PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH versus DEVJANI CHAKRABARTI & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 17-05-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
s1? 
PUNJAB U,NIVERSITY CHANDIGARH 
A 
v. 
DEVJANI CHAKRABARTI & OTHERS 
May 17, 1984 ' 
.. B 
. 
' 
~ j 
[A.P SEN, A. VARADARAJAN AND V. BALAKRiSHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
,. 
) 
,) 
j 
· Punjl:b University Act, Section 20 (5) and Section 31-Power of the 
Syndicate, to make rules, relating to the pattertr of education- No rule can -be 
S(lid to be retrospective merely because they subsequently applied to students 
C 
who. had earlier started their educadonal careers. 
· 
·With the introduction of the system known as f'lO plus 2 plus 3" in 
the educat_ional L1sti1utions in the couutry, the Asscciation of the Indi'an 
Universities decided the equivalence of this 10+2+3 system with the ·old 
11+3 yeafs degree course system still prevalent is some States and it 
suggested that in all States where the paitern 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 Seconda-ry Education be ireated as equivtilent to a 
pass in 1he first year ·or the three years degree course or fOr admission to 
the first 
Y~'<ff of the t\vo years degree Course. 
The ·appellant Punjab 
University, 
drcid~d on 10:2.1977 that the 12th standard• exa,mination 
conducted by the 
Bo~rds/Univcrsities under the new 10+2+3 system be 
recognised as equiva-lent 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.(i.1978 the Punjab Uliiversity decid6d 
to ireat the 11th standard of the new to+2+3 system as equivalent to 
. the Pre~LTniversity cxaminatioi:;i. of the Universi_ty. 
These recognitions of 
the equivaleoce of th£se twO txaminations continued till the beginning of 
the year 1980. 
But on 18.4.1980 the Punjab University decided that the 
first year student of 1he plus 2 course in the 10+2+3 system of the 
Central Board's schools who does not take a pub-lie examination at the-' end 
cf the first year should not be considered ·as equivalent to the student who 
has passed lhe pre-University ·examination of-the PuQjab 
Unive.rsity for 
joinirg the Pre-Medical/Prc.Enginceriog/B.A. Par! I/B. Sc. Part I/B Corn. 
Part I of the University. 
On 7.5.1980, the Punjab University decided 
that Ille 12th Standard ·Exainination in the new 10+2+3 system conducted 
" 
b)'. any recognised Board/Council/Unlv,er.sity shall be treated as equivalent 
to the pre~lJniversity Examination df the University. 
lhe respondents in C~ 1977/80, namely 1 to 37 who had passed the 
I "th Stardard Examination in tbe!O+ 2+3. system of the Central Board of 
Education and respondents 38 to. 9.! who had been promoted. from the 11th 
. Standa~d to the 12th Standard in that system cha!Jeoged the two decisions 
D 
E 
. F 
G 
H 
li16 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
SUPREME COUl!T l!EPOl!TS 
(1984) 3 s.C.R. 
of the Pqnjab 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 
Universitynamely,.Annexures P. 2 and P. 3.dated 10.12.1977 and 4.6.1978 
respec,tively they bad joined the classes in the plus 2 course with the object 
of joining .the coj\ege,s affiliated to. the University in the next class of . 
equivalence as alsq Engineering and Medical Colleges. and that the lJniversity 
cannot, therefore, change those decisions by the subsequent decisions, 
(Ann~xures R. 2 and- R. 3) to their detrinient. 
They invoked the doctrin·e 
of promissory cstoppCI in regard to th_at ground Or attack on ti:u::.c two 
decisions; 
The second groudd of<.1ttack by the petitioners in·. _W.P. 1917 
of 1980 was that the d~cisions Annexures R-: 2·& R-. 3 are _retrospective .in 
operation and they have taken away their vested right and. that the Univer~ · 
sity bas no power, either under lhe· Punjab University Act or under any, 
statute, regulation or rule to make any regulatio'o,) rule or ordinance 
·adversely affecting their vested rights retrospectively, 
The learned Judges of the D'ivision Bench rejected· the con_teotipn of 
the ·petitioners before them that- tb_e Syndicate bas no power which th6 
Senate has under s.31 of the Act and held that the Syndicate has similar 
powe;rs under s.20 (5) of the ·Act. 
They rejected ·the further contention 
.that there is any bar of promissory estoppel against the University in regdrd 
to the mattt.."r and, however, held .that petitioiiers 1 to 37 had ·joined the 
t0+2'coursC in the Central School lying within the territOrial juris

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