Will Estoppel Apply In Favour Of Person Who Unaware Of Failure In Intermediate Exam Gets Higher Education, Job? Orissa HC Full Bench To Decide

Background

The petitioner, in the case in hand, had appeared in +2 CHSE Examination, 1996 and was issued with a mark-sheet showing that she had secured 14 marks in English Paper-1 and 21 in Paper-II, total 35 marks out of “200”. So far as the subject ‘Education’ was concerned, she had secured 16 marks in Paper-I and 26 in Paper-II and 38 in practical, total 80 marks out of 200.

But she chose to appear only for English paper in the compartmental examination and passed by securing 60 marks, also got enrolled and passed +3 Examination conducted by Sambalpur University. But subsequently, when she wanted to join B.Ed. course, it was found that she had not passed the subject ‘Education’. Therefore, the Council denied issue the original certificate.

First Round Of Litigation

She then had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking direction to the opposite parties to grant her original pass certificate of CHSE examination in view of the fact that she had already enrolled for higher studies and passed the examination conducted by Sambalpur University.

Therefore, she contended, the Council cannot deny her certificate at such a belated stage, especially when she did not have knowledge that she had failed in the subject ‘Education’.

However, it was submitted on behalf of the Council that the petitioner, knowing fully well that she had not passed in English as well as Education subjects, chose only to appear in subject ‘English’ as a compartmental candidate.

Thus, it was contended that she has not passed in the subject ‘Education’ in the CHSE Examination, 1996. Even if she has acquired higher qualification, that itself cannot entitle her to get the original CHSE certificate, as she has not passed in one subject.

The Single Bench had then attempted to answer the question i.e. even if the petitioner failed in the subject ‘Education’ in Annual CHSE Examination, whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to issue original pass certificate in her favour. The Court had answered in following words,

“In any event, if it is admitted that the petitioner has not passed in the subject ‘Education’ in the Annual CHSE Examination, 1996, this Court cannot issue any direction to the opposite party-Council to issue original certificate of passing in Annual CHSE Examination, 1996 in favour of the petitioner. If such direction is issued, it will amount to travesty of justice.”

However, the Single Judge had said that if any mistake was committed by the authority, in that event the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer and directed the Council to take necessary steps allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination so that she can pass the same and can be issued with a pass certificate.

Filing Of Intra-Court Appeal

Being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the petitioner had preferred an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench. The judgment rendered by another Division Bench of the High Court in Nrusingha Charan Panda v. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr., 74 (1992) CLT 350 was placed before the Bench.

In the above judgment, it was held that if the petitioner had no knowledge of his failure in the Annual High School Certificate Examination and subsequently joined Govt. service, and came to know of his failure after a lapse of a number of years, the rule of estoppel would apply and the authority would be estopped from taking the plea that the petitioner has, in fact failed.

However, the Division bench in present case expressed its inability to agree with the above opinion rendered in 1992. While expressing reservation over the conclusion reached in the above case, the Court had observed,

“…the Petitioner has failed in one of the subjects i.e. ‘Education’ in the Annual CHSC Examination 1996, the fact of which he may not have been aware the result failed would not change the fact that she has in fact failed in one subject. The candidate having failed in one of the papers, it is not possible to issue a mandamus that the authority should issue her an Annual CHSE Examination, 1996 passing certificate.”

Accordingly, the matter was referred to larger Bench of the Court for consideration of the correctness of the decision rendered in Nrusingha Charan Panda.

Hearing Before Full Bench

Accordingly, the Full Bench assembled on Wednesday to hear the reference. The counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on multiple judgments of the High Court to convince the Bench that as the petitioner had no knowledge that she had failed in the ‘Education’ paper and further, as she has already passed her higher education, the rule of estoppel will apply.

However, speaking for the Bench, Justice Panigrahi asked the counsel as to whether the petitioner actually had no knowledge about the fact that she had not secured enough marks to pass the examination. To this, the counsel replied in negative. But the Bench denied to believe that the petitioner in fact was unaware.

Further, Chief Justice Muralidhar remarked, “these things cannot be changed by a Court also…this is not possible. There is no estoppel in these things, absolutely no estoppel…it is within your knowledge. Your marks are shown to you. You see your English mark. You know you are failed. You appear for the compartmental (examination). You are shown your Education marks. You choose not to believe it. That’s the problem.”

The counsel prayed the Court to grant relief as she has already acquired her higher qualification. However, the Chief Justice expressed his inability to pass a favourable order and said,

“If she sits for the exam, she passes it (then) she will get the certificate.”

Accordingly, the judgment was reserved.

Case Title: Litumanjari Pradhan v. Chairman, Council of Higher Secondary Education