AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.—Petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:
(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and Annexure P-3 dated 15.11.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(i) (a) Writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and Annexure P-5 dated 3.1.2012 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to fill up the vacant seats of Ph.D. Course in the subject of Psychology on the basis of entrance test. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may further very kindly be issued directing the respondent No. 3 to produce any amendment, if has been made exempting the M.Phil persons who have got admission through an entrance test to the Ph.D. Course and the same may very kindly be quashed and set aside being discriminatory in nature.
A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed their reply.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record placed on record.
The case of the petitioners is that all the petitioners, after passing their Masters in Arts in the subject of Psychology, took admission to M.Phil. Course in the subject of Psychology. It was alleged that out of 8 petitioners, 7 have done their Masters degree from the H.P. University and one has done from Delhi University. It was alleged that all the petitioners completed the Masters degree in Sessions 2006-2008. Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted to M.Phil.Course in the respondent-University on the basis of their merit obtained in the Masters Degree, which was completed by them in October 2008. The main grievance of the petitioners is that when they took admission to M.Phil. Course in the year 2008, admissions were made on the basis of their academic merit in the Masters degree. Thereafter, from the next session i.e. from 2009, all admissions to M.Phil. Courses were made through an entrance test. Thus, the petitioners have done their M.Phil. Course on the basis of their academic merit while now, the admissions are being made to M.Phil. on the basis of an entrance test.
It was further alleged that the respondent-University filled in 9 seats for M.Phil. Course in the year 2009, 10 seats in the year 2010 and 5 seats in the year 2011 through entrance test. It was further alleged that the University Grants Commission (UGC for short) formulated regulation known as UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Award of M.Phil./Ph.D. degree) Regulation, 2009, (Annexure P-1).As per Regulation 9(i) of these Regulations, procedure for admission to M.Phil./Ph.D. courses was prescribed and it was made mandatory that for 4 Ph.D./M.Phil. Courses, admissions will be made through entrance test.
It was also alleged by the petitioners that after completion of their M.Phil. Course, the respondent-University conducted entrance test only once for admission to the Ph.D. Course, which test was conducted somewhere in September/October, 2010. It was further alleged that the petitioners appeared in the said entrance test, but none of them could secure 50%, which were minimum marks for admission to the Ph.D. Course. It was further alleged that the University has still not notified or advertised the number of seats for the Ph.D. Course, which is mandatory requirement as per Regulation 8 of the UGC Regulations, 2009. It was further alleged that without notifying the number of seats and date of entrance test, the vacant seats have been ordered to be filled in from amongst following four categories, which have been mentioned in Annexure P-3, office order dated 15.11.2011:
Students who obtained the scholarship of UGCCSIR/JRF.
Students who are taking INSPIRE, DBT, ICMR, DRDO, Rajiv Gandhi National Scholarship.
Students who had done M.Phil. through entrance examination (on merit basis).
Students who passed NET/SLET or equivalent examination of National level.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the category dated 15.11.2011, whereby all the students who have passed their M.Phil. Course through entrance test will only be given admission directly to the Ph.D. Course.
It was further alleged that when the petitioners took admission to M.Phil. Course, admissions were made on the basis of their academic merit obtained in the Masters Degree, but thereafter from 2009 onwards, admissions to M.Phil. Course were made through entrance test. It was also alleged that there are 19 persons available who got admissions to M.Phil. Course through entrance test and as per Annexure P-3, referred to above, the petitioners have been virtually declared ineligible for admission to the Ph.D.Course. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the writ petition challenging the said notification, dated 15.11.2011, Annexure P-3.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-University came up with the clarification that the category of students who had passed M.Phil. Course without the entrance test would be kept in between Sl.No. 3 and 4 of Annexure P-3, office order dated 15.11.2011. During the course of hearing of the petition, clarification was also sought by the University in pursuance of the directions given by this Court and letter from UGC was placed on record in regard to notification dated 11.7.2009. It was submitted that as per notification, dated 11.7.2009, powers have been given by the UGC to the University, vide clause 9(i), which reads as under:
.............................................. The University may decide separate terms and conditions for those students who qualify UGC/CSIR(JRF) Examination/SLET/ GATE/teacher fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil Programme for Ph.D. Entrance Test. ..........................................
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that though they have been placed in between Sl.No. 3 and 4 of Annexure P-3, office order dated 15.11.2011, but in view of the limited number of seats for Ph.D. Course, the petitioners will have no opportunity since preference has been given to students at Sl.No. 1 to 3 and all the seats will be exhausted by such students. To this, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the University were that preference has to be given to the persons who had got scholarship and had passed M.Phil. on the basis of the entrance test. It was also submitted that to keep standards of these courses high, the UGC can prescribe the norms and, therefore, the University cannot bye-pass those instructions and preference has to be given to the persons who are having scholarships. The norms for Ph.D. and other higher Courses can be prescribed by the UGC and the only question is that in case the seats are limited, the petitioners who had passed M.Phil. after taking admission on the basis of academic merit only and without participating in the entrance test have been debarred from entrance in the Ph.D. and as such they are aggrieved by the orders passed by the UGC/H.P. University.
Keeping in view the fact that the admissions have to be made by the University for Ph.D. Courses on the basis of the norms fixed by the UGC, the University is not competent to change the norms and prescribe a fixed percentage of seats for such students, who had passed the M.Phil. Course after being admitted to the Course only on the basis of academic merit. Therefore, in so far as the admissions for the present are concerned, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief. However, for the next academic session, the UGC/H.P. University shall consider the case of the petitioners and similarly placed persons so that they are not debarred from doing Ph.D. Course only because of the fact that they had passed M.Phil. without participating in the entrance test. That question shall be considered by the UGC/H.P. University so that the petitioners are not debarred from doing the Ph.D. Courses since there are no seats reserved for them and once all the seats are exhausted by the students at Sl.No. 1 to 3, nothing will be left for the petitioners who may be more meritorious and as such this point shall be considered from the next academic year onwards. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. Interim order shall stand vacated.