Promissory Estoppel Not To Apply In Favour Of Student Who Despite Knowledge Of Failure In Intermediate Exam Acquired Higher Qualification: Orissa HC

A Full Bench of Orissa High Court on Friday answered a reference deciding the correctness of a decision rendered by a Division Bench wherein it was held that the rule of estoppel will apply in favour of a student, who without knowing that he has failed in matriculation/intermediate examination, gets higher education and joins service.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar, Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman said the decision of the division bench is no longer good law.

“It is no doubt true that the Courts have, more often than not, leaned in favour of the students, but as the things stand, a line must be drawn between cases where there have been a bona fide error and cases where the circumstances are dubious,” said the court.

The petitioner had appeared in +2 CHSE Examination, 1996 and was issued with a mark-sheet showing that she had failed in English and Education papers. But she chose to appear only for English paper in the compartmental examination and passed by securing 60 marks

She then went on to enrol herself in the Bachelor of Arts programme at Panchayat Samiti College, Jharbandh affiliated to the Sambalpur University. She passed the Bachelor of Arts examination in April, 1999.

Subsequently, when she wanted to join B.Ed. course, it was found that she had not passed the subject ‘Education’. Therefore, the Council of Higher Secondary Education denied to issue her the original certificate.

Being aggrieved by that, she had filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking direction for grant of 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’.

The Single Bench in the ruling said it cannot issue any direction to the Council to issue original certificate of passing in Annual CHSE Examination, 1996 in favour of the petitioner. However, the court also 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.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the petitioner had preferred an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench and 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 relied upon.

In Nrusingha Charan Panda, 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 Court expressed its inability to agree with the above opinion. 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.

Court’s Analysis

The Court relied upon its judgment in Suresh Chandra Choudhury v. Berhampur University, wherein reliance was placed upon the Apex Court’s judgment in Chhaganlal Keshavlal Mehta v. Patel Narandas Haribhai, to hold that one of the requirements of applicability of the principle of estoppel is the person concerned must show that he was not aware of the true state of things or that he had no means to know the same.

The above position was reiterated by a Full Bench of the High Court in Miss Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University. Thus, the Court held,

“The reference is answered by observing that the decision of this Court in Nrusingha Charan Panda (supra) is no longer good law in light of the later Full Bench decision of this Court in Miss Reeta Lenka (supra) which continues to hold the field.”

Having regard for the aforesaid, the court said that the present appellant cannot claim that she was unaware of her failure in the subject ‘Education’ as her CHSE mark-sheet made the fact abundantly clear. There was no occasion for the appellant to be under a misconception as to that fact, it said.

“It is inconceivable that the Appellant, when looking at her Mark Sheet, was not aware that she had failed in both English and Education subjects. She chose not to. The marks secured by the Appellant in the Education subject should have propelled her to attempt the compartment examination in that subject, as she did for English subject”, the court added.

Accordingly, it held that as the appellant was not entitled to be declared as ‘Pass’ in view of the regulations which govern the CHSE, directing the authorities to issue the Original “Certificate of Passing” in the examination to the appellant would tantamount to compelling the authority to act against the law.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

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

Case No.: W.A. No. 317 of 2019

Date of Judgment: March 31, 2023

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. G.N. Sahu, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: None

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 42