· started an agitation, went into the question and sub- mitted a report suggecting the change in r~gard to equivalenc~ in view of the difference in the syllabi and the deficiency in the teaching imparted in some subjects in the schools. The University, theteforc ·contended .that .the new decisions Annexures R.2 and R.3 were taken bonafide·:i.nd are only prospective in'operetion anc( that the doctrine of promissory estoppel pleade-a by t~e petitioners in the Writ Pcti· tions does not appty to the University. · •

The decisiops Annexures P.2, P.3, R.2 and R.3 arc of the Syndi<;ate wl1ich has power to make rules etc. under s'. 20 (5) of the Punjab Uni~ersity Act in the same manner as the Senate has similar power under s. 31 of that Act. The ]earned Judges of the . Divisio,-i Bench r~jected the con{ention of th: petjtioners 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 ,J that there is any bar of promissory estoppel against the University G in regard to, the matter and, however, held. that petitioners 1 to 37 , had j0ined the 10+2 co,urse in the Central Schools lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab University in 1978 aud passed • the· 12th Standard Examination and had planned their education in· a particular manner to join tlre colleges affiliated. to the Punjab H University in the second year of the 3-year degree course and other courses after passing the 12th standard ex~miintion in the plus 2

• 8 20 Sl;PREME COURT REPORTS [1984j 3 S.C.R. (- t A system. They foJnd that similar is the cas~ of petiti~nors 38 to 92 in W.P. 1917 of 1980 who had l:ioen promoted from the 11th to the 12th standard i11 the plus 2 syscem. fhey held that Annexure R . 3 will Jeprive petitioners 1 to 37 and Annexurn R.2 will deprive ·petiti,nicrs 38 to 92 of the right to seek admission in Engineering .and Medical Colleges after passing the 12th Standard in the 10+2 B system, and Anncxnres R.2 and R.3' tah away that right and are retrospcetivc in natu1"<1. In coming to this conclusion. the learned Judges of the Division Bench relied very strongiy upon. the decision •, of a Full Bench of the Punjab and HITTyana High Court in Punjab Unirersity vs. S 1bhash Chander.(l) · Tlie learned Judges accordingly allowed W.P. 1917 of 1980 on the sole. ground, namely,· that c Annexures R.2 qnd R.3 arc bad ·as being retrospective in operation, without any order as to costs and held that Annexnres R.3 and R.2 will not stand in the way of potitio)1ers I to 37 and 38 to 92 respecti- vely bofore them from seoking admission t() higher classes or in Engineering and Medical colleges on. tho basis of the old decisions, D Annexnres P.2 and P3. The other Division Bench 'which heard W.P. 2349 of 19SO allowed that peiition Without any order as to co~ts as being covered by the decision in WP. 1917 of \.98 I.

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 dec:sions Annexures R.t and R.3 . -E a<e. r~trospoctive in operation and that they cannot affect the writ petitioner> before them from seeking admission to higher classes cir in Engineer;Jl.g or Medical Colleges on tho basis of the earlier I . decis;ons Annexures P.2 and P .3, relying m ·1inly upon the decis_ion of the ·Full Bench in Punjab University v. Subhash Ch1ner (supra). F We have, in our separc1te judg•mnt , clvered tod•1y in C.A. 2828 'of 1977, which arose out of that Full Bench decision, reversed that decision and hdd that there is nothing retrospective in the order challenged in that case. In. that case one Subhash Chander was acijnitted to the integrated M.B.B.S. course in the Daya Nand Medical College, Ludhiana in tl)e y,ear 1965. At the time of his. ' G· admission, under Regulation 25 read with r.7.l, a student who fails in one subject/paper was entitled to grace marks at I 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 examination in which he has failed. Subhash Chander H appeared for the. final M.B.B.S, examination in 1974 and sec11red (I) 1976° P.L.R, 920.

PUNJAB v. D. CHA,[(RAJlARTI (Varadarajan, J.) 821

1 106 out of 200 marks in the ,practical examination and 95 out A 200 marks in the t~eory. 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 B • allowed only 4 grace marks under the new rule being I p!r cent of ' . the aggregate .for the subject in which he had failed, namely, Mid- wifery. The· High CoUrt accepted his conten.tion that amendment of the rule made in 1970 was retrospective in operation .though it was made applicable Jo Subhash.Chander only' in 1974 merely becal!se he had joined the integrated course in 1965 wlien the rule regarding c the award of grace marks was more liberal. In allow\ng the appeal against the judgment of the Full Bench we have field 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. D : It coul.d not be stated to be retrospeptive in operation nierely 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 'E ~erely because they;ubsequently, applied to· students yvho. 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 . .How· ever, this decision will not effect the right which might have been granted to the petitioners in th~ writ petitions on the basis of the F judgments of the High Court which have been reversed in these appeals.

S.R. Appeals allowed.