PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ANOTHER versus MANISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 24-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2013] 1 S.C.R. 622 
PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE 
AND ANOTHER 
. 
v. 
MANISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 674 of 2013) 
JANUARY 24, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Education - Admission - Requiring 60% marks in the 
C qualifying examination - The candidate mentioned in the 
enrolment form that he had secured 56% marks in the 
qualifying examination - While in the declaration appended 
to enrolment form asserted that he had secured 60% marks 
- University did not permit him to appear in the exam - Writ 
D petition by the candidate seeking direction to appear in the 
exam or for compensation of Rs. 10 Jakhs - Single Judge of 
High Court did not permit him to appear in exam as he had 
not got 60% marks in the qualifying exam, but granted him 
compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs stating that the candidate had 
E declared in admission form that he had got 56% marks, but 
the college failed to inform him that he was required to 
possess 60% marks - Division Bench affirmed the order of 
Single Judge - On appeal, held: Conclusion of High Court 
is contrary to the materials placed on record - The candidate 
F 
applied for admission knowing fully well that he had not 
secured the minimum eligible marks - Candidate cannot 
claim benefit for his own wrong - College cannot be held liable 
for the act of the candidate - Direction for compensation, not 
sustainable. 
G 
Appellant-College invited applications against 
lapsed/vacant seats for various branches including 
admission for second year (3rd Samester) of Engineering 
for Diploma Holders/B.Sc. with maths eligibility with 60%' 
marks. In pursuance to the invitation, respondent No. 1 
H 
622 
PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF COMPUTER 
623 
SCIENCE v. MANISH KUMAR 
applied for admission in 3rd Semester for the course of A 
B. Tech. When his application was forwarded to the 
University for examinations, it refused him to appear in 
the examinations on the ground that he was not having 
60% marks in B.Sc. The appellant-College cancelled his 
admission and refunded the entire fee deposited by him. 
B 
Respondent No. 1 filed a Writ Petition praying for a 
direction to the University to permit him to appear in the 
exam or to pay him compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Single 
Judge of High Court rejected the prayer of ~espondent C 
No. 1 to appear in the examination, but directed the 
appellant-College to compensate him by paying Rs. 5 
lakhs. Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order 
of the Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
F 
HELD: 1. The conclusion of the Single Judge of High 
Court that respondent No.1 had declared in the 
admission form that he got 56% marks in B.Sc 
examination a.nd the appellant-College was not able to 
E 
show that prior to granting admission they had informed 
him that he should possess 60% marks in the qualifying 
examination is contrary to the materials placed before 
him. The advertisement calling for applications 
specifically mentioned that minimum 60% marks in B.Sc. 
Maths is the eligibility criteria and based on the same, 
respondent No.1-candidate applied for the same. In the 
enrolment form in clause 17(ii) respondent No. 1 has 
specifically stated that he secured 56% marks. The 
appellant-College could have rejected his application. 
However, in view of the assertion made by respondent G 
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. When the 
deficiency was pointed out by the University, the 
appellant-College refunded the entire fees received by 
H 
624 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 
A them from respondent No.1. In such circumstances, in 
view of perverse finding by the Single Judge of High 
Court which was simply affirmed by the Division Bench, 
the direction to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the 
candidate - respondent No.1 cannot be sustained. [Paras 
8 8 and 9] [629-E-F; 630-A·E] 
2. 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 
C required conditions, state the correct parti·culars in the 
application form failing which he/she cannot claim any 
benefit for his/her own wrong. The view that the 
conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge and the 
Division Bench finding fault with

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.