ORDER
Arun Madan, J.
1. The question, which has been raised in the present writ petition, pertains to the admission of the petitioner for the course of Physical Training Instructor (PTI), conducted by the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the year 1991. The facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that
the petitioner passed his Secondary Examination in the year 1986 in IInd Division and thereafter he had appeared in the Higher Secondary Examination and passed the same in the year 1988, which was conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. Non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for admission to the Certificate Course in Physical Training for imparting training to the eligible candidates having passed Higher Secondary Examination and also who had passed Secondary Examination with English, Hindi and Maths., along with other 5 subjects and Certificate of Sports. Since the petitioner was eligible for admission to the said Course of Physical Training Instructors (for short ‘PTI’), he obtained the requisite pro forma on payment of prescribed fee of Rs. 10/- from the office of non-petitioner No. 4, and thereafter filled up the said pro forma enclosing all required relevant documents. The petitioner had also submitted the Certificate of Sports, in which he had participated at the State level and had secured first position in the Rajasthan State Junior Athletic Championship, held in the year 1986, vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner’s application was duly scrutinised and the same was found in order and only thereafter the petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 19th November, 1991 and the petitioner was directed to appear for the said interview on 28th November, 1991 along with all original certificates of sports and other documents.
3. In pursuance of the letter dated 11th
December, 1991, the petitioner deposited
Admission Fee, Education Fee and Hostel
Fee with the respondents on 21st December,
1991.
4. It was only on the fulfilment of the requirements pertaining to admission and compliance with the Rules that the petitioner was given admission in the said Course of PTI which commenced with effect from December, 1991 and the petitioner regularly attended the classes right from the very beginning as a regular student of the college. The petitioner underwent full training for
one year and it was only thereafter that he had appeared for practical examination of the said course for the session 1991-92.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge, no enquiry was conducted with regard to the validity and authenticity of the Sport Certificate and other documents submitted by the petitioner, along with his application form, during the entire period of training lasting for full one year.
6. However, on 18th July, 1992, without any prior notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with regard to the validity of the Sport Certificate, which he had submitted with the respondents, the respondents cancelled the petitioner’s application granting him provisional admission to the said course, on the ground that the Sport Certificate on the basis of which the petitioner had obtained admission in the said course, was required to be verified and attested by the Rajasthan Sports Council, Jaipur and which having not been done in this case, the petitioner’s provisional admission to the said course was cancelled. On this ground, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State-respondents, contended that since the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for being given admission to the said course, he was not eligible to pursue the same and the respondents were justified in cancelling the admission of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contention, has placed reliance upon Rule 12 of the Admission Rules for Admission to the Certificate Course of PTI at Government PTI College, Jodhpur which provides that the Sport Certificate furnished by the candidate should be duly authenticated by the competent Sports Authority/Sports Council of Rajasthan.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, contended that if furnishing of Sport Certificate duly verified by the competent Sports Authority/ Sport Council of Rajasthan was the mandatory condition of the rules, then why the
petitioner was given admission to the PTI Course by the respondents and why his candidature was not cancelled by the respondents in the very beginning itself? But on the contrary, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the equity and fair play, the petitioner was kept in dark throughout by the respondents and having been allowed not only to participate and complete the PTI Course, the respondents had further permitted the petitioner to successfully participate and complete all the formalities pertaining to the said course and hence it was not . open to the respondents to arbitrarily cancel his admission in the said course at such a belated stage. The cancellation of, the petitioner’s admission by the respondents after successful completion of the course had resulted in great financial loss and medial agony to the petitioner, since the petitioner had spent more than Rs. 30,000/- towards lodging, boarding and other hostel expenses etc. The cancellation of the petitioner’s admission at such a belated stage by the respondents has not only impaired the academic career of the petitioner but the impugned action of the respondents is grossly unjust, arbitrary and irrational and cannot be justified in any circumstance. In support of his aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the principle of estoppel as envisaged under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted that the respondents having once given provisional admission to the petitioner in the P.T.I. Course after duly scrutinising his application form and the relevant sport certificate and other documents etc., it was not open to the respondents to have cancelled his admission at such a belated stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument on the above proposition-further argued that the aforesaid mandatory condition of R. 12 was in existence right from the very beginning and commencement of the said course and it was well known and within the knowledge of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner at the time of his admission had submitted a sport certificate which was duly verified by the Rajasthan Amaeture Athletic
Association which is recognised association in the State of Rajasthan and he was holding recognition by the Olympic Association, but to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge the certificate was sent for verification to the Sports Council at Jaipur who are in possession of the records with regard to the players who had participated in the Championship. Thus, the procedure adopted by the respondents was arbitrary, illegal and deserves to be set aside by this court. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this court (M. R. Calla, J.) in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5163/ 89 and 3 other connected writ petitions. In the said case as well the question which arose for consideration of the learned single Judge on the basis of identical facts was that the admission of the candidate concerned to P.T.I, course was made subject to verification of such certificates which were submitted by the candidate at the time of submission of his application for admission to the said course and one of the contention which was raised by the respondents was that in case such certificates are not found to be genuine the admission of the candidate will be liable to be cancelled. The learned single Judge held that the respondents having allowed the petitioner to pursue the studies of the said course and the certificates in respect of which the correctness was to be verified were available with the respondents and which the respondents should have examined in the beginning itself within a reasonable time and having failed to do so the respondents were bound by the principle of estoppel and after such a long lapse of time were estopped by the said principle of equitable and promissory estoppel under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act and were consequently directed by the learned single Judge to declare the result of the petitioners.
8. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of the learned single Judge dated I3th December, 1993, of this court in S. B. C. W. Petition No. 3809/93, wherein the similar question had arisen for consideration of this court. The learned single Judge, in the aforesaid case,
while placing reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge Hon’ble M. R. Calla, J. and on the judgment of Hon’bie Kejriwal, J. had allowed the writ petition and gave similar
relief to the concerned petitioners.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the matter of Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University reported in AIR 1990 SC 1075. in the above case the question which arose for consideration before the Apex Court was that the concerned candidate while securing his admission in the Law College, had admittedly submitted his mark-sheet along with his application for admission. The Law College had granted him admission on the basis of the certificates submitted by the candidate. The said candi-date had persued his studies in the Law College for 2 years. The University had also granted him admission-card for Pre-Law and Intermediate Law Examination and the paid candidate was permitted to appear in the said examination by the University. The candidate was also admitted to the Final Year of the said course. It was only at the stage of declaration of his result of the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law Examinations, that the University raised the objections to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to the Law Course. The Apex Court, while reversing the decision of the Orissa High Court held that the University was therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the result of the candidates examination or from preventing him from persuing his study for final year course. The Apex Court further held that the University was not correct in adopting the stand on the principle of estoppel since once having allowed the candidate to persue the academic course after due verification of his documents and having found him eligible, in that situation the University cannot punish the student for the negligence of the Principal of the University authorities at such belated stage. The Apex Court further held that it was the bounden duty of the University to have scrutinised the matter thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear in the examination and no! having done so, it cannot refuse to publish his result.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the respondents themselves haying permitted the petitioner to persue the course of PTI for full one year on the basis of his application form, and the sport certificate etc. accompanying the said application, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to have carefully scrutinised the said documents in the beginning at the time of admission itself rather than punishing the petitioner for no fault of his, at such a belated stage. In this case the lapse, if any, is on the part of the respondents for which they are themselves to be blamed rather than putting the petitioner to a great disadvantage and hardship at such a belated stage.
11. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) dated 18th July, 1992 passed by the Principal, Government Physical Education College, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner of the PT1 certificate course held on 15th July, 1993. The petition consequently succeeds with no order as to costs.
