PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ANOTHERversusMANISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

                        (2013] 1 S.C.R. 622


A    PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
                        AND ANOTHER
                       .      v.
              MANISH KUMAR AND OTHERS
               (Civil Appeal No. 674 of 2013)
B                       JANUARY 24, 2013
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]

        Education - Admission - Requiring 60% marks in the
C qualifying examination - The candidate mentioned in the
  enrolment form that he had secured 56% marks in the
  qualifying examination - While in the declaration appended
  to enrolment form asserted that he had secured 60% marks
  - University did not permit him to appear in the exam - Writ
D petition by the candidate seeking direction to appear in the
  exam or for compensation of Rs. 10 Jakhs - Single Judge of
  High Court did not permit him to appear in exam as he had
  not got 60% marks in the qualifying exam, but granted him
  compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs stating that the candidate had
E declared in admission form that he had got 56% marks, but
  the college failed to inform him that he was required to
  possess 60% marks - Division Bench affirmed the order of
  Single Judge - On appeal, held: Conclusion of High Court
  is contrary to the materials placed on record - The candidate
F applied for admission knowing fully well that he had not
  secured the minimum eligible marks - Candidate cannot
  claim benefit for his own wrong - College cannot be held liable
  for the act of the candidate - Direction for compensation, not
  sustainable.

G     Appellant-College invited applications against
  lapsed/vacant seats for various branches including
  admission for second year (3rd Samester) of Engineering
  for Diploma Holders/B.Sc. with maths eligibility with 60%'
  marks. In pursuance to the invitation, respondent No. 1
H                           622
    PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER                 623
          SCIENCE v. MANISH KUMAR
applied for admission in 3rd Semester for the course of      A
B. Tech. When his application was forwarded to the
University for examinations, it refused him to appear in
the examinations on the ground that he was not having
60% marks in B.Sc. The appellant-College cancelled his
admission and refunded the entire fee deposited by him.      B

     Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition praying for a
direction to the University to permit him to appear in the
exam or to pay him compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Single
Judge of High Court rejected the prayer of ~espondent        C
No. 1 to appear in the examination, but directed the
appellant-College to compensate him by paying Rs. 5
lakhs. Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order
of the Single Judge. Hence the present appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court                           D

    HELD: 1. The conclusion of the Single Judge of High
Court that respondent No.1 had declared in the
admission form that he got 56% marks in B.Sc
examination a.nd the appellant-College was not able to       E
show that prior to granting admission they had informed
him that he should possess 60% marks in the qualifying
examination is contrary to the materials placed before
him. The advertisement calling for applications
specifically mentioned that minimum 60% marks in B.Sc.
Maths is the eligibility criteria and based on the same,     F
respondent No.1-candidate applied for the same. In the
enrolment form in clause 17(ii) respondent No. 1 has
specifically stated that he secured 56% marks. The
appellant-College could have rejected his application.
However, in view of the assertion made by respondent         G
No.1 in Clause 7 of the declaration that he had. secured
60% marks, the appellant-College accepted his form and
admitted him in the course he applied for. When the
deficiency was pointed out by the University, the
appellant-College refunded the entire fees received by       H
    624      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 1 S.C.R.

A them from respondent No.1. In such circumstances, in
  view of perverse finding by the Single Judge of High
  Court which was simply affirmed by the Division Bench,
  the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the
  candidate - respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. [Paras
8 8 and 9] [629-E-F; 630-A·E]
          2. Every candidate applying for a particular course
  in any College is expected to go through the
  advertisement thoroughly including the eligibility criteria
  prescribed for each course and after fulfillment of the
C required conditions, state the correct parti·culars in the
  application form failing which he/she cannot claim any
  benefit for his/her own wrong. The view that the
  conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge and the
  Division Bench finding fault with the appellant-College is
D clearly erroneous and that the appellant-College cannot
  be held liable for the act of respondent No.1 herein who
  knowing fully aware that he had not secured" the
  minimum eligible marks, yet applied for admission.
  Respondent No.1 applied for the said course with an
E intention to secure admission by playing fraud with the
  appellant-College. [Paras 7, 10 and 11] [629-B; 630-F-H;
  631-A]
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 674
F of 2013.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 03.08.2009 of the High
    Court of Allahabad at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1110
    of 2009.
G       Aman Vachher, Ashutosh Dubey, Harsh Sharma, Vriti
    Anand, P.N. Puri for the Appellants.
        Satyendra Kumar, S.C. Paul Sunita Bhardwaj, Roopa Paul,
    Resham Singh for the Respondents.

H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER                  625
           SCIENCE v. MANISH KUMAR
    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.                       A
     2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 03.08.2009 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1110 of 2009,
whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the B
appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order
dated 01.07 .2009 of the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ
Petition No. 3465 of 2008.

    3. Brief facts:
                                                              c
     (a) Priyadarshini College of Computer Science -Appellant
No.1-herein (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant-College")
is a recognized institution and is affiliated with the Uttar
Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow and is imparting
technical education for various branches including B.Tech D
(Computer Science), B.Tech (Electronics & Communication),
B.Tech (Information & Technology) and B.Tech (Electronics &
Instrumentation).
     (b) On 21.08.2007, the appellant-College published a
notice in the daily Hindi Newspaper "Dainik Jagran" inviting E
applications against lapsed/vacant seats for the Session 2007-
08 for various branches including admission for Second Year
(3rd Semester) of Engineering for Diploma Holders/B.Sc. with
Maths eligibility with minim.um 60% marks.
                                                              F
     (c) In pursuance of the aforesaid notice, Manish Kumar -
respondent No.1 applied for admission in 3rd Semester for the
course of B.Tech (Computer Science) in the appellant-College.
At the same time, admission in the First Year (1st Semester)
of the aforesaid branche~ was also going on in which the G
minimum qualification was 10+2 with 50% marks.
     (d) The appellant-College relying on the declaration made
by respondent No.1 in the admission form that he is having 60%
marks in the qualifying subjects (though actllally he secured
56%) admitted him in B.Tech (Computer Science) for the H
    626       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A   Second Year (3rd Semester) by taking the requisite fee.

         (e) On 03.12.2007, when his application was forwarded to
    the University for 3rd Semester Examinations, it refused to issue
    admit card to appear in the examination, since he was not
    having the required percentage of marks i.e. 60%.
8
    Subsequently, the appellant-College cancelled the admission
    of respondent No.1 and refunded the entire fee of Rs.59, 715/-
    deposited by him on the same day.

          (f) Aggrieved by the same, in January, 2008, respondent
C   No.1 filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 3465 of 2008 before
    the High Court praying for a direction to the University to permit
    him to appear in the examination or to pay a compensation of
    Rs. 10 lakhs to him.

D        (g) Learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order
    dated 01.07.2009, treating the writ petition as that of a Public
    Interest Litigation allowed the writ petition in part and held that
    since respondent No.1-herein does not possess the minimum
    qualification for appearing in the 3rd Semester of B.Tech
E   (Computer Science) rejected his prayer to appear in the
    examination but in order to compensate him for the loss suffered
    directed the appellant-College to pay a .compensation of Rs. 5
    lakhs to him within six weeks from the date of the order. The
    High Court also held that if appellant-herein fails to pay the said
    amount, respondent No.1 is at liberty to approach the District
F   Magistrate, G.B. Nagar, Noida for realizing the said amount
    from the respondent-College as arrears of land revenue. It
    further held that respondent No.3-University shall be at liberty
    to initiate appropriate proceedings against the appellant-
    College for granting admission to respondent No.1.
G
        (h) Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single
    Judge, the appellant-College filed an appeal being Special
    Appeal No. 1110 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High
    Court. The Division Bench, by order dated 03.08.2009,
H   dismissed the appeal of the appellants.
    PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER                       627
 SCIENCE v. MANISH KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    (i) Being dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the       A
above appeal by way of special leave.

    4. We heard Mr. Aman Vachher, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Satyendra Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.                                                    B

     5. l.n order to understand the rival claim and the decision
of the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
the High Court, it is useful to reproduce the advertisement dated
21.08.2007 published by the appellant-College in Dainik Jagran      c
which reads as under:

                         "Established in 1991

             Priyadarshini College of Computer Sciences
                                                                    D
          (Affiliated to U.P. Technical University Lucknow and
                  approved by AICTE Govt. of India)

                    SPOT ADMISSION 2007-2008
                                                                    E
    Applications are invited against lapsed/vacant seats.
    Admission open in llnd year of Engg for Diploma holders/
    BSc. with Maths Eligibility minimum 60% marks in the
    following branches.

     i.       B Tech (Computer Science & Engg.)                     F
     ii       B Tech (Electronics & Comm.)
     iii.     B Tech (Information Technology)
     iv.      B Tech (Electronics & Instrumentation)

                   ALSO URGENTLY REQUIRED                           G

     1.      Accountants, PA/PS
     2.      Catering Contractor for Running Mess & Canteen

                                                                    H
    628      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 1 S.C.R. -·

A                                CONTACT

          Plot No.6-A, Institutional Area, Knowledge Park - I
          Greater Noida 201306 Ph:-0120-2322751, 09911027176"
          6. Pursuant to the aforesaid publication, like others,
B   respondent No.1-herein also submitted duly filled in application
    form and the same was received by the office of the appellant-
    College. The advertisement referred above clearly mentions the
    eligibility of minimum 60% marks in B.Sc with Maths for
    admission in the llnd year (3rd Semester) in B.Tech (Computer
C   Science). It is the claim of the appellant-College that respondent
    No.1 has not disclosed the percentage of marks of qualifying
    examination and according to clause (b) of the un~ertaking
    given by him in the admission form that if any of the statement
    is subsequently found to be untrue, his admission to the
D   College would be cancelled. It is also brought to our notice that
    there was a specific clause in the admission form about the
    disclosure of the percentage of marks of qualifying subject but
    in that respondent No.1 has not disclosed the percentage of
E   marks, namely, 56%. In this way, according to the appellant-
    College, respondent No.1 has concealed the relevant facts. It
    is also brought to our notice that in the duly filled in enrolment
    form by respondent No.1, in Column 17 (ii), with reference to
    percentage of marks obtained in qualifying level examination,
F   he correctly mentioned the marks secured by him as 56%, on
    the other hand, in the declaration made by him which was
    appended along with the enrolment form, in Clause 7 he
    unequivocally declared that he secured 60% marks in qualifying
    subjects.
G       7. From the details mentioned in the advertisement, it is
  clear that in respect of lapsed/vacant seats, applications are
  invited for admission in llnd Year of Engineering for Diploma
  holders/B.Sc with Maths with minimum 60% marks. It is further
  clear that respondent No.1 has secured only 56% marks in the
H qualifying level examination which is evident from Clause 17(ii)
      PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER                             629
   SCIENCE v. MANISH KUMAR [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
  of the enrolment form. It is true that in the scrutiny itself, it would   A
, be open to the appellant-College to reject his application.
  However, since respondent No. 1 has made a categorical
  declaration (which is mandatory by a candidate) declaring that
  he had secured 60% marks in the qualifying subject, the
  appellant-College admitted him and received fees. The fact is             B
  that the eligibility condition is 60%, however, respondent No.1
  has secured only 56% marks applied for the said course with
  an intention to secure admission by playing fraud with the
  appellant-College. Unfortunately, learned single Judge failed to
  take note of this relevant aspect which was merely affirmed by            c
  the Division Bench of the High Court.

       8. It is relevant to point out that when the University found
  that respondent No.1 was not eligible for the said course, it
  rejected his candidature and he was not allowed to appear in
  the examination. In such circumstance, respondent No.1 D
  approached the High Court for appropriate direction for
  allowing him to appear in the examination. In the said writ
  petition, though the prayer of respondent No.1 was not
  considered by the learned single Judge, however, a direction
  was issued to the appellant-College herein to pay a E
  compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to him within six weeks from the
  date of its order, namely, 01.07.2009. The perusal of the order
  of learned single Judge proceeds that respondent No.1 herein
  had declared in the admission form that he got 56% marks in
  B.Sc examination and the appellant-College was not able to F
  show that prior to granting admission they had informed him
  that he should possess 60% marks in the qualifying
  examination. Learned single Judge has also concluded that it
  would have been a different case if the candidate had provided
  wrong information to the College that he had 60% marks in G
  B.Sc and it was later found that he had marks less than 60%
, marks. Learned single Judge has also concluded that the
  appellant-College has cheated the candidate by granting him .
  admission taking fees from him knowing fully aware that Ile
  does not have the requisite qualification for grant of admission. H
    630      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 1 S.C.R.


A The above-mentioned conclusion of the learned single Judge
  is contrary to the materials placed before him.

          9. We have already extracted the entire advertisement
    calling for applications in which they specifically mentioned that
B   minimum 60% marks in B.Sc. Maths is the eligibility criteria
    and based on the same, respondent No.1-candidate also
    applied for the same. We have also pointed out that in the
    enrolment form in clause 17(ii) he has specifically stated that
    he secured 56% marks. As observed earlier, the appellant-
C   College could have rejected his application. However, in view
    of the assertion made by respondent No.1 in Clause 7 of the
    declaration that he had secured 60% marks, the appellant-
    College accepted his form and admitted him in the course he
    applied for. It is also relevant to point out that when the
    deficiency was pointed out by the University, the appellant-
D   College refunded the entire fees received by them from
    respondent No.1. It is not disputed by the candidate -
    respondent No1 herein. In such circumstances, in view of
    perverse finding by the learned single Judge as mentioned
    above, which was simply affirmed by the Division Bench, we
E   hold that the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to
    the candidate - respondent No.1 herein cannot be sustained.
    As a matter of fact, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the
    appellant-College that respondent No.1-candidate has not
    complained about any claim of donation or additional money
F   paid by him to the appellant-College.

        10. It has to be kept in mind that every candidate applying
  for a particular course in any College is expected to go through
  the advertisement thoroughly including the eligibility criteria
G prescribed for each course and after fulfillment of the required
  conditions, state the correct particulars in the application form
  failing which he/she cannot claim any benefit for his/her own
  wrong.

       11. We are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by
H the learned single Judge and the Division Bench finding fault
    PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER        631
 SCIENCE v. MANISH KUMAR {P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
with the appellant-College is clearly erroneous and that the A
appellant-College cannot be held liable for the act of
respondent No.1 herein who knowing fully aware that he had
not secured the minimum eligible marks, yet applied for
admission.
                                                               B
      12. In the light of the above discussion, the orders passed
by the learned single Judge dated 01.07.2009 in Civil Writ
Petition No. 3465 of 2008 and the Division Bench of the High
Court dated 03.08.2009 in Special Appeal No. 1110 of 2009
are quashed insofar as direction for payment of compensation C
of Rs 5 lakhs is concerned, consequently, the appeal is
allowed. No order as to costs.

K.K.T.                                      Appeal allowed.