JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The facts in the present case are that the Petitioner had applied for admission to M.A. [Political Science] under the category of B.A. (Hons.) [Political Science]. The admission was conditionally granted by the University for the reason that the Petitioner had failed to clear a subsidiary paper.
2. By letter dated 24.1.1999 the Petitioner had requested the University that his admission be regularised not on the basis of his being a B.A. (Hons.) student but as a B.A. (Pass) student. Uncontrovertably, the University has granted him a B.A. (Pass) Degree.By letter dated 28.1.2000 the P.G.D.A.V. College had recommended the Petitioner’s case and had also stated that the College has no objection to the request if Rules permit any admission.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on a letter dated 28.4.2000/1.5.2000 which reads as follows:
“The Principal
PGDAV College
Nehru Nagar
New Delhi-110065
Sub:M.A./M.Com.(P) Admission1999-2000
Dear Sir,
Please refer to your letter No.781 dt. 31.1.2000 regarding the representation submitted by Sh. Anil Kumar Goutam, a student of M.A.(P) Pol. Sc. who was admitted provisionally subject to passing the subsidiary subject in supplementary exam in 1999.
His case was considered at appropriate level and decided to treat him admission as cancelled. Please confirm the same and take necessary action immediately.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Asstt. Registrar(Genl.)”
4. It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted by it in the document on which it relies. If authority is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision on Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, of which reads as follows:
“8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji :
“Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself”.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.
A Caveat”.
5. It has been clearly stated that the reasons for the rejection of any representation must be contained in the letter/order itself. No reasons are forthcoming from the palpably cryptic letter of the University and this is sufficient reason, in my opinion, to reject the decision of the Respondents.
6. Be that as it may, the procedure which is applicable in Rules for admission specifically contemplate that students holding B.A. (Pass) Degree would also be eligible for admission to the Masters’ degree. The contention of learned counsel for the University is that had the Petitioner appeared for admission as a B.A. (Pass) student it is more than likely that there would have been candidates more meritorious than him, either in the B.A. (Hons.) stream or in the B.A. (Pass) stream itself.
7. The factor which cannot be overlooked is that well before the examination of M.A. (Previous) the Respondents were fully aware that the Petitioner possessed only a B.A. (Pass) Degree. Yet, some months later he was allowed to sit in the examination for the M.A. (Previous) [Political Science] and it was only at the stage when the results were to be declared that the University held him to be ineligible, on the afterthought [in terms of the decision of the Mohinder Singh Gill (supra)] that he had applied for admission as a B.A. (Hons.) student.
8. The provisional results have been shown to me in the Court today. The essential requirement for promotion to M.A. [Final] is that the students should have a minimum of 40 per cent in four subjects. Admittedly, the Petitioner has secured marks that are well above these requirements.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondents has also vehemently submitted that in the Petition it has been prayed that the Order dated 1.5.2003 should be set aside. On a holistic reading of the prayer (b) and (c), even though it has not been specifically stated so, I am satisfied that this is in essence the prayer which the Petitioner intends to make.
10. In these circumstances the Respondents are directed to promote the Petitioner to M.A. (Final Year) . The confidential certificates are handed back to learned counsel for the University and the University is directed to declare the Petitioner’s result. Fees be deposited within one week from today. The Petitioner be admitted to the M.A. (Final Year) [Political Science] for the academic year 2003-2004.
