AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Routray, J.
Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Rath, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Parties – University.
The Petitioner is a student who applied for admission into National Law University of Odisha (NLUO) in 3 years LLB Course for the academic year 2026-2027 under Odisha Domicile Reservation Category. The Petitioner was allowed to participate in the entrance test and secured all India rank 61 and Odisha Domicile Reservation Rank 6 (Annexure-3). Then the counselling was offered to her with issuance of provisional admission offer (Annexure-1). In course of counselling an instruction was issued to the candidates wherein it was mentioned that the candidates opted for Odisha Domicile Category must fulfill, inter alia, passing the equivalent graduation examination (or an equivalent examination) from an educational institution located in Odisha (Annexure-10).
The Petitioner‟s case is that she passed 12th Standard Examination from Sanskar International School, Dang, Bargarh in the State of Odisha and then completed her graduation from Kalinga University at Raipur in the State of Chhatisgarh. Thus in view of such instructions given at the time of counselling that the candidate should have completed graduation course from an educational institution located in Odisha, she was deprived of getting admission into 3 years LLB course.
It is submitted by the Petitioner that as per the brochure at Annexure-2 published in the web page of NLUO, the requirement for admission in Domicile Reservation Category was that the candidate should have passed 12th Class or equivalent examination from the State of Odisha securing at least 60% of marks. According to the Petitioner such condition as prescribed in the brochure under Annexure-2 has been subsequently changed and corrected in the web page after the objection was rendered by her pursuant to the instruction issued at the time of counselling. It is further stated by the Petitioner that she was allowed to deposit the required fees for provisional admission of Rs.30,000/- on the first occasion and Rs.20,000/- on the second occasion, which was already accepted by the NLUO. However, now during pendency of the writ petition, said amount has been refunded to the Petitioner by deducting certain amount.
Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona-fide candidate who aspired to take admission in NLUO and without any fault on her part her candidature was accepted and she was allowed to participate in the examination to secure all India Rank 61 and Domicile Reservation Rank 6. She was also allowed to deposit the fees before the counselling and at the time of counselling the instruction was issued for the first time saying that the candidate under Domicile Reservation Category must have graduated from any recognized educational institution located in Odisha. Therefore, according to Mr. Panda, the action of the Opposite Party-University (NLUO) is against the principles of estoppel and without any mistake committed by the candidate.
The NLUO has filed its counter denying the contention of the Petitioner. It is stated by the Opposite Party-University that the brochure as referred at Annexure-2 by the Petitioner is not the brochure for the academic year 2026-2027, but it was for the academic year 2024-2025. Annexure-2, as referred by the Petitioner in this writ petition, is not the brochure but copy of the academic web page available in the website of the University meant for previous academic years. It is though admitted on the part of the University that they have received the fees of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on two phases from the Petitioner before counseling, but it is true that such amount has been refunded to the Petitioner as on date, after deducting a nominal amount.
Mr. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the University submits that the Petitioner‟s aspiration through Annexure-2 is mistaken as the same does not relate to admission for the academic year 2026-2027, where the Petitioner is an applicant for 3 years LLB course for said academic year. It is further submitted that the eligibility criteria for admission in Domicile Reservation Category has been corrected from the academic year 2025-2026 onwards and as revealed from the brochure for the academic year 2025-2026 under Annexure-B/2 the eligibility criteria for domicile category was mentioned that such candidate must have passed graduation or equivalent examination from State of Odisha and should secure at least 60% marks from any recognized college/University in the State of Odisha. For admission in the academic year 2026-2027, the admission notification published in the web page is annexed as Annexure-D/2 and it has been stated there that the eligibility criteria for domicile reservation of the candidates inter alia requires under graduate programme or equivalent examination from any recognized college/University in the State of Odisha along with 60% marks. Thus, according to Mr. Rath the confusion of the Petitioner cannot be taken in her favour though there was a bona-fide mistake committed on the part of the University for accepting her candidature to appear in the examination in Domicile Reservation Category.
Mr. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel fairly submits that presently all the seats in 3 years LLB course for the academic session 2026-2027 have been filled up and therefore without any vacancy of seat, the Petitioner cannot be accommodated presently. He continues to submit that, in the event any vacancy arises either due to leaving of any student or for any other reason, the Petitioner will be considered for admission in the course.
We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the records. It is seen from Annexure-B/2 and Annexure-D/2, which are the prospectus/brochure for the academic year 2025-2026 and the admission notification for the year 2026-2027 respectively, that the University has mentioned the eligibility criteria that the candidate should have passed under graduate programme or equivalent examination from any recognized college/University in the State of Odisha, as one of the mandatory conditions. The contents of Annexure-2 in the academic web page of the University does not reveal anything to refer it for the academic year 2026-2027, which according to the University is a misconception on the part of the Petitioner to accept the same for admission into academic session 2026-2027. It is true that as per the explanation of UGC, „under graduate programme‟ means the course conducted to achieve the graduation degree. Therefore, what is mentioned in Annexure-D/2, that applies for the academic session 2026-2027, requires that the candidate should have passed the under graduate programme or equivalent examination from any recognized college/University in the State of Odisha.
In the instant case, the Petitioner has admittedly completed her graduation from Kalinga University at Raipur in the State of Chhatisgarh and therefore, she does not fulfil the above criteria that she passed from any recognized college/University in the State of Odisha. Thus, according to our considered opinion, she lacks the qualification required for admission in Odisha Domicile Reservation Category for the academic session 2026-2027. Be that as it may, it is true that the University has permitted the Petitioner to participate in the examination, i.e. NAITE 2026, where she successfully secured all India Rank 61 and Odisha Domicile Rank 6. According to the submissions of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner, as she was offered with provisional admission in NLUO, the Petitioner did not pursue her admission in any other institution than NLUO. Further, the Petitioner has lost one academic year due to the so-called bona-fide mistake committed on the part of NLUO.
At this stage, it needs to be considered here that, whether by such offer of provisional admission does any right accrue in favour of the petitioner, under the provisions of estoppel. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Airmen Selection Board and another v. Surender Kumar Das, (2003) 1 SCC 152, relating to appointment to the post of Airmen, have explained that where a candidate was considered eligible for appointment and selected by mistake contrary to the terms of advertisement, the principles of Promissory estoppel will not apply. It has been held as follows:
“8.Counsel for the appellants submitted that even in the absence of any misrepresentation, in a case of this nature where a candidate not eligible for appointment is selected by mistake contrary to the terms of the advertisement and the rules, when such mistake is detected the authorities are bound to correct the mistake and recall the order of selection. The principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in such cases. He sought to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the High Court. In view of the finding we have recorded earlier in this judgment, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this question, and maybe, in an appropriate case the aforesaid question may merit consideration.”
Further, in Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh and another v. Prashant Agrawal and another, (2010) 15 SCC 756, where the admission was refused to a candidate after he successfully passed the common entrance examination, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, by referring the relevant rules, have stated that the admission can be refused on the ground that the candidate was not qualified to participate in the entrance examination. The relevant observation is as follows:
“12.The decision in Preeti Srivastava case, (1999) 7 SCC 120 does not in any way prohibit the State Government from framing rules which provide for the “double hurdle procedure” as envisaged in the decision of this Court in State of A.P. v. Lavu Narendranath, (1971) 1 SCC 607. On the other hand, in view of the Regulations framed by MCI, as laid down in Preeti Srivastava the universities have no option but to follow the Regulations so framed. The fact that the respondent successfully passed the common entrance examination, despite that does not prohibit the authorities refusing him admission on the ground that he was disqualified from taking the examination.”
In the facts and circumstances of the present case as stated above, though we found that the petitioner without any fault on her part was allowed to participate in the entrance examination to found her successful for selection, but taking note of the fact as mentioned in the admission notification for the academic year 2026-2027 (Annexure-D/2) she is definitely found disqualified to take admission under the Odisha Domicile Reservation Category. Further, since it is submitted that there is no vacant seat available at present in the University to facilitate admission of the petitioner in the University, we do not incline to pass any order to give admission to the petitioner despite the interim order of this court dated 23rd July 2026 that the admission to 3 years LLB course 2026-2027 in NLUO in Odisha Domicile Reservation Category shall be subject to result of the writ petition. It is for the reason that, allowing admission to the petitioner would mean to throw one such admitted candidate from the course. In the circumstances, it is directed that if in the near future, i.e. by end of November 2026 any seat in 3 years LLB course in NLUO falls vacant, the petitioner shall be offered with admission, if no legal impediment is there. In the event the petitioner is not offered admission within the stipulated period as stated above, a sum of Rs.1 lakh (one lakh) shall be paid to the petitioner, which is considered as a symbolic compensation to her for the mistake committed on the part of the NLUO. It is further observed that this should not be treated as a precedent.
With aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is disposed of.