Holding

A post‑graduate candidate who has passed his M.A. examination is eligible for admission to the three‑year LL.B. course; the 40% qualifying mark requirement applies only to graduates, and the university is estopped from refusing to declare his results.

Summary

The appellant, having secured more than 40% marks in his M.A. examination, was admitted to a three‑year LL.B. course but later the university refused to declare his pre‑law and intermediate law examination results, claiming he was ineligible because he did not meet a 40% aggregate requirement. The Supreme Court examined the university regulations and held that the 40% qualifying mark provision in Regulation 1 of Chapter VIII applies only to graduates, not to post‑graduate candidates who have merely passed their higher degree. Since the appellant had passed his M.A. with the requisite 36% aggregate (excluding a paper where he scored less than 25%), he satisfied the eligibility criteria. The Court also found the university estopped from denying the declaration of his results, as he had been admitted, examined, and issued an admit card. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the university was directed to declare the appellant’s results.

Issues considered

Whether the 40% aggregate marks requirement under University Regulation 1 applies to post‑graduate candidates seeking admission to the LL.B. course.
Whether the appellant satisfied the eligibility criteria for admission to the three‑year law course.
Whether the university is estopped from refusing to declare the appellant’s examination results.
Whether the university’s refusal violates the university regulations and the Bar Council of India resolution.

Subjects

University regulationsLaw course admissionPost‑graduate eligibilityQualifying marksEstoppelBar Council of India

Judgment

SANATAN GAUDA
A
v.
BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

APRIL 2, 1990

[L.M. SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] B

Berhampur University Regulations-Regulation l. Chpater VIII
··and Regulation JO Chapter V-Jnterpretation of-Bache/or of Laws
Examination (Three Year Course)-Admi"ion to-Condition regard-
ing qualifying marks not applicable to post graduate students seeking
admission to Law course.
c
After passing his M.A. examination securing more than 40 per
cent marks (364 out of 900), the appellant secured admission in 1983 to
three-years law course in Ganjam Law College. Along with his form ·
seeking admission he had submitted the mark-sheet with his M.A. de-
gree certificate. He completed his first year course 'Pre-Law course' in D
1984 and was promoted to the "Intermediate Law course". In !985, he
appeared for the 'pre-law' and 'inter-law' examinations. He gave the
said examination and in the same year was admitted to the Final Law
course. However his results for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law
course were not declared by the University on the ground that in view of
the Regulations of the University, he was not qualified to be admitted to E
the law course. His admission being improper, he was not eligible to sit
at the examinations aforesaid. The appellant made representations to
the Bar Council of India and the Administrator of the University but to
no avail. When his representations and even the communication from
the Chairman of the Board of Studies to the University did not yield the
desired result, the appellant approached the Orissa High Court by F
means of writ petition on 11.5.87 challenging the non-declaration of his
results and the University's refusal to permit the appella_nt to appear in
the final examination. The writ petition having been dismissed by the
High Court, he bas filed this appeal by special leave. The question that
falls for determination by this Court is whether the appellant was eligi-
ble to be admitted to Law Course. G

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: (Per Sawant, J.)

The requirement of 40 per cent marks in the aggregate, is meant H

273
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R

A only for graduates such as of Bachelor of Arts. etc. That requirement
does not apply to those candidates who pass any higher degree examina-
tion after graduation. For admission to the Law Course there is no r-·
requirement of any particular marks for post-graduate students like the
appellant, and the appellant is entitled to be admitted under Reg. 1 in
B Chapter VIIJ of the said Regulations. The appellant satisfies the other
qualification as well, viz., he has passed the M.A. examination with 36..
per cent marks in the aggregate deducting 13 marks in one of the papers and
is therefore, duly qualified to be admitted to the Law course. [277G; 278F-G]

Resolution No. 123/1984 of the Bar Council of India does not
speak of the requirement of marks for examination at post-graduate
C level. [279G]

The distinction between graduates and post-graduates made in
the matter of the qualifying marks is as it ought to be, since graduates
and post-graduates cannot be treated equally.
D The appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had
admittedly submitted his marks-sheet along with the application for
admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his
studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admis-
sion card for the Pre,law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was
E permitted to appear in 'the said examinations. He was also admitted to
the Final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of
his results of the Pre-law and Inter-law examinations that the Univer-
sity raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted to
the Law course. The University is therefore clearly estopped from refus-
ing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from pre-
venting him from pursuing his final year course. l280C-E]
F
(Per Sharma,!.)

From the letters of the University it is clear that it was not depend-
ing upon the opinion of the Principal and had decided to verify the
situation for itself. In that situation it cannot punish the student for the
G negligence of the Principal or the University authorities. It is important
to appreciate that the appellant cannot be accused of making any false
statement or suppressing any relevant fact before anybody. He had
produced his marks-sheet before the College authority with his appli-
cation for admission, and cannot be accused of any fraud or mis-
H representation. [28ID-F]
S. GAUDA v. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY ISAWANT, J.] 275

Assuming the constructiou of the rule as contended hy the Uni·
versity is correct, the Principal cannot be condemned for recommend· A
ing the candidature of the appellant for the examination in question. It
was the bonnden· duty of the University to have s~rutinised the matter
thoroughly before permitting the appellant to appear at the examination
and not having done so, it cannot refuse to publish his results. [281F-G]
B
It is impressed upon the University authorities to frame the rules
in such clear terms that it may not require great skill for understanding
them. In order to achieve clarity, it does not matter. if the rule, instead
of being concise, is elaborate and lengthy. U81H; 282Al

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 891 of
1988. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1987 of the Orissa
.,.._. - High Court in O.J.C. No. 1621of1987.

Govind Das and J.R. Das for the Appellant. D

P.N. Misra, A.K. Jha and P.K. Jena for the Respondents.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered

SAW ANT, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order E
dated 30th July, 1987 of the High Court of Orissa.

2. The appellant passed his M.A. examination in July 1981
securing in the aggregate 364 marks out of 900 marks, i.e., more than
> 40 per cent of the total marks. In 1983, he secured admission in
Gan jam Law College for three-year Law Course. There is no dispute F
that at the time he took admission, he had submitted his marks-sheet
along with his M.A. degree certificate. The appellant completed his
first year course known as the "Pre-Law Course" and in 1984 was
promoted to the second year course known as the "Intermediate Law
Course". In 1985, he appeared for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law exami-
nations held by the Berhampur University to which the Ganjam Law G
College is affiliated. He gave the said examination and in the same
year he was admitted to the Final Law course in the same College.

3. It appears that although he was admitted to the Final Law
classes, his results for the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations were
not declared. The appellant made representations to the Bar Council H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

of India and the Administrator of the Berhampur University, on
A February 12, 1986. On October 30, 1986, the University replied that
since the appellant had secured less than 39 .5 per cent marks in his
M.A. degree examination, he was not eligible for admission to the
Law Course. On November 11, 1986, the appellant made a representa-
tion pointing out that he had secured more than 40 per cent marks in
B the said examination and, therefore, he was entitled to be admitted to
the Law course. On November 14, 1986, the Chairman of the Board of
Studies also wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the University pointing
out that the Board of Studies in its meeting held on October 29, 1986
had recommended that those students who had passed their M.A.
examination and had secured more than 40 per cent of the total marks
c
should be considered eligible for admission to the Law course even
though they had secured Jess than 20 per cent marks in any one of the
papers in the said examinations.
-
4. In spite of this, the University did not take any step to
announce the appellant's results. Hence, the appellant approached the
D Orissa High Court by a writ petition on May 11, 1987 challenging the
non-declaration of his results and the University's refusal to permit the
appellant to appear in the Final Law examination. The writ petition
was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order of July 30,
1987. Against the said decision the present appeal was filed. By an
interim order of March 15, 1988, the appellant was permitted to con-
E tinue his Final Law course and to appear in the examination of the said J·
course. It was also directed that the results of the examinations in
which the appellant had appeared should be declared in due course.

5. On these facts, the question that falls for consideration is
whether the appellant was eligible to be admitted to the Law course.
F The Unviersity has objected to the appellant's admission on the
ground that the University Regulation 1 in Chapter VIII relating to the
Bachelor of Laws Examination (Three-Year Course) read with Regu-
lation 10 in Chapter V of the University Regulations relating to the
Master's Degree Examination requires that if the student has secured
less than 25 per cent marks in any of the papers for M.A. examination,
G he should have on the aggregate more than 39 .5 per cent marks in the
said examination. Admittedly, the appellant has obtained in the aggre-
gate 364 marks out of 900 marks, i.e., more than 40 per cent marks,
but in one paper in Group-II, he has secured only 13 marks out of 100
which were less than 25 per cent. It is, therefore, the University's
contention that in view of the said Regulations, he was not qualified to
H be admitted to the Law course and since he was admitted wrongly, he
S. GAUDA v. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY [SAWANT, J.] 277

was not entitled to appear for the examination and, therefore, for the A
' declaration of his results in the said examination.

6. Regulation 1 of Chapter VIII which lays down qualification
for admission to the Law course is as follows:
B
"1. Any registered candidate may be admitted to the
degree of Bachelor of Laws, if (a) he passes the examina-
tion for the d~gree of Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of
Science, Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Oriental
Learning, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery,
Bachelor of Science (Engineering), Bachelor of Science
(Agriculture), Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal c
Husbandary, B. Pharma or any other examination re-
cognised by the Bar Council of India and the Academic
Council as equivalent thereto securing 40% or more than
39 .5% of marks in the aggregate of such examination or
any other higher degree examination passed after
D
graduation.

Provided that relaxation to the extent of 5% of marks
in the qualifying examination be allowed to the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
E
Provided further that in case of physically or the
paedically handicaped candidates, relaxation upto 5% of
marks in the qualifying examination may be given on pro-
duction of a certificate of.disability from any Government
Medical Officer to the satisfaction of the authority con-
>· cerned ...... "
F
The first paragraph of Regulation 1 on which reliance is placed
by the University shows that the requirement of 40 per cent or more
than 39.5 per cent marks in the aggregate, is meant only for graduates
such as of Bachelors of Arts etc. That requirement does not apply to
those candidates who pass any higher degree examination after gra-
G
duation. Therefore, on a plain reading of the said paragraph, a post-
graduate student like the appellant who has passed his M.A. examina-
tion is not required to satisfy further that in t!Je said post-graduate
examination he has secured 40 per cent or more than 39.5 per cent
marks in the aggregate. It is enough if he has passed his post-graduate
examination. H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

7. What is further, Regulation 10 in Chapter V of the Regula-
A tions which prescribes marks for passing M.A., M.Com. and M.Sc.
examinations states that the minimum marks required for a student to
pass the said examinations is 36 per cent in the aggregate of all the
theory papers taken together in case of M.A. and M.Com. examina-
tions, and in the case of M.Sc. examination, 36 per cent in the aggre-
B gate of all the theory papers taken together and 40 percent in the
aggregate of all the _practical papers taken together. I am not con-
cerned here with the marks of M.Sc. examination. The proviso to the
said Regulation 10, further states that no minimum pass marks shall be
required in any paper. But if in any paper a candidate obtains less than
25 per cent of marks, those marks shall not be included in the aggre-
gate. In other words, in the case of the appellant, who has obtaind 364
c marks out of 900 on the aggregate, his 13 marks in one of the papers
being less than 25 per cent have to be excluded. His aggregate marks,
therefore, come to 351 out of 900 marks according to this Regulation.
They are admittedly more than 36 per cent as required by the said
Regulation for passing the M.A. examination. I may reproduce the
D said Regulation here:

"10. The minimum marks that a candidate shall obtain to
have passed shall be thirty six per cent in the aggregate of
all the theory papers taken together in the case of M.A./
M.Com. and in the case of M.Sc. thirty six per cent in the
E aggregate of all the theory papers taken together and forty
per cent in the aggregate of all the practical papers taken
together.

Provided further. that no minimum pass marks shall
be required in any paper but if in any paper a candidate
F obtains less than twenty five per cent of marks then these
shall not be included in the aggregate."

8. Even though, therefore, for admission to the Law course
there is no requirement of any particular marks for post-graduate
students like the appellant, and the appellant is entitled to be admitted
G under Regulation 1 in Chapter VIII of the said Regulations quoted
earlier, the appellant satisfies the other qualification as well, viz., he
has passed the M.A. examination with 36 per cent in the aggregate
deducting 13 marks in one of the papers and is, therefore, duly qua-
lified to be admitted to the Law course.

H 9. Mr. Misra appearing for the responddnts, however, conten-
S. GAUDA v. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY (SAWANT, J.] 279

ded firstly that the qualifying marks for admission as ver Regulation 1
A
of Chapter VIII even for post-graduate students was 40 per cent or
more than 39 .5 per cent and since the appellant admittedly did not
secure more than 39.5 per cent marks after deducting from tbe aggre-
gate 13 marks secured in one of the papers, he was not elf ;ible for
being admitted to the Law course. I have pointed out hereinal>- t-e that
the plain reading of the said Regulation shows that the q uaiifying B
marks laid down there do not apply to the post-graduates. They apply
only to graduates. As far as the post-graduates are concerned, it is
enough that they have passed their examination. Secondly, he has also
-y obtained the marks as required by the said Regulation 10 of Chapter
_, V which is applicable to the appellant, viz., 39 per cent when the
minimum marks laid down by the said Regulation is only 36 per cent.
Mr. Misra then relied upon the prospectus of the Gan jam Law College
c
which had laid down as follows:

''1. ····················

2 ................... .. D

3. Eligibility for admission.

(1) Pre-law class.

(a) An aggregate of 40 per cent and above, in the B.A., E
B.Sc, B.Com, or any other university Degree of Higher
University examination recognised by Berhampur Uni-
versity .......... ".

and contended that even if a candidate has a higher degree than B.A.,
B.Sc., B.Com., he has to have an aggregate of 40 per cent minimum F
marks. As I read the said prospectus, I find that it is on par with the
qualification for admission given in Unviersity Regulation lin Chapter
VIII quoted above. The aggregate of 40 per cent and above marks is
required only for graduates and there is no requirement of any
percentage of marks prescribed for the post-graduates. Resolution
No. 123/1984 of the Bar Council of India passed on October 30, 1984 G
and which is Annexure 'K' to the respondent-University's counter-
affidavit also shows that for admission to three-year Law course. the
qualification of minimum of 39.5 per cent marks is meant only for
graduates. That Resolution does not speak of the requirement of
marks for examination at post-graduate level. I am also of the view
that this distinction between graduates and post-graduates made in the H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

matter of the qualifying marks is as it ought to be, since graduates and
A
post-graduates cannot be treated equally. A post-graduate student has
a minimum of two years more of academic pursuit to his credit than the
graduate before he seeks admission to the Law course. Obviously,
therefore, they cannot be treated equally, and that is what the Uni-
versity and the Bar Council of India have rightly done. It is the
B interpretation placed by the University on its own Regulations and the
Resolution of the Bar Council of India which is at fault and not the
Regulations or the Resolution.

10. This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case
the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had
admittedly submitted his marks-sheet along with the application for
c admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his
studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admis-
sion card for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was
permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to
the Final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of
D his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the Uni-
~ersity raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to be admitted
to the Law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from
refusing to declare the results of the appellant's examination or from
preventing him from pursuing his final year course.

E 11. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the University is
not justified in refusing to declare the appellant's results of the Pre-
Law and ,Intermediate Law examinations. The appeal, therefore,
succeeds. The respondent-University is directed to declare the said
results as well as the result of the Final examination if the appellant has
appeared for the same. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the
F circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

SHARMA,J.:

12. I agree that the appeal should be allowed as indicated by my
learned Brother.
G
13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
respondent University having issued the admit card and permitted the
appellant to appear at parts I and II of Law.Examination, should not
have later refused to publish his result. If there was any irregularity in ~
the admission of the appellant for the Law course, the University
H authorities ought to have scrutinised the position before permitting
S. GAUDA v. BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY [SHARMA, J.J 281

him to take the examination. It was pointed out that in identical
circumstances the same High Court had earlier in the same year A
allowed the case of another candidate in O.J.C. No. 2619 of 1986 by a
judgment, which also was by a Division Bench.\

14. Mr. P .N. Misra, the learned counsel for the respondent,
contended that the University had informed the Colleges about the B
necessary condition for admission to the Law course which, it appears,
was not respected by the College. When the applications by the candi-
dates for sitting at the examination were forwarded by the College, the
University asked the Principal to send the marks of the candidates for
the purpose of verification, but the Principal did not comply. The

- letters Annexures 'F' and 'G' to the counter affidavit have been relied
upon for the purpose. The learned counsel pointed out that instead,
the Principal sent a letter Annexure 'I' stating that the marks-list
would be sent in a few days for "your kind reference and verification"
c

which was never sent. The Principal wrongly assured the University
authorities that he had verified the position and that all the candidates
were eligible. In these circumstances, the argument is, that the appel- D
lant cannot take advantage of the fact that the University allowed him
to appear at the examination. I am afraid, the stand of the respondent
cannot be accepted as correct. From the letters of the University it is
clear that it was not. depending upon the opinion of the Principal and
had decided to verify the situation for itself. In that situation it cannot
punish the student for the negligence of the Principal or the University E
- ~ authorities. It is important to appreciate that the appellant cannot be
accused of making any false statement or suppressing any relevant fact
before anybody. He had produced his marks-sheet before the College
authority with his application for admission, and cannot be accused of
any fraud or misrepresentation. The interpretation of the rule on the
basis of which the University asserts that the appellant was not eligible f
for admission is challenged by the appellant and is not accepted by the
, ~ _ College and my learned Brother accepts the construction suggested by
· him as correct. In such a situation even assuming the construction of
the rule as attempted by the University as correct, the Principal cannot
be condemned for recommending the candidature of the appellant for
the examination in question. It was the bounden duty of the University G
to have scrutinised the matter throughly before permitting the appel-
lant to appear at the examination and not having done so it cannot
refuse to publish his results.

15. Before parting I would like to impress upon the University
authorities to frame the rules in such clear terms that it may not H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A require great skill for understanding them. It is a serious matter if a
student who acts upon one interpretation of a rule and spends a consi-
derable period of his youth, is later threatened by a possible alterna-
tive construction, which may cost him several years of his life. In order
to achieve clarity, it does not matter, if the rule, instead of being
concise, is elaborate and lengthy.
B
Y. Lal Appeal allowed.

'