http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DEVJANI CHAKRABARTI & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/05/1984

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) SEN, A.P. (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1444            1984 SCR  (3) 815  1984 SCC  (3) 612        1984 SCALE  (1)856

ACT:      Punjab University  Act, Section  20 (5) and section 31- Power of  the Syndicate,  to  make  rules  relating  Jo  the pattern of education-No rule can be said to be retrospective merely because they subsequently applied to students who had earlier started their educational careers.

HEADNOTE:      With the introduction of the system known as "10 plus 2 plus 3"  in the educational institutions in the country, the Association  of   the  Indian   Universities   decided   the equivalence of  this 10+2+3  system with  the old 11+3 years degree course  system still prevalent is some. States and it suggested that  in all States where the pattern of education is such  as to  require 14  years for  the first degree i.e. 11+3 years  the new  plus 2  stage of  the Central  Board of Secondary Education  be treated  as equivalent  to a pass in the first  year of  the three  years degree  course  or  for admission to  the first year of the two years degree Course. The appellant  Punjab University,  decided on 10.2.1971 that the   12th    standard   examination    conducted   by   the Boards/Universities  under   the  new   10+2+3   system   be recognised   as    equivalent   to    the   Pre-Medical/Pre- Engineering/B.A.  Part   I/B.Sc.Part  I/B.   Com.   Part   I examination according  to the  combination of  the subjects. Subsequently, on  4.6.1978 the  Punjab University decided to treat  the  11th  standard  of  the  new  10+2+3  system  as equivalent  to   the  Pre-University   examination  of   the University. These  recognitions of  the equivalence of these two examinations  continued till  the beginning  of the year 1980. But  on 18.4.1980  the Punjab  University decided that the first  year student  of the  plus 2 course in the 10+2+3 system of  the Central  Board’s schools  who does not take a public examination  at the end of the first year. should not be considered  as equivalent  to the  student who has passed the pre-University  examination of the Punjab University for joining the  Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering/B.A. Part  I/B. Sc. Part II  B. Com.  Part I of the University. On 7.5.1980, the Punjab University decided that the 12th Standard Examination in  the  new  10+2+3  system  conducted  by  any  recognised Board/Council/University shall  be treated  as equivalent to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

the pre-University Examination of the University.      The respondents  in CA  1977/80, namely 1 to 37 who had passed the 12th Standard Examination in the 10+2+3 system of the Central  Board of Education and respondents 38 to 92 who had been  promoted  from  the  11th  Standard  to  the  12th Standard in that system challenged the two decisions 816 of the  Punjab University  dated 18.4.1980,  and 7.5.1980 by filing W.P.  1917 of  1980 contending  that in  view of  the earlier decisions  of the  University namely, Annexures P. 2 and P. 3 dated 10.12.1977 and 4.6.1978 respectively they had joined the  classes in  the plus 2 course with the object of joining the  colleges affiliated  to the  University in  the next class  of equivalence  as also  Engineering and Medical Colleges and  that the  University cannot, therefore, change those decisions by the subsequent decisions, (Annexures R. 2 and R.  3) to  their detriment. They invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel  in regard  to that  ground of attack on those two  decisions. The  second ground  of attack  by  the petitioners in  W.P. 1917  of 1980  was that  the  decisions Annexures R.  2 &  R. 3  are retrospective  in operation and they have  taken  away  their  vested  right  and  that  the University has  no power, either under the Punjab University Act or  under any  statute, regulation  or rule  to make any regulation   rule or  ordinance  adversely  affecting  their vested rights retrospectively.      The learned  Judges of  the Division Bench rejected the contention of the petitioners before them that the Syndicate has no power which the Senate has under s. 31 of the Act and held that  the Syndicate  has similar powers under s. 20 (5) of the  Act. They rejected the further contention that there is any  bar of promissory estoppel against the University in regard to  the matter  and, however, held that petitioners 1 to 37 had joined tho 10+2 course in the Central School lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab University in 1978 and had passed the 12th Standard Examination and had planned their  education in  a particular manner to join the colleges affiliated  to the  Punjab University in the second year of  the 3  year degree  course and  other courses after passing the  12th standard examination in the plus 2 system. They held  that Annexure  R. 3 will deprive petitioners I to 31 and  Annexure R.  2 will  deprive petitioners 38 to 92 of right to  seek admission in Engineering and Medical Colleges after passing  the 12th  Standard in  the 10+2  system.  and Annexures R.  2 and  R. 3  take  away  that  right  and  are retrospective in  nature. In  coming to  this conclusion the learned Judges  of the  Division Bench  relied very strongly upon the  decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court  in Punjab  University vs.  Subhash Chander, 1976 P.L.R. 920.  In view of their decision in W.P. 1911 of 1980, another Bench allowed another W P. 2349 of 1980 filed by the respondents in  C.A.  2667/83.  Hence  the  appeals  by  the University.      Allowing the appeal, the Court. ^      HELD: 1.  The  decisions  dated  10.12.1977,  4.6.1978, 18.4.1980 and  7.5.1980 respectively  are  intra  vires  the powers of  the Syndicate  to make  rules etc.  under section 20(5) of the Punjab University Act in the same manner as the Senate can do under s. 31 of that Act. [819F]      2. In  view of  the decision of the Supreme Court dated 17.5 1984  rendered in  Subhash Chander v. Punjab University (Civil Appeal No. 2828/ 1977 arising out of 1976 P.L.R. 920) and reversing  the said  decision of  the Punjab  High Court relying on which the two Judgments now under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

817 appeal, were  passed, in  the  present  case  also  the  two impugned decisions  are prima facie prospective in operation and they  did not  become retrospective  merely because they subsequently applied  to students  who had  already  started their educational  careers. However,  this decision will not effect the  right which  might  have  been  granted  to  the petitioners in  the writ  petitions  on  the  basis  of  the Judgments of  the High  Court which  have been  reversed  in these appeals [820F; 821E-F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1381 of 1980      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  7th July,  1980 of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court in Civil Writ Petition No . 1917 of 1980.                             And      Civil Appeal No. 2667 of 1983.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  8th July,  1980 of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court in Civil Writ No. 2349 of 1980.      Jawahar Lal Gupta, Janendralal and B.R. Agarwal for the Appellant.      Randhir Jain for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VARADARAJAN, J.  These appeals  by special leave are by the Punjab  University and  directed  against  two  Division Bench judgments  of the  Punjab and,  Haryana High  Court in writ Petitions 1917 of 1980 and 2349 of 1980, allowing those Writ Petitions  without any  order as  to costs W P. 2319 of 1980 was  allowed at  the motion stage on 18.7.1980 as being covered by  the decision  in W  P. 1917  of 1980  which  was disposed of on 7.7.1980. Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. is a party to both  the judgments  and he  sat with  Harbans Lal, J for hearing W.P.  1917 of  1980 and  with M.M.  Punchi,  J.  for hearing W.P.  2349 of  1980. In  these circumstances,  it is necessary to  state only  the facts relating to W.P. 1917 of 1980 alone briefly.      The system  known as  "10 plus  2 plus  3  system"  was introduced in  the educational  institutions in  the country some years  ago.  The  Association  of  Indian  Universities decided the  equivalence of  this 10+2+3 system with the old 11+3 years  degree course system which was prevalent in some States and it suggested that in all States where the pattern of education  is such  as to  require 14 years for the first degree, i e. 11+3 years, the new plus 2 stage of the Central Board of  Secondary Education  be treated as equivalent to a pass in  the first  year of the three-years degree course or for admission  to the  first year  of the  two years  degree course. This suggestion was 818 conveyed by  the Association  of the  Indian Universities to the Chairman  of the Central Board of Secondary Education by a letter  dated 18.4.1978. The appellant, Punjab University, decided on  10.2.1977 that  the  12th  standard  examination conducted by  the Boards/Universities  under the  new 10+2+3 system by  recognised as  equivalent to the Pre-Medical/Pre- Enginerering/B.A.  Part   I/B.Sc.  Part   I/B.Com   Part   I examination according  to the  combination of  the subjects. Subsequently, on  4.6.1978 the  Punjab University decided to treat  the  11th  standard  of  the  new  10+2+3  system  as equivalent  to   the  pre-University   examination  of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

university. Copies  of those  decisions dated  10.2.1977 AND 4.6.1978 were  Annexures P.  2 and P. 3 respectively in W.P. 1917 of 1980. These recognitions of the equivalence of those two examinations  continued till  the beginning  of the year 1980. But  on 18.4.1980  the Punjab  University decided that the first  year student  of the  plus 2 course in the 10+2+3 system of  the Central  Board’s schools  who does not take a public examination  at the  end of the first year should not be considered  as equivalent  to the  student who has passed the pre-University  examination of the Punjab University for joining the  Pre-Medical/Pre-Engineering/B.A. Part  I/B. Sc. Part I/B.Com.  Part I  of the  University. On  7.5.1980, the Punjab University decided that the 12th Standard Examination in  the  new  10+2+3  system  conducted  by  any  recognized Board/Council/University shall  be treated  as equivalent to the pre-University  Examination  of  the  University.  These decisions dated 18.4.1980 and 7.5.1980 are Annexures R-2 and R-3 respectively in W.P. 1917 of 1980.      Petitioners 1 to 37 in W.P. 1917 of 1980 had passed the 12th standard  examination  in  the  10+2+3  system  of  the Central Board  of Education  and petitioners 38 to 92 in the Writ Petition  had been  promoted from  the 11th standard to the 12th standard in that system. These 92 petitioners filed W.P.  1917  of  1980  challenging  the  Punjab  University’s decisions  (Annexures  R-2  and  R-3)  dated  18.4.1980  and 7.5.1980 contending that in view of the earlier decisions of the University,  namely, Annexures  P.  2  and  P.  3  dated 10.2.1977 and  4.6.1978 respectively  they  had  joined  the classes in  the plus  2 course with object of joining in the colleges affiliated  to the  University in the next class of equivalence as  also Engineering  and Medical  Colleges  and that  the   University  cannot,   therefore,  change   those decisions by the subsequent decisions, Annexures R-2 and R-3 to their deteriment. They invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel in  regard to  that ground  of attack  on those two decisions. The second ground of attack by the petitioners 819 in W.P.  1917 of  1980 was  that the decisions Annexures R-2 and R-3  are retrospective  in operation and they have taken away their  vested right  and that  the  University  has  no power, either  under the  Punjab University Act or under any statute, regulation  or rule to make any regulation, rule or ordinance   adversely    affecting   their   vested   rights retrospectively.      The defence  of the  appellant-University was  that the decisions, Annexures  R-2 and R-3 were taken in the place of the earlier  decisions, Annexures  P. 2  and  P.  3  in  the interest of  eduction on  the ground  that the 11th standard examination in  the new  10+2+3  system  was  not  a  public examination and  the standard  of education  in the  schools where that  system was in vague was low and even the marking system  in  the  examination  was  lenient.  The  University further contended  that even  the syllabi  in the equivalent examination in  the schools  and colleges were not the same. The University  stated that  the Committee  of Experts which was constituted  by the  Vice-Chancellor of  the  University when the  students in  the engineering  colleges started  an agitation, went  into the  question and  submitted a  report suggesting the  change in  regard to  equivalence in view of the difference  in the  syllabi and  the deficiency  in  the teaching imparted  in some  subjects  in  the  schools.  The University,  therefore  contended  that  the  new  decisions Annexures R.  2 and  R. 3  were taken  bonafide and are only prospective in operation and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel pleaded  by the  petitioners in  the Writ Petitions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

does not apply to the University.      The decisions  Annexures P.  2, P. 3, R. 2 and R. 3 are of the  Syndicate which has power to make rules etc under s. 20 (5)  of the  Punjab University  Act in the same manner as the Senate  has similar  power under  s. 31 of that Act. The learned Judges of the Division Bench rejected the contention of the  petitioners before  them that  the Syndicate  has no power which  the Senate  has under s. 31 of the Act and held that the Syndicate has similar powers under s. 20 (5) of the Act They  rejected the  further contention that there is any bar of  promissory estoppel against the University in regard to the.  matter and,  however, held that petitioners 1 to 37 had joined  the 10+2  course in  the Central  Schools  lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab University in 1978  and passed  the 12th  Standard Examination  and had planned their  education in  a particular manner to join the colleges affiliated  to the  Punjab University in the second year of  the 3-year  degree course  and other  courses after passing the 12th standard examination in the plus 2 820 system. They  found that  similar is the case of petitioners 38 to 92 in W.P. 1917 of 1980 who had been promoted from the 11th to  the 12th  standard in  the plus 2 system. They held that Annexure  R. 3  will deprive  petitioners 1  to 37  and Annexure R. 2 will deprive petitioners 38 to 92 of the right to seek  admission in Engineering and Medical Colleges after passing the  12th Standard in the 10+2 system, and Annexures R. 2  and R. 3 take away that right and are retrospective in nature. In  coming to  this conclusion the learned Judges of the Division Bench relied very strongly upon the decision of a full  Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Punjab University  v.   Subhash   Chander.   The   learned   Judges accordingly allowed  W.P. 1917  of 1980  on the sole ground, namely, that  Annexures R.  2 and  R. 3  are  bad  as  being retrospective in  operation without an order as to costs and held that  Annexures R. 3 and R. 2 will not stand in the way of petitioners  1 to 7 and 38 to 92 respectively before them from seeking  admission to  higher classes or in Engineering and Medical  Colleges on  the basis  of the  old  decisions, Annexures P.  2 and  P. 3.  The Other  Division Bench  which heard W.P.  2349 of  1980 allowed  that petition without any order as  to costs  as being covered by the decision in W P. 1917 of 1980.      We are  of the  opinion that  these appeals  have to be allowed. The  learned Judges  of the  High Court allowed the Writ Petitions  only on  the ground  that the  new decisions Annexures R.  2 and  R. 3 are retrospective in operation and that they  cannot affect  the writ  petitioners before  them from seeking  admission to  higher classes or in Engineering or Medical  Colleges on  the basis of tile earlier decisions Annexures P. 2 and P. 3, relying mainly upon the decision of the Full  Bench in  Punjab  University  v.  Subhash  Chander (supra). We  have, in  our separate judgment delivered today in C.A.  2828 of  1977, which  arose out  of that Full Bench decision, reversed  that decision  and held  that  there  is nothing retrospective  in the order challenged in that case. In that  case  one  Subhash  Chander  was  admitted  to  the integrated M.B.B.S  course in the Daya Nand Medical College, Ludhiana in  the year  1965. At  the time  of his admission, under Regulation 25 read with r. 7.1, a student who fails in one subject/paper  was entitled to grace marks at 1 per cent of the  total aggregate  marks of all the subjects for which he appeared.  But in 1970 the rule was amended to the effect that the  grace marks  will be  1  per  cent  of  the  total aggregate  marks   for  any   particular  subject   of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

examination in  which he has failed Subhash Chander appeared for the Final M.B.B.S. examination in 1974 and secured 821 106 out of 200 marks in the practical examination and 95 out 200 marks  in the theory examination in Midwifery, which was one of  the four  subjects for  which he  appeared. at  that time. He  had passed  the examinations  in the  other  three subjects for which the total aggregate was 1200 marks. Under the old  rule he  would have been entitled to 16 grace marks at 1  per cent  of the  total  aggregate  of  all  the  four subjects, namely,  1600 marks.  But he  was allowed  only  4 grace marks  under the  new rule  being 1  per cent  of, the aggregate for  the subject  in which  he had  failed namely, Midwifery. The  High  Court  accepted  his  contention  that amendment of  the rule  made in  1970 was  retrospective  in operation though  it was  made applicable to Subhash Chander only in  1974 merely  because he  had joined  the integrated course in  1965 when  the rule  regarding the award of grace marks was  more liberal.  In allowing the appeal against the judgment of  the Full  Bench we have held that (there was no question of  the rule  having any retrospective operative as it was  framed in  1970 and  it did  not  say  that  it  was operative from  any earlier  date  and  it  was  applied  to Subhash Chander  only in  1974. It could not be stated to be retrospective ill operation merely because it was applied to Subhash Chander who had joined the course in 1965 before the amendment was made in 1970.      In the  present case  also the  new decisions are prima facie prospective  in operation  and they  did  not  become. retrospective merely  because they  subsequently appl  ed to students who  had already started their educational careers. We, therefore,  allow these appeals but without any order as to costs  and set  aside the judgments of the High Court and dismiss the  Writ Petitions. However, this decision will not effect the  right which  might  have  been  granted  to  the petitioners in  the writ  petitions  on  the  basis  of  the judgments of  the High  Court which  have been  reversed  in these appeals. S.R.      Appeals allowed. 822