Holding

A principal’s consent to a migration that violates mandatory university rules is ultra vires and cannot be sustained by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Summary

The case concerned five engineering students who had secured admission in management‑quota seats of affiliated colleges of Punjab University and sought migration to Chandigarh Engineering College on security grounds. The principal of the transferee college initially refused, later consented on the condition that additional seats be created, and after approval by the university syndicate and the Chandigarh Administration, again objected, claiming the migration violated university rules and that extra seats required central government sanction. The High Court had issued interim orders admitting the students, but the appellants appealed, arguing the principal was estopped by his earlier consent and that the additional seats could be sanctioned. The Supreme Court held that the principal’s consent was ultra vires because the university rules expressly barred migration where there were no vacancies or where the applicant’s JET marks were lower than the last admitted candidate, and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to defeat a mandatory statutory provision. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the interim admissions of four respondents were left undisturbed while the fifth was ordered to return to his original college.

Issues considered

The principal of a constituent college can be estopped by his earlier consent to a migration that contravenes university rules.
Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to override mandatory provisions of the Punjab University Act and its regulations.
Whether additional seats created for migration require central government and AICTE approval.
The propriety of granting interim orders directing admission before final determination of the writ petitions.

Legislation cited

Punjab University Act, 1947s. 20(1), s. 20(5), s. 31

Subjects

migration of studentsuniversity regulationspromissory estoppelultra viresinterim ordersadministrative lawhigher educationmanagement quotaadditional seats

Judgment

HOME SECRETARY, U.T. OF CHANDIGARH AND ANR. A
v.
DARSHJIT SINGH GREWAL AND ORS.

JULY 21, 1993

[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B

Punjab University Calender:

Volume-I-Chapter VIII-D-Regulations 31.2 and 33.

Volume-III-Chapter XW-Sub-chapter(a)-Rules 1.1.3 and l.:C-Sub- C
chapter(e)-Ru/es 1,2,5 and 6-And Sub-chapter(f)-Rule JO(d).

Guidelines governing migration to technical/professional colleges Is-
sued by Chandigarh Administration.

Punjab University-Faculty of Engineering-Gonstituent and affiliated D
colleges--Migration--Admission obtained in affiliated college in management
quota-Migration sought to constituent col/eg~bjection by Principal of
transferee college that migration was contrary to mies-Principal agreeing to
transfer subject to creation of additional seats-{]niversity Syndicate approv-
ing migration and creation of additional seats-Reiteration of objection by E
Principal of transferee college subsequent to Syndicate's approval-Legality
of-Held since migration was contrary to mies principal was neither bound
by earlier consent nor was he estopped from reiterating objections-Doctrine
of Promissory estoppe/ held inapplicable.

Punjab University Act, 1947: Section 20( 1)(5) F
University Syndicatr-Executive Power of

Administrative Law: Promissory estoppef-Cannot be invoked to defeaJ
a provision of law.
G
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226. Writ Petition--lnterim order
passed by High Court-Order foreclosing the options at final hearing-Held
such orders should not be passed except in rare cases where non-passing
would cause irreparable injury.

Under the Rules and Regulations of the University and guidelines H
321
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A issued by the Chandigarh Administration governing "migration of stu-
dents from one engineering college to another affdiated to Punjab Univer-
sity in the Faculty of Engineering," the relevant conditions of migration
were (i) Principals of both the Colleges should agree to it; (ii) there must
be a vacancy available in the relevant Faculty in the transferee college;· (iii)
B transfer shall be permitted only in third and fifth semesters; (iv) the
student being transferred should not have obtained in the Joint Entrance
Test less marks than the last student. admitted in that Faculty in the
transferee college; (v) transfer was permissible only on the ground of
security or medical grounds; and (vi) the student seeking transfer should
not have been admitted under any quota i.e., he should have been admitted
C on merit.

Respondents 1 to 4 obtained admission in Guru Nanak Dev En-
gineering College, affiliated to Punjab University under the Management
quota, whereas Respondent No. S got admission on the basis of his merit
D in the Bhatinda Engineering College, affiliated to the Punjabi University.
All of them applied for transfer to Chandigarh Engineering College, a
constituent college of Puniab University, on the ground of security. When
the matter first came up before the Principal, Chandigarh Engineering
College he did not agree to their transfer on the grounds that (i) there
were no vacancies in his college and (ii) that the marks obtained by the
E applicants were less than the marks obtained by the last candidate ad-
mitted in his college in the relevant Faculty. However; subsequently, he
agreed to the transfer stating that such transfers would involve creation
of additional seats. Though the Syndicate of the Punjab University and the
Chandigarh Administration approved the transfer and sanctioned the
F additional seats, yet the Principal of the Chandigarh College again raised
objections that (i) the migration was contrary to the rules and regulations
of the Punjab University an cf 'the. i>oiicy guidelines of the Administration
and (ii) the additional seats could be sanctioned only by the Government
of India in consultation with All India Council for Technical Education
Council.
G
If the respondents filed writ petitions in the High Court and pur-
suant to an interim order passed by the High Court, Respondents 1 to 4
were admitted in the Chandigarh Engineering College. The High Court
allowed the writ petitions holding inter a/ia that the Principal of Chan-
H digarh Engineering College, having once given his consent for transfer of·
HOME SECRETARY, CHANDIGARH v. D.S. GREWAL 323

Respondents, was not justified in resisting the transfers after they were A
approved by the University and the Administration.

Against the decision of the High Conrt, appeals were filed in this
Court.

Allowing the appeals, this Court B

HELD : 1. The Principal was neither bound in law by his consent nor
was he estopped from reiterating his objections based upon the Rules
before the actual admission of the Respondents. [336-A]

2. Rule 2 in sub-chapter(e) of the Rules made by the Syndicate
c
provides inter a/ia that "the application of a candidate for migration will
be rejected by the Principal of institution to which migration is sought: (a)
if there is no vacancy in the class and (b) if the marks obtained in Joint
Entrance Test by the applicant seeking migration are below the marks
obtained by the last candidate admitted in the first year class of the D
corresponding branch of engineering of the institution of that particular
year against the category to which he belongs." Applying the Rules, the
applications of the respondents were liable to be rejected by the Principal
on the said two grounds. He had no power to agree to the transfers
contrary to the said Rule. He had no discretion in the matter. He was
E
bound to reject the applications. [335-C-D)

3. The consent given by the Principal was contrary to law. It was
beyond his power i.e., ultra vires his powers. The violation invOlved in grant
of consent was not a technical, procedural or peripheral one. It was a
substantial violation. The violation was of an emphatic Rule couched in F
categorical language. The Rule is based upon sound public policy. The acts
of University are equally violative of the Rules, they do not add any
strength to the Respondents' case. Thus the equitable Rule of Promissory
estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat such a salutary provisions - which
can indeed be termed mandatory. [335-H, 336-C, El
G
4. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is a rule of equity. It is a rule
of law of evidence. It cannot be utlised or relied upon to defeat or nullify
a provision of law. The said Rule cannot, in any event, be invoked to
perpetuate the violation of a provision of law, that too a provision couched
in emphatic terms (leaving no discretion in the authority) and based npon H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A sound public policy i.e. a mandatory provision. [336-B; 337-C)
Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, [1968) 2 SCR 450; M.P.
Sugar Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1979) 2 SCR 641; lit Ram Shiv Kumar
v. State of Haryana, [1980) 3 SCR 689; Union of India v. Godfrey Philips,
[1985) 4 SCC 369 and State of Kera/a v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. & Wvg.
B Co. Ltd., [1974) 1 SCR 671, referred to.

Wade's Administrative Law • Sixth Edition pages 261-263 and 41 to
46; Corpus Juris Secundum, 1964 Edition pages 706 to 724 and Corpus Juris
Sccw1dum, 1983 Edition, Vol.73 para 69, referred to.
c 5. Further, the role of Promissory Estoppel could not be invoked in
the instant case because the Respondent hau not changed their p.osition
basing upon the representation • whether the representation consisted of
the earlier consent of the Principal or the approval by University and
Chandigarh Administmtion. [336-F, 337-B]
D
6. It would have been more appropriate if the High Court had not
directed the Respondents to be admitted in Chandigarh College by way of
interim orders; it could have made these orders more appropriately at the !
final stage. Such interim orders foreclose the options at the final hering.
Even if the writ petition fails, the mischief of the interim orders cannot ~e
E rectified in view of the change in situtation, coupled with lapse of time. The
High Court should not pass such order ·except in thoe rare cases where
the non-passing of such order would cause such injury as could not be
repaired later. These were not such cases. [338-B]

F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.545-49 of
1993

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 3337-39 of 1993.
G From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.1993 of t]le Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos.11966, 12050, 13228, 12628 and 14991
of 1992.

Kapil Sibal, Rajit Kumar J.P. Verghese, M.P. Raju and L.J. Vadakara
H for the Appellants.
HOMESECRETARY,CHANDiGARH v. D.S. GREWAL[JEEVANREDDY,J.) 325

G. Ramaswamy, Harish N. Salve, V. Sinha, Sudhi Walia, Rajiv K. A
Garg, Ashok K. Mahajan, Anil Mitlal, Manoj Swarup, J.K. Das, N.D. Garg
anif'Shivi Sharma for the Respondents.

G. Mukhoty, J.K. Das, A.S. Sohal and Rajiv Sharma for the Inter-
venor.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted in Special leave petiion
(Civil) Nos. 3073-75 of 1993.

Admission to engineering colleges, whether constituent or affiliated,
c
in the State of Punjab are made on the basis of a Joint Entrance Test
(J.E.T.). The affiliated colleges, which are run by private managements
were, however, permitted hitherto to fill up a certain number of seats,
designated as Management Quota, on their own. For admission in the
management quota, a student was required to obtain a certain minimum D
numher of marks in the joint entrance examination. But in practice a
number of students obtaining less than the minimum were also being
admitted - on various considerations. Having obtained admission in
management quota in affiliated colleges, some of them situated away from
Chandigarh, the effort of many of the students was always to have them-
E
selves transferred to colleges located centrally like the Chandigarh En-
gineering College, a Constituent College of Punjab University. These
appeals relate to a few such transfers.

The five appeals before us arise from five writ petitions filed in the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The particulars of the writ petitioners F
(R.R.! to 5) are:

No. of Marks obtained by the
No. of Marks
W.P. in last candidate IIl the
C.A. Name of the obtained
the relevant faculty in the
in this Candidate by liim G
High Punjab engineering
Court in J .E.T.
Court college, Chandigarh.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Darshjit Singh
11096/92 109.25 240.50
(R-1)
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Sunit Kapur
12050/92 - (R-2)
28 228

Anil Kr. Batra
13228/92 - (R-3)
152.75 217.25

Subhadra Yadav
B 12628/92 - (R-4)
118.5 183.75

Rohit Tangri
14991/2 - (R-5)
173.25 202.25

With the marks obtained by them, RR 1 to 4 could not be admitted
C, in any engineering college in the State, on merit. Only Respondent No.5
could get admission on the basis of his merit, but in the Bhatinda engineer-
ing college, affiliated to the Punjabi University (as distinct froin Punjab
University). Respondents 1 to 4 sought for and obtained admission in Guru
Nanak Dev Engineering college, Ludhiana, in the management quota. This
D college is affiliated to Punjab University.

All the five respondents applied for transfer to Chandigarh En-
gineering Collge. It is evident that while in the case of respondents 1 to 4
the transfer was an intra-university transfer, in the case of fifth respondent,
it was inter-university transfer. All of them applied for transfer on the
S ground of security. They pleaded that there were threats to their life at the
place they were studying and, that in the interest of their safety, they must
be transferred to Chandigarh Engineering College.

Punjab University is governed by the Punjab University Act, 1947.
F Sub'.section (1) of section 20 declares that the "executive government of the
university shall be vested in the syndicate", while sub-section (5) of Section
20 empowers the syndicate to "make such rules, not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act and Regulations, as they may deem necessary for
carrying on executive government of the nniversity as specified in sub-
G section (1)."

The Rules framed by the Syndicate under Section 20 (5) of the Act
are found printed in volume III of the Punjab University Calender. Chapter
XIV deals with "migration of students". The chapter is divided into several
sub-chapters. Sub-chapter (a) prescribes the "Rules regarding migration
H from the affiliated college to another". Rules 1.1.3 says "migration of
HOME SECRETARY, CHANDIGARH v. D.S.GREWAL[JEEVANREDDY,J,] 327

stndents shall not be all.owed without any valid reasons". Rule 1.2 says "no A
student who has joined one college shall be admitted to another college
during the same course unless - (i) the Principals of the colleges concerned·
agree. and the application is forwarded to. the Registrar for sanction,
accompanied by a fee of Rs,5 which shall in no case be refunded, (ii) the
Principal of the college from which he intends to migrate has given the B
leaving certificate." The Rule further says that "no application for transfer
shall be entertained unless the student's statement is supported by his
Principal who, in the case of migration of students provisionally promoted,
shall state all the relevant facts on the application." Sub-chapter (e)
prescribes the rules governing "migration of students from one engineering C
college to another affiliated to Punjab University in the faculty of engineer-
ing." We shall proceed on the assumption, without so holding, that these
Rules permit and govern transfer from an affiliated college to a constituent.
It is necessary to notice Rules 1,2,5 and 6 of the eight rules occurring in
this sub-chapter in view of thier crucial relevance herein. They reaol as
foHows: D

"L The applicant must have valid reasons for migration which
cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

2 1'.The applicant must have obtained permission of the Principals
E
of the two colleges corcerncd for migration. The Principal of the
Institution to which the candidate wants to migrate may reject the .
application without assigning any reason. 171e application of a
candidate for migration will be rejected by the P1incipal of the
!11stitutio11 to which migration is sought:-
F
(a) if there is no 1cancy in the class:

(b) if the candidate does not fulfil all the qualifications
necessary for admision to the college as laid down in the
admission rules of the coHege: G

(c) if the conduct and behaviour of the student has uot been
satisfactory in the previous college; and

(d} if,tflf mqrks obtained in Joint Entrance Test (JET) by the
applicant seeking migralio1~ are below t.~c marks obtained by H ·
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. lS.C.R.

A the last candidate admitted in the !st yeat class of the cor-
responding branch of EngineC1ing of the Institution of that
pmticular year against the category to which he belongs. The
category shall be determined on ihe basis of the college
prospectus of the relevant year of the Institution, to which
the migration is sought.
B
(emphasis added)

5. The migration will be subject to the approval of the Punjab
University;
c (6) Migration will be allowed in third and fifth semester only
subject to the condition that candidate seeking migration in the
third semester must have passed up to and including second
semester examination and candidates seeking migration in the fifth
semester must have passed up to and including fourth semester
D examination. Under no circumstances will any of the regu1ations
for the different Engineering examinations be circumvented as a
result of migration.TT

Sub-Chapter (!) deals with "Migration of students from other univer-
E sities to the Punjab University in the faculty of engineering". According to
these Rules "ordinarily no migration from other universities will be allowed
beyond the second year class". Clause (d) of Ruic 10 provides that "the
application of any candidate for migration will not be entertained by the
Principal of the institution to which migration is sought - if the percentage
F of marks obtained in J.E.T. by the candidate seeking migraton is below the
percentage of marks obtained by the candidate.in JET of the last candidate
(in the appropriate. category as per college prospectus) admitted in the first
year class of the relevant branch of engineering of the institution in that
particular year." Chapter 42 provides for delegation authority. Item 52 says
that the syndicate which is the authority for "sanction of additioal seats in
G the teaching departments/affiliated colleges" can delegate that power to the
Vi Ge-Chancellor.

Section 31 confers upon the Senate the power to make Regulations,
with the sanction of the government, to provide fur all matters relating to
H the university, subject to the condition that the regulations so made shall
~OMESECRETARY,CHANDIGARH v. D.S.GREWAL(JEEVANREDDY,J.] 329

not be inconsistent with the Act. Sub- section (2) of Section 31 par- A
ticularises the matters in respect of which the regulations can be made.
Clause (k) of sub-section (2) speaks of "the rules to be obser1ed and
enforced by colleges affiliated to the university in respect of the transfer of
students."

The regulations made by the senate under Section 31 are found
B
printed in the Punjab University Calender, Volume I (1989 publication).
Chapter VIII (A) sets out the conditions of affiliation. Regulation 19 in this
chapter says that "every affiliated college shall observe the regulations laid
down for admission, migation and inter-collegiate matters given in part-D
of this chapter. If a college fails to do so, the Syndicate may take such c
action as it may deem necessary under regulation 11.1 under this chapter".
Regulation 15 in this chapter obliges the principal of every affiliated college
to submit annually a report to the syndicate indcating inter alia the number
and distribution of students. Chapter VIII(D) deals with "admission and
migration of students and tuition fees." Regulation 31.2 occurring in this D
chapter specifies the conditions subject to which alone the student can be
transferred from one college to another. It is in conformity with the Rules
made by the Syndicate on the subject.

Regulation 33 declares that "notwihstanding anything contained in
Regulation 31.1 and 31.2, the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to
E
authorise migration of a student from one college to another or to allow
admission of a student. 11

Since the Chandigarh Administration finances the engineering col-
leges within the Union Territory of Chandigarh (including the Punjab F
engineering college, Chandigarh, to which Respondents 1 to 5 sought
transfer), it has enunciated certain guidelines governing· "Migration to
various technical/professional colleges under the control of Chandigarh
Administration", contained in its Memo No.7646-IH(2)-91/18942 dated
September 6, 1991. It is necessary to notice the same: G
"Subject: Policy regarding migration to various Technical/Profes-
sional Colleges under the control of Chandigarh Administration.

The matter regarding migration to various Technical/Profes-
sional Colleges like Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh, Govt. College of
Arts, Chandigarh and Polytechnic was under active consideration
of the Administration in order to bring uniformity in these institu-
tions, it has been decided to examine the requests of migration of
the following points:

B (1) Migration will be considered only on grounds of security of the
student and ill health of the student. No other ground like ill health
of relatives, security of relatives, finanica1 considerations.

(2) In case to be considered on security grounds, a report of the
c District Magistrate of the District where the student is studying at
present will be obtained. The report would have to specifically
state that continued study of the student in the district would
seriously endanger the life of the student.

(3) In ·cases of medical grounds, the students will be asked to
D appear before a Medical Board to be appointed by the Administra-
tion to determine whether continued study of the student at present
place endangers the life of the student on medical grounds.

(4) The student will be asked to given an affidavit stating the
E following:

(i) details of security/medical grounds;
\
(ii) the fact that he was selected Oil merit and not Oil any quota
whatsoeve1; (emphasis added)
F
(iii) that he had not paid any capitation fees or donation to·
the college for seeking admission.

2. You are, therefore, requested that all the migration cases may
be examined on the above guidelines before sending the proposal
G to the Administration.

sd-
Superintendent Home-I
for Home Secretary,
H CNANDIGARH ADMN."
HOME SECRETARY, CHANDIGARH v. D.S. GREWAL [JEEVAN REDDY, J.j 331

It i' not suggested that these guidelines are in any way inconsistent A
with Rules and Regulations made under the Act. The guidelines expressly
. speak of admission to inter a/ia Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh,
a constituent college.

Reading the Rules and Regulations of the Uninversity and guidelines
issued by the Chandigarh Administration, the following are the relevant B
conditions of migration: ,

(i) Principals of both the colleges should agree to it;

(ii) there must be a vacancy available in the relevant facu)ty in the trans-
feree college; C

(iii) transfer shall be permitted only in third and fifth semesters;

(iv) the student being transferred should not have obtained (in the J.E.T.)
less 'marks than the last student admitted in that faculty in the transferee
m~; D
(v) transfer is permissible only on the ground of security or medi.cal
grounds; and

(vi) the student seeking transfer should not have been admitted in
· any quota i.e., he should have been admitted on merit. (This condition E
makes explicit what is implicit in the Rules framed by the syndicate.)

It may be relevant to emphasise at this juncture that while the Rules
and Regulations referred to above are statutory, the policy guidelines are
relatable to the executive power of the Chandigarh Administration. It is
axiomatic that having enunciated a policy of general application and having F
communicated it to all concerned including the Chandigarh engineering
college, the Administration is bound by it. It can, of course, change the
policy but until that is done, it is bound to adhere to it.

Grewal applied for transfer from Guru Nanak Dev Engineering
College, Ludhiana to Punjab engineering College, Chandigarh sometime in G
the year 1991 in the form prescribed by the Punjab University. He was then
studying in the first year (second semester). The Principal of the Guru
Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana agreed to his migration on
August 17, 1991. When it came to the Principal of the Punjab Engineering
College, Chandigarh, he did not agree in the first instance. In his letter H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A dated November 19, 1991 addressed to the Home Secretary, Chandigarh
Administration, he pointed out - giving full particulars of all the 43 ap-
plicants including Grewal - that none of them are eligible for transfer
according to Rules, Regulations and the Policy guidelines. He pointed out
in particular that (i) there are no vacancies in his college and (ii) that the
B marks obtained by the applicants are less than the marks obtained by the
last candidate admitted in his college in the relevant faculty. Within one
week, however, he agreed to the migration of Grewal - on November 20,
.1991 - but with a rider. In the certificate, (which is a part of proforma
prescribed by the University) he scored out clause (iii) which reads: "(iii)
Seat offered to the student is within the quota of the seats sanctioned by
C the University" and noted, in hand, "it will be additional seat". (similar
endorsements are found in the case of Respondents 2 to 5). The matter
then went before the Syndicate of the Punjab University, evidently for the
reason that there were no seats available in the Chandigarh college for
accommodating these Respondents, as reiterated in the aforesaid note of
D the Principal of the Chandigarh College. The Synidcate not approved the
transfer of Grewal and a few others, it also sanctioned a few additional
scats in May/June, 1992.

The Chandigarh Administration too approved the transfers.

E However, when the question of actual admission of these Respon-
dents arose, the Principal of the Chandigarh College demurred again, on
the ground that additional seats can be sanctioned only by the Central
Government in consultation with the All India Council for Technical
Education (A.1.C.T.E.) - hereinafter referred to as 'the council' - and that
no such sanction is forthcoming. By his letter dated July 23, 1992, the
F Principal pointed out again that the migration of the said students is
contrary to the rules and regulations of the Punjab University and the
policy guidelines of the Administration, besides pointing out that the
sanction of additional seats for accommodating them in· the Chandigarh
College can be sanctioned only by the Government of India in consultation
G with the All India Council for Technical Education (Council). He followed
up this letter by another letter on August 24, 1992, which reads thus:

"Subject: Migration.

This officer have received 35 applications (13 applications for
H· . inter-college migration and 22 applications for other. University to
HOME SECRErARY. CHANDIGARH v. D.S. GREWAL [JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 333

Punjab University migration). A statement in duplicate showing A
the particulars of the applicants, reasons for mib'fation and whether
the Institute is approved by the AITCE has been recorded against
each, for favour of further action at your end.

It is added for the information of the authorities that there is
no seat vacant at the Collgege to accommodate the students who are B
seeking migration. Before deciding the cases, it may please be kept
in view that the Administration has already sanctioned 10% addi-
tional seats more than the sanctioned intake of 310 seats as is allowed
by the Punjab University to accommodate sportsman and dependent
children of Ten-orists Victims, and for migration of any student, prior C
sanction of the Govt. of lndia for sanction of additioal seats will be
required and where equivalency is yet to be decided by the Univer-
sity, the same will have to got decided and further prior approval
of the Punjab University is essential for allowing migration.
Moreover, no one is eligible for migration as the marks obtained in
the Combined Entrance Test (CET) by the applicant are below the D
marks obtained by the last candidate admitted in the first year clas<
of the corresponding branch in that panicular year.

(emphasis added)
E
The case file of all the 35 applicants are enclosed in original
or favour of early decision in the matter.

Principal
Punjab Engineering College
Chandigarh." F

It is at this stage that Grewal approached the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana by way of the aforesaid writ petition. H submitted that though
his migration has been approved by beth the transferor and transferee
colleges, as well as by the Syndicate of the Punjab· University and the
Chandigarh Administration, the Principal of the Chandigarh College was G
now refusing to admit him into the college. The writ petition was admitted
and an interim order (in the first week of September, 1992) made directing
the Principal to admit Grewal into Chandigarh Engineering College.
Similar orders foll9"'.ed in the case of respondents 2 to 4 thereafter. Neither
the Punjab Engineerlng College nor the Chandigarh Administration (ap- H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A pellantc in these appeals) questioned the said interim orders. Respondents
1 to 4 were accordingly ~dmitted. The writ petitions were heard finally in
January, 1993 and judgment reserved. While doing so, the High Court
directed that the fifth respondent, (who was not admitted by then) should
also be admitted in the Chandigarh College. Against this interim order, the
B Chandigarh Administration and the Punjab University appealed to this
court by way of S.L.P.(C) 1908/93.

The judgment in the writ petitions was delivered by the High Court
on January 20, 1993. The writ petitions were allowed under a common
order. Against the said common order, the present civil appeals are filed.
C The two main reasons assigned by the High Court are (1) the Principal of
Chandigarh Engineering College, having once given his consent for transfer
of these Respondents, was not justified in resisting the transfers after they
were approved by the University and the Administration and (2) that the
Principal was in error in taking the stand that additional seats in his College
. can not be sanctioned by the Synidcate and that it can be done only by the
D Central Government in consultation with the Council.

On February 11, 1993, we dismissed S.L.P.. 1808/93 as having become
infructuous inasmuch as it was directed against an interlocutory order
pending the writ petition which itself came to be disposed of on January
E 20, 1993, as stated above.

We have heard Sri Kapil Sibal for the appellants (Chandigarh Ad-
ministration and Chandigarh Engineering College) and S/Sri G. Ramas-
wamy, Harish Salve and ~ri Tawakley for the respondents:

F The first question we have to address is whether the High Court was
right in holding that the Principal of the Chandigarh Engineering College
was precluded form objecting to the admission of the respondents in view
of the consent given by him for their transfer earlier? It may be recalled
that when the matter first came up before him, the Principal did not agree
G to their transfer on the ground that it would be violative of the rules and
regulations of the Punjab University. However, wit.bin one week he changed
his mind and agreed to the transfer while pointing out that such transfer
would involve creation of an additional seat. Then again, after the Univer-
sity and the Chandigarh Administration had approved the transfer and
H sanctioned the additional seats, he sought to raise the very same objections,
HOME SECRETARY, CHANDIGARH v. D.S. GREWAL[JEEVANREDDY,J.I 335

coupled with a new objection relating to the competence of the University A ·
to sanction additional seats. The High Court was of the view that the
Principal can not do this. It has, however, not considered whether the
consent given by him earlier was in accordance with law and if it is not,
what is its effect? It went by the board circumstance that having once given
his consent to the transfer, he cannot turn round laster and object to it. In B
our opinion the High Court ought to have considered the said question. In
any event we are obliged to consider the same.

Rule-2 in sub-chapter (e) of the rules made by the syndicate provides
inter a/ia that "the application of a candidate for migration will be rejected
by the Principal of the Institution to which migration is sought: (a) if there C
is no vacancy in the class and (d) if the marks obtained in Joint Entrance
test (J.E.T.) by the applicant seeking migration are below the marks
obtained by the last candidate admitted in the first year class of the
corresponding bra.;ch of engineering of the institution of that particular
year against the category to which he belongs." Applying the Rule, the D
applications of the respondents 1 to 5 were liable to be rejected by the
Principal on the said two grounds. The Principal had no power to agree to
the transfers contrary to the said Rule. He had no discretion in the matter,_,,
He was boWld to reject the applications. The question is whether he is
11recluded from raising the said issue at the time of actual admission in
E
view of his earlier consent. Is he precluded from doing so either by the
doctrine of promissory estoppel or any other rule of equity? In ·our opinion
neither the rule of promissory estoppel nor any other equitable rule
brought to our notice, bars his from raising th~. said objection at any time
before the actual admission of the students. The Principal of Chandigarh
Engineering College is an Officer/Authority of the University. University F
is a corporate body governed by law. The subject of migration of students
is a matter governed by law. The Principal could only act within the said
provisions-not outside them. Respondents had applied for transfer/migra-
tion in accordance with the said rules. They knew what the rules were. In
any event, the Principal could accord his consent to the transfer only in G
terms of the said Rules. The Rules are emphatic. They left no choice to
him. He had no option but to refuse his consent. The consent given by him
was thus contrary to law. It was beyond his power i.e., ultra vires his powers.
It should be noted that the violation was not a technical one. It was not a
H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A procedural or paripheral one. It touched the core, the substance of the
Rules. It .is worse that it was a conscious voilation. Can it be said in these
circumstances that he is bound in law by such consent or that he is
estopped from reitrating his objections based upon the Rules before the
actual admission of the respondents? We think not. (We do not wish to
B express any opinion on the question whether he could do so even after the
respondents were admitted in his college.) The doctrine of Promissory
cstoppel is a rule of equity. It is a rule of law of evidence. It can not be
utilised or relied upon to defeat or nullify a provision of law. We must
reiterate that the violation involved in grant of consent was not a technical,
C procedural or peripheral one. It was a substantial violation. The violation
was of an emphatic Rule couched in categorical language. The Rule is
based upon sound public policy. It is designed to check back-door admis-
sion of ineligible students. It was conceived as a bar to doing indirectly that
which could not be done directly. It was conceived in the interest of
fairness, good administration and quality and standards of education. The
D case of second Respondent is an eloquent illustration of this Rule-with his
total of 28 marks in the J.E.T., he could not have dreamt of admission in
Chandigarh college (a Constituent College, which had no such thing as
Management quota). But he has achieved precisely that, by virtue of the
consent of the Principal as well as the approval and sanction of additional
E seat by the university-all in contravention of emphatic Rules. Since the acts
of University are equally violative of the said Rules, they do not add any
strength to the Respondents' case. It is thus abundantly clear that an
equitable rule like the Rule of Promissory estoppel ~an not be in.voked to
defeat such a salutary provision- which can indeed be termed mandatory.'
F There is another reason why the rule of Promissory estoppel could
not have been invoked in this case. The Respondents had not changed their
position basing upon the representation (i.e., the consent of the Principal}.
They were not yet admitted to the Chandigarh College. They were continu-
ing in their own parent college. The reiteration of objections by the
G Principal was before their admission into tlie Chandigharh College. There
was no .other rule by which it could be said that Principal was precluded
from reiterating the law. Interest of law is served by permitting him to do
so-not by, preventing him.

H Applicability of rule of promissory estoppel-or for that matter any
HOME SECRETARY, CI-IANDIGARI-I v. D.S. GREWAL [JEEVANREDDY, J,j 33/

other similar rule-vis-a-vis the 1tltravires acts of public officials and statutory A ·
corporations has been a vexed subject in law, both in this country as well
as in England and U.S.A.* It is however not necessary, do go into it for
the purposes of this case, inasmuch as there is no room for invoking the
rule of Promissory estoppel in these cases. As pointed out hereinbefore,
the Respondents had not changed their position basing upon the repre- B
sentation-whether the representation consisted of the earlier consent of the
Principal or the approval by University and Chandigarh Administration.
Further, the said Rule can not, in any event, be invoked to perpetuate the
violation of a provision of law, that too a provision couched in emphatic
terms (leaving no discretion in the authority) and based upon sound public
policy i.e., a mandatory provision. It is not necessary to say more than this
c
for the pourpose of these cases. The decisions of this Court on the doctrine
of Promissory estoppel viz., U1,1ion of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, [1968]
2 SCR 450, M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., [1979] 2 SCR 641, fit Raj Shiv
Kumar v. State of Hmyana, [1980] 3 SCR 689, and Union of India v. Godfrey
Phillips, [1985] 4 SCC 369, do not say otherwise. Indeed, it is reiterated in D
these cases that the said Rule is not available in respect of the ultravires
acts of a statutory body/authority nor can it be invoked to compel the
Government - a public authority - to carry out a promise which is contrary
to law or ultravires its powers. Also see State of Kera/a v. Gwalior Rayon
Silk Mfg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd., [1974] 1 SCR 671. E
In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into the correctness
of the second ground in the Judgment of the High Court. Even if the High
Court is right on that question, its decision is liable to be set aside on the
first ground aforesaid.
F
For the above reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside.
But in view of the fact that respondents 1 to 4 have been admitted to
Chandigarh Engineering College as far back as September 1992 and have
been studying since then, that they have given up their admission in Guru
Nanak Medical College and further in view of the fact that the appellants G
had not chosen to question the interim orders made by the High Court in
the writ petitions filed by the respondents 1 to 4 at the proper juncture, we

Sec in this connection Wade's Administrative Law - (Sixth Edition) pages 261 to 263
and 41 to 46 and Corpus Juris Serundun1 (1964 Edition) pages 706 to 724 and C.1.S.
(1983 Edition) Vol. 73 para 69. H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A are not inclined to send the respondents 1 to 4 back to Guru Nanak
College. At the same time we are constrained to add that it would have
been in ore appropriate if the High Court had not directed the Respondents
to be admitted in Chandigarh College by way of interim orders; it could
have made these orders more appropriately at the final stage. Such interim
B orders, it is obvious, foreclose the options at the final hearing. Even if the ·
W.P. fails, the mischief of the change in situation, coupled with lapse of
time. This is precisely the situation confronting us. We are therefore
compelled to say that the High Court should not pass such orders - except
in those rare cases where the non- passing of such order would cause such
injury as could not be repaired later. These were not such cases. The
C Respondents have been studying in the Guru Nanak Dev College, or such.
other college as the case may be, for a period of one year of more. They
had obtained admission therein, in the management quota, with their eyes
open. They could have been and ought to have been asked to wait till the
final disposal of the writ petitions, which could be - and, indeed, were -
D expeditously heard. We are obliged to make these observations in view of
the fact that we have come across several such orders passed by High
Courts. Such mandatory orders ought not to be made at an interlocutory
stage, except in rare cases, as emphasised hereinabove.

So far as Respondent 5 is concerned, we were informed that he had
E been admitted in Chandigarh College; upon that representation we had
ordered that he be admitted in his parent college.

The appeals are accordingly.allowed, subject to the directions in the
preceding paragraphs. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeals allowed.