1. This is an application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the opposite party No. 1 (Annexure 5) by which he has cancelled the admission of the petitioner in his college.
2. A brief narration leading to the present writ application is that the petitioner appeared at the Annual High School Certificate Examination 1983 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, opposite Party No. 2. He was declared by the Board to have passed the examination. Thereafter, the petitioner got himself admitted to the 1st Year Class of Intermediate in Commerce in the Ispat College, Rourkela. During the continuance of his studies in that college he was informed that although he was declared to have come out successful in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1983, the marks allotted to him were wrong, and by a revised Notification of the Board he was declared to have failed. On the basis of that Notification, the opposite party No. 1 by Annexure 5 has cancelled the admission of the petitioner in his college. Annexure 5 reads as follows:--
'Office of the Principal,
Rourkela--769003Order No. 1065 D/- 23-11-83-
The matriculation result of David C. Jhan has been cancelled by the authorities of Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack vide Memo No. 10562 (33) dated 20-9-83 as a result of which the pass certificate and S. L. C. No. 00015 dated 27-8-83 issued by the Headmaster, NAC (S) High School, Sector 6, Rour-kela-2 has been cancelled at his level and intimated to the undersigned in No. 388 dated 22-11-83,
Consequent upon the issue of above S. L. C. No. 00015 dated 27-8-83, David C. Jhan has been admitted in 1st year of Commerce of the Ispat College on 28-8-83 and assigned Roll No. 2479 and continuing in this college.
Therefore, on the basis of intimation received from the Headmaster, NAC (ST) High School, Sector 6, Rourkela-2 communicating the information of revised Notification of Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, the admission of David C. Jhan from 1st Year of Commerce is hereby cancelled.
3. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, fairly submits that this case is fully governed by a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR (1971) Cut 242 : (AIR 1971 Orissa 276), (Gita Mishra v. Utkal University). The principle enunciated by the Division Bench in the said decision reads as follows (at pp. 279-80):--
'The principle of estoppel is a rule of evidence and is embodied in Section 115 of the Evidence Act. Opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 by their declaration in the mark sheet that the petitioner secured 30 marks in English caused or permitted the petitioner to believe that she has passed in English. The last date for filling up the form for the Supplementary Examination was the 6th July, 1970. Accordingly, she did not fill up the form for English. Thus she acted upon the belief based upon the mark sheet that she had passed in English. In terms of the section opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be allowed to deny the truth of the fact that the petitioner secured pass mark in English provided the representation was intentionally caused. Any reasonable man would take this representation to be true and believe it was meant that he should act upon it The representation was therefore intentionally made. On the 7th July, 1970 the impugned notification was issued cancelling the result. This fact was however intimated to the petitioner on the 7th August, 1970. There was gross negligence on the part of the University as a result of which there was detriment to the interest of the petitioner in not being able to apply for the Supplementary Examination for English in time with the necessary examination fees. The detriment which the petitioner thus suffered was the proximate or the immediate cause of negligence of the University authorities. We are hence clearly of opinion that opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 are estopped from denying that the petitioner secured 30 marks in English in the 1st year Degree examination.'
4. On the basis of the above principle and the reasonings given, with which we are in respectful agreement, we allow this writ application and quash the order in Annexure 5. The petitioner be allowed to continue his studies. A writ be issued accordingly.
5. No costs.