Page 1

REPORTABLE        

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  674  OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27618 of 2009)

Priyadarshini College of Computer  Science and Another                   .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Manish Kumar and Others                         .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and  

order  dated  03.08.2009  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 1110 of 2009,  

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the  

appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order  

dated 01.07.2009 of the learned Single Judge in Civil  Writ  

Petition No. 3465 of 2008.

1

Page 2

3) Brief facts:

(a) Priyadarshini College of Computer Science – Appellant  

No.1-herein  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  “appellant-

College”) is a recognized institution and is affiliated with the  

Uttar Pradesh Technical University, Lucknow and is imparting  

technical  education  for  various  branches  including  B.Tech  

(Computer Science), B.Tech (Electronics & Communication),  

B.Tech (Information & Technology) and B.Tech (Electronics &  

Instrumentation).  

(b) On 21.08.2007, the appellant-College published a notice  

in  the  daily  Hindi  Newspaper  “Dainik  Jagran”  inviting  

applications  against  lapsed/vacant  seats  for  the  Session  

2007-08 for various branches including admission for Second  

Year (3rd Semester) of Engineering for Diploma Holders/B.Sc.  

with Maths eligibility with minimum 60% marks.  

(c) In  pursuance  of  the  aforesaid  notice,  Manish  Kumar  

-respondent No.1 applied for admission in 3rd Semester for  

the course of B.Tech (Computer Science) in the appellant-

College.  At the same time, admission in the First Year (1st  

2

Page 3

Semester)  of the aforesaid branches was also going on in  

which the minimum qualification was 10+2 with 50% marks.  

(d) The appellant-College relying on the declaration made  

by respondent No.1 in the admission form that he is having  

60% marks  in  the  qualifying  subjects  (though  actually  he  

secured 56%) admitted him in B.Tech (Computer Science) for  

the Second Year (3rd Semester) by taking the requisite fee.  

(e) On 03.12.2007, when his application was forwarded to  

the University for 3rd Semester  Examinations, it  refused to  

issue admit card to appear in the examination, since he was  

not  having  the  required  percentage  of  marks  i.e.  60%.  

Subsequently, the appellant-College cancelled the admission  

of  respondent  No.1  and  refunded  the  entire  fee  of  

Rs.59,715/- deposited by him on the same day.

(f) Aggrieved by the same, in January, 2008, respondent  

No.1 filed a  petition being Writ  Petition No. 3465 of 2008  

before the High Court praying for a direction to the University  

to  permit  him  to  appear  in  the  examination  or  to  pay  a  

compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to him.

3

Page 4

(g) Learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court,  vide  order  

dated  01.07.2009,  treating  the  writ  petition  as  that  of  a  

Public Interest Litigation allowed the writ petition in part and  

held that since respondent No.1-herein does not possess the  

minimum qualification for appearing in the 3rd Semester of  

B.Tech (Computer  Science) rejected his prayer to appear in  

the examination but in order to compensate him for the loss  

suffered  directed  the  appellant-College  to  pay  a  

compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to him within six weeks from the  

date of the order.  The High Court also held that if appellant-

herein fails to pay the said amount, respondent No.1 is at  

liberty to approach the District Magistrate, G.B. Nagar, Noida  

for realizing the said amount from the respondent-College as  

arrears  of  land  revenue.   It  further  held  that  respondent  

No.3-University  shall  be  at  liberty  to  initiate  appropriate  

proceedings  against  the  appellant-College  for  granting  

admission to respondent No.1.

(h) Being  aggrieved  by  the  order  of  the  learned  Single  

Judge,  the  appellant-College  filed  an  appeal  being  Special  

Appeal No. 1110 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the  

4

Page 5

High Court.  The Division Bench, by order dated 03.08.2009,  

dismissed the appeal of the appellants.  

(i) Being  dissatisfied,  the  appellants  have  preferred  the  

above appeal by way of special leave.  

4) We heard Mr. Aman Vachher, learned counsel for the  

appellants  and  Mr.  Satyendra  Kumar,  learned  counsel  for  

respondent No.1.

5) In order to understand the rival claim and the decision  

of the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench of  

the High Court, it is useful to reproduce the advertisement  

dated  21.08.2007  published  by  the  appellant-College  in  

Dainik Jagran which reads as under:

“Established in 1991

Priyadarshini College of Computer Sciences

(Affiliated to U.P. Technical University Lucknow and  approved by AICTE Govt. of India)

SPOT ADMISSION 2007-2008

Applications  are  invited  against  lapsed/vacant  seats.  Admission  open  in  IInd  year  of  Engg  for  Diploma  holders/BSc. with Maths Eligibility minimum 60% marks in  the following branches.

i. B Tech (Computer Science & Engg.) ii B Tech (Electronics & Comm.)

5

Page 6

iii. B Tech (Information Technology) iv. B Tech (Electronics & Instrumentation)

ALSO URGENTLY REQUIRED

1. Accountants, PA/PS 2. Catering Contractor for Running Mess & Canteen

CONTACT

Plot No.6-A, Institutional Area, Knowledge Park – I Greater Noida 201306 Ph:-0120-2322751, 09911027176”

6) Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  publication,  like  others,  

respondent  No.1-herein  also  submitted  duly  filled  in  

application form and the same was received by the office of  

the  appellant-College.   The  advertisement  referred  above  

clearly  mentions  the  eligibility  of  minimum 60% marks  in  

B.Sc with Maths for admission in the IInd year (3rd Semester)  

in  B.Tech  (Computer  Science).   It  is  the  claim  of  the  

appellant-College that respondent No.1 has not disclosed the  

percentage of marks of qualifying examination and according  

to  clause  (b)  of  the  undertaking  given  by  him  in  the  

admission form that if any of the statement is subsequently  

found to be untrue, his admission to the College would be  

cancelled.  It is also brought to our notice that there was a  

specific clause in the admission form about the disclosure of  

6

Page 7

the  percentage  of  marks  of  qualifying  subject  but  in  that  

respondent No.1 has not disclosed the percentage of marks,  

namely,  56%.   In  this  way,  according  to  the  appellant-

College, respondent No.1 has concealed the relevant facts.  It  

is  also  brought  to  our  notice  that  in  the  duly  filled  in  

enrolment form by respondent No.1, in Column 17 (ii), with  

reference to percentage of marks obtained in qualifying level  

examination, he correctly mentioned the marks secured by  

him as 56%, on the other hand, in the declaration made by  

him which was appended along with the enrolment form, in  

Clause  7  he  unequivocally  declared  that  he  secured  60%  

marks in qualifying subjects.

7) From the details mentioned in the advertisement, it is  

clear that in respect of lapsed/vacant seats, applications are  

invited for admission in IInd Year of Engineering for Diploma  

holders/B.Sc  with  Maths  with  minimum  60% marks.   It  is  

further  clear  that  respondent  No.1  has  secured  only  56%  

marks in the qualifying level examination which is evident  

from Clause 17(ii) of the enrolment form.  It is true that in the  

scrutiny itself, it would be open to the appellant-College to  

7

Page 8

reject his application.  However, since respondent No. 1 has  

made  a  categorical  declaration  (which  is  mandatory  by  a  

candidate) declaring that he had secured 60% marks in the  

qualifying subject,  the appellant-College admitted him and  

received fees.  The fact is that the eligibility condition is 60%,  

however,  respondent  No.1  has  secured  only  56%  marks  

applied  for  the  said  course  with  an  intention  to  secure  

admission  by  playing  fraud  with  the  appellant-College.  

Unfortunately, learned single Judge failed to take note of this  

relevant aspect which was merely affirmed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court.

8) It is relevant to point out that when the University found  

that respondent No.1 was not eligible for the said course, it  

rejected his candidature and he was not allowed to appear in  

the  examination.   In  such  circumstance,  respondent  No.1  

approached  the  High  Court  for  appropriate  direction  for  

allowing him to appear in the examination.  In the said writ  

petition,  though  the  prayer  of  respondent  No.1  was  not  

considered by the learned single Judge, however, a direction  

was  issued  to  the  appellant-College  herein  to  pay  a  

8

Page 9

compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to him within six weeks from the  

date of its order, namely, 01.07.2009.  The perusal  of the  

order of learned single Judge proceeds that respondent No.1  

herein had declared in the admission form that he got 56%  

marks in B.Sc examination and the appellant-College was not  

able  to  show  that  prior  to  granting  admission  they  had  

informed  him  that  he  should  possess  60%  marks  in  the  

qualifying  examination.   Learned  single  Judge  has  also  

concluded that  it  would have been a  different  case if  the  

candidate  had  provided  wrong  information  to  the  College  

that he had 60% marks in B.Sc and it was later found that he  

had marks less than 60% marks.  Learned single Judge has  

also concluded that  the appellant-College has cheated the  

candidate by granting him admission taking fees from him  

knowing  fully  aware  that  he  does  not  have  the  requisite  

qualification for grant of admission.  The above-mentioned  

conclusion  of  the  learned  single  Judge  is  contrary  to  the  

materials placed before him.   

9) We  have  already  extracted  the  entire  advertisement  

calling for applications in which they specifically mentioned  

9

Page 10

that  minimum 60% marks  in  B.Sc.  Maths  is  the  eligibility  

criteria and based on the same, respondent No.1-candidate  

also applied for the same.  We have also pointed out that in  

the enrolment form in clause 17(ii) he has specifically stated  

that  he  secured  56%  marks.   As  observed  earlier,  the  

appellant-College  could  have  rejected  his  application.  

However, in view of the assertion made by respondent No.1  

in  Clause  7  of  the  declaration  that  he  had  secured  60%  

marks, the appellant-College accepted his form and admitted  

him in the course he applied for.  It is also relevant to point  

out  that  when  the  deficiency  was  pointed  out  by  the  

University,  the  appellant-College  refunded  the  entire  fees  

received by them from respondent No.1.  It is not disputed by  

the  candidate  –  respondent  No1  herein.   In  such  

circumstances,  in  view of  perverse  finding  by the  learned  

single Judge as mentioned above, which was simply affirmed  

by  the  Division  Bench,  we  hold  that  the  direction  to  pay  

compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the candidate – respondent  

No.1 herein cannot be sustained.  As a matter of fact, it is  

pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant-College that  

10

Page 11

respondent  No.1-candidate  has  not  complained  about  any  

claim of donation or additional  money paid by him to the  

appellant-College.  

10) It has to be kept in mind that every candidate applying  

for  a  particular  course  in  any  College  is  expected  to  go  

through the advertisement thoroughly including the eligibility  

criteria prescribed for each course and after fulfillment of the  

required  conditions,  state  the  correct  particulars  in  the  

application  form  failing  which  he/she  cannot  claim  any  

benefit for his/her own wrong.   

11) We are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the  

learned single Judge and the Division Bench finding fault with  

the  appellant-College  is  clearly  erroneous  and  that  the  

appellant-College  cannot  be  held  liable  for  the  act  of  

respondent No.1 herein who knowing fully aware that he had  

not  secured  the  minimum  eligible  marks,  yet  applied  for  

admission.

11

Page 12

12) In the light of the above discussion, the orders passed  

by the learned single Judge dated 01.07.2009 in Civil  Writ  

Petition No. 3465 of 2008 and the Division Bench of the High  

Court dated 03.08.2009 in Special Appeal No. 1110 of 2009  

are  quashed  insofar  as  direction  for  payment  of  

compensation of Rs 5 lakhs is concerned, consequently, the  

appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs.                    

...…………….…………………………J.               (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

..…....…………………………………J.        (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)         

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 24, 2013.  

12