Amjad Siddiqui and Others vs University of Lucknow and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Nath Misra learned Counsel for the respondents.

Since, short question involved in the present bunch of writ petitions relate to admission to Ph.D. course in different subjects i.e. Law, Chemistry, Maths and Hindi of the Lucknow University for the year 2007-2008. With the consent of parties'' counsel, I proceed to decide the writ petitions finally by common judgement.

According to petitioner''s counsel respondents had invited applications for admission to Ph.d course declaring the specify number of seats like in Law the number of vacancies were 84. Later on, by office memorandum dated 8.6.2009 Lucknow University in compliance of guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission decided to hold written test. Hence, earlier decision to admit students on merit was annulled.

It has been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the number of seats were reduced substantially and the vacancies notified were not filled up. For example in law 84 vacancies were notified but instead of 84 vacancies only 30 candidates were required for admission.

It has further been stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that it shall be obligatory on the part of respondents to admit the candidates or to fill up the vacancies which were notified initially in pursuance to decision of the department or other authorities of the University.

Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the Office Memorandum dated 8.6.2009 provides that admission shall be done in pursuance to written test.

Shri Upendra Nath Misra learned Counsel for the respondents, in reply submits that Office Memorandum dated 8.6.2009 has been issued in pursuance to University Grants Commission guidelines, which has got binding effect.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. A perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 8.6.2009 shows that the University took a decision that written test shall be held in the month of August, 2009 and February, 2010. Meaning thereby, the Office Memorandum shall be applicable for the purpose of vacancies of Ph. d course which respondents are proceeding to fill up for the session 2009-10 and 2010-11 onward. The Office Memorandum dated 8.6.2009, at the face of record seems to be prospective in nature. Accordingly, earlier vacancies should be filled up by respondents in accordance with the earlier rules covering the admission for Ph.d course.

Apart from above, while taking a fresh decision the vacancies of Ph.d at later stage should not be reduced without reasonable cause.

A perusal of the impugned notice dated 15.9.2008 shows that the University has decided to fill up only 30 seats for Ph.d in law. No reason has been assigned while circulating the impugned notice for reduction of seat from 84 to 30. Respondents should have assigned reason for reduction of notified vacancies for Ph.d course which seems to have not been done.

Needless to say that number of vacancies provided for the purpose of Ph.d course is prescribed keeping in view the teacher students ratio and available infrastructure. In case, for example in the law the University had notified 84 vacancies keeping in view the teacher student ratio and other infrastructure then arbitrarily vacancies should not have been reduced by the respondents.

As observed hereinabove, circular of University Grants Commission seems to has got prospective application. It has been brought into notice of this Court that till date vacancies of Ph.d course of the session 2007-08 and 2008-09 has not been filled up by the respondents.

It has been stated by Shri Upendra Nath Mishra that in some subjects vacancies have been increased. In case, it is so, then respondent may consider the case of candidates against the increased vacancies for admission to Ph.d course in respective subjects subject to fulfillment of necessary criteria in accordance to rule existing in the session 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

In view of above, writ petition deserves to be allowed. Writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned notice dated 15.9.2008 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners'' case on the basis of rules existing prior to issuance of office memorandum dated 8.6.2009, a copy of which has been filed as S.A. 4 to the writ petition.

Undoubtedly, all vacancies which has been arises from session 2009-10 should be filled up in accordance to office memorandum issued in pursuance to circular of University Grant Commission. So far as petitioners are concerned they seems to be have got right to be considered for admission to Ph.d course in accordance with law existing prior to 8.6.2009. Let a decision be taken by the respondents expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Let a certified copy of the present order be provided to the parties'' counsel on payment of usual charges within three days.