P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

LARI, J.

‑This is a suit for declaration that the defendant

the University of Karachi‑had no right to cancel the result of the plaintiff in respect of the First Bachelor of Laws Examination of the University of Karachi held in the month of October 1952 and that the plaintiff was eligible for admission to the second term of the second Bachelor of Laws class of the University of Karachi on 10th July 1952. The allegations made in the plaint are that the plaintiff passed his Intermediate Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of the United Provinces in the year 1944 ; the plaintiff being eligible under Ordinances 76 and 77 of the University of Sind applied on 9th December 1950, for his admission to the First Bachelor of Laws Examination of the University of Sind and was accordingly admitted to the First Bachelor of Laws Class at the Sind Muslim Law College, Karachi; the plaintiff pursued the courses of studies for two terms from November, 1950 to March, 1951 and from June, 1951 to October, 1951; was allowed to sit at the First LL. B., Examination and was declared having passed the same by the University of Karachi and that subsequently the University cancelled the result of the plaintiff as declared earlier and refused to admit him to the second Term of the Second Bachelor of Law classes of the University of Karachi. The University of Karachi filed a written statement in which they alleged that the defendants had acted in accordance with the statute and regulations and consequently their action in cancelling the result and refusing admission could not be questioned in a Civil Court and that the plaintiff had secured admission by misrepresentation. The following issues were framed :‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff has passed Intermediate Examination from the Board of High, School and Inter mediate Education, United Provinces as recognised by defendant University ? (2) Whether the plaintiff was eligible for admission to the First Bachelor of Laws Examination of the University of Sind as under Ordinances 76 and 77 of the University of Sind Ordinances ? (3). Whether the plaintiff secured the eligibility certificate from the University of Sind on 12th December, 1950 by misrepresentation and suppression of facts ? If so, what is its effect ? (4) Whether the plaintiff was eligible to admission to the 1st term of the 2nd LL. B. Class under the provision of Ordinance 78 of the University of Sind and under sections 34 (2) and 46 of the University of the Karachi Act ? (5) Whether the plaintiff was eligible on 10th July, 1952 for his admission to the 2nd term of the 2nd LL. B. Class and whether the defendants by their conduct are estopped from challenging the right of the plaintiff for getting admission in the 2nd term of the 2nd LL. B. Class ? (6) Whether the cancellation of plaintiff's result of First LL. B. Examination vide letter No. SYN/AT/1461 dated 8th/9th October 1952, under clause (j) of section 20 of the University of Karachi Act is legal, intra vires and in accordance with the Ordinances of the University of Sind and section 34 (2) and section 46 of the University of Karachi Act? . (7) Whether the defendant enrolled the plaintiff as a student of Karachi University after due scrutiny of certificates submitted along with enrolment form dated 27th November, 1951 or the enrolment was effected on mis representation of facts ? (8) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit to grant the relief prayed for ? (9) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? The plaintiff examined himself alone. No oral evidence was led by the defendants. The case really proceeded on the basis of admitted documents and relevant statute and regulations. Decision with reasons thereof Issue No. l.‑Whether the plaintiff has passed Inter mediate examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, United Provinces as recognised by Defendant University ? Both the parties relied on the certificate Exh. 5/10 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, United Provinces. This certificate shows that the plaintiff passed Intermediate Examination in English Literature under Regulation 7 Chapter XIV of the Board's Regulations. But this examination has not been recognised as equivalent to Intermediate Arts Examination of the Karachi University. The position is that under Regulation 7 a person if he fulfils certain conditions, is admitted as a private candidate to the Intermediate Examination in English only and if he passes that examination he is entitled to a certificate of having passed the Examination in English only. Such a person may be allowed to appear as a private candidate at a subsequent Intermediate Examination in the remaining subjects and if successful then is given a certificate of having passed the Intermediate Examination. It may be noted that every candidate for Intermediate Examination has to; be examined in five subjects. It is only such a candidate who gets a certificate for having passed Intermediate Arts Exami nation. This will be clear from a perusal of Regulations 7, 7 (a) and 5 of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Regulation 5 says every candidate for the Intermediate Examination shall be examined in five subjects included in any one of the Groups, A, B. C and D." Regulation 7 says :‑ "Any candidate who holds a certificate . . . . may be admitted as a private candidate to the Intermediate Examination in English only . . . . and such a candidate shall, if successful, be entitled to a certificate of having passed the examination in English." Regulation 7 (a) says :‑ "Candidates who have passed the Intermediate Exami nation in English only under Regulation 7 may be allowed to appear as private candidates at a subsequent Intermediate Examination in the remaining subjects provided they have also passed the full High School Examination and, if success ful shall be given a certificate of having passed the Intermediate Examination." Ordinance 3 (7) of the University of Sind laid down that the students who had passed the Intermediate Arts, Inter -Science or Intermediate Commerce Examination could be admitted to the First LL. B. Class. My finding on this issue is that the plaintiff passed the Intermediate Examination in English only and not Inter Arts Examination which alone was recognised by the Sind University and its successor the Karachi University. Issue No. 2.‑Whether the plaintiff was eligible for admission to the First Bachelor of Law Examination of the University of Sind as under Ordinances 76 and 77 of the University of Sind Ordinances ? Ordinance 76 lays down that the candidates for the degree of LL.B. must have passed the Intermediate Arts, Inter mediate Science or the Intermediate Commerce Examination of the University, or the same examination of any other University recognised as equivalent to the corresponding examination of the University. Ordinance 77 says that no candidate shall be admitted to the 1st LL. B. Examination unless he shall have passed the Intermediate Arts, Science or Commerce Examination of the University or an equivalent examination of another University or Board of Intermediate Education recognized by the University. Before the plaintiff could be admitted to the 1st LL. B. Examination he must have passed the Intermediate Arts Examination. I have already held that the plaintiff passed the Intermediate Examination in English only and not Intermediate Arts Examination and consequently he was not eligible for admission. The issue is decided in the negative. Issue No. 3.‑Whether the plaintiff secured the eligibility certificate from the University of Sind on 12th December 1950 by misrepresentation and suppression of facts ? If so, what is its effect ? The application for admission to 1st LL. B. Class is Exh.

515. In this the applicant alleged against column 10 that he appeared privately for Intermediate Arts, Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P., Allahabad. In column 11 Details of Examination passed' he mentioned that he appeared privately at Intermediate Arts Examination. It is argued on the basis of the entries that there was misrepre sentation by the plaintiff at the time of seeking admission. The plaintiff, however, points out that he had filed the original certificate Exh. 5/10 which clearly slowed that be had passed Intermediate Examination in English only. It seems that both the plaintiff and the University authorities were laboring under a misapprehension. Both thought that the examination which the plaintiff had passed was Intermediate Arts Examination. It cannot be held, therefore, that eligibility certificate was secured by misrepresentation and suppression of facts. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the University of Karachi is barred by estoppel from contesting the eligibility of the plaintiff for admission to 1st LL. B. Examination. Reliance has been placed by the plaintiff on the case of Sarat Chunder Dey and others v. Gopal Chunder Laha (I A Vol. XIX p. 203), their Lordships observed that it was quite unnecessary in order to create estoppel that the person whose acts or declarations induced another to act must have been under no mistake himself, or must have acted with an intention to mislead or deceive. The principle laid down, if I may say with respect, is quite correct. But the question here is whether there can be estoppel against the provisions of any statute. The statute did require that a candidate must have passed Intermediate Arts Examination and if the plaintiff has not passed that examination is it permissible for the defendants to make the plaintiff eligible because of estoppel ? The defendants relied on two cases of the Privy Council. The first case is Surajmull Nagoremudl v. Triton Insurance Co., Ltd., (A I R 1925 P C 83). Their Lordships observed "No Court can enforce as valid, that which competent enactments have declared shall not be valid, nor is obedience to such an enactmnent a thing from which a Court can be dispensed by the consent of the parties, or by a failure to plead or to argue the point at the outset." The second case is Maritime Electric Co., Ltd., v: General Dairies, Ltd. (A I R 1937 P C 114). Their Lordships observed to the following effect :‑ "Whereas here the statute imposes a duty of a positive kind not avoidable by the performance of any formality, for the doing of the very act which the plaintiff seeks to do, it is not open to the defendant to set up an estoppel to prevent it. This conclusion must follow from the circum stances that an estoppel is only a rule of evidence which under certain special circumstances can be invoked by a party to an action ; it cannot therefore avail in such a case to release the plaintiff from an obligation to obey such a statute, nor can it enable the defendant to escape from a statutory obligation of such a kind on his part." The cases relied upon by the defendants are germane to the point at issue. The issue of an eligibility certificate would not stop the defendant from challenging the eligibility of the plaintiff if he was not eligible under the statute and it has already been held that the plaintiff was not eligible for admission to the First Year LL. B. Class. My finding under this issue is that eligibility certificate did not improve the position of the plaintiff. Issue No. 6.‑Whether the cancellation of plaintiff's result of First LL. B. Examination vide letter No. SYN/AT/1461 dated 8th/9th October 1952, under clause (j) of section 20 of the University of Karachi Act is legal, intra vires and in accordance with the Ordinances of the University of Sind and section 34 (2) and section 46 of the University of Karachi Act ? It has been argued that the Syndicate of the Karachi University could not cancel the result published by it. Under section 4 (16) of the University of Karachi Act the University has the following powers among others : "to do all such other acts and things, whether incidental to the powers aforesaid or not, as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the University as a teaching and examining body, and to cultivate and promote Arts. Science. Islamic Learning, Urdu and other branches of learning." The powers of the Syndicate are defined in section 20 of the University of Karachi Act. Sub‑clauses 'H' and `J' are relevant. Sub‑clause 'H' says that the Syndicate shall arrange, for the holding of, and publish the results of the University Examinations, while sub‑clause 'J' says that the Syndicate shall exercise all other powers of the University the exercise of which is not otherwise provided for by this Act or the Statutes. The effect of section 20 (h) and (j) read with section 4 (16) is that the Syndicate has the power to hold and publish results of the University Examinations and to do all such other acts and things as may be requisite in order to further the objects of the University as a teaching and examin ing body. The Syndicate has an authority to hold and publish the results of the University Examinations. It must have necessarily the powers to cancel the results, if any, found published because of mistake. The plaintiff was not entitled to appear in the examination and consequently the defendants were entitled to cancel the results of an examination to which he had been wrongly admitted. The issue is decided against the plaintiff. Issues Nos. 4, 5 and 7.‑Whether the plaintiff was eligible to admission to the 1st term of the 2nd LL. B. Class under the provision of Ordinance 78 of the University of Sind and under sections 34 (2) d 46 of the University of the Karachi Act? Whether the plaintiff was eligible on 10th July, 1952 for his admission to the 2nd term of the 2nd LL. B. Class and whether the defendants by their conduct are estopped from challenging the right of the plaintiff for getting admission in the 2nd term of the 2nd LL. B. Class ? Whether the defendant enrolled the plaintiff as a student of Karachi University after due scrutiny of certificates submitted along with enrolment form dated 27th November 1951 or the enrolment was effected on misrepresentation of facts ? In view of my decisions under issues Nos. 2 and 6 it must be held that the plaintiff was not eligible for admission to the 1st term of the 2nd LL. B. Class or to the 2nd term of the 2nd LL. B. Class and the University was not estopped from challenging the eligibility of the plaintiff. Issues Nos. 8 and 9.‑Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit to grant the relief prayed for ? To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? I have already held in case Shafqatulla Qadri v. University of Karachi (P L D 1954 Sind 107) that this Court is competent to grant a relief if the University acts contrary to Statutes and Ordinances of) the University. But in this case it has been held that the University has acted legally. The plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to any relief. The defendants, however, are not titled to costs, as it was because of their negligent ac that the plaintiff got admission and pursued studies for re than a year in LL. B. Classes. The suit fails but the r ties are directed to bear their own costs. A. H. Suit dismissed.