AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathish Ninan, J
Heard Sri.A.L.Navaneeth Krishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, and Smt.M.Kabani Dinesh, learned counsel for the 18th respondent. In spite of service of notice on the other respondents, there is no appearance.
The process of selection conducted by the first respondent University to its Ph.D programme, 2022 was under challenge in the writ petition. The grounds of challenge were two fold; firstly, violation of UGC guidelines dated 07.11.2022, and secondly, failure to take the aggregate of the marks secured in the written examination along with the marks in the interview, for preparation of the rank list.
This Court as per judgment sought to be reviewed rejected the first ground of challenge holding that the UGC guidelines dated 07.11.2022 does not apply to the case at hand. However, the second contention of the writ petitioners was accepted and this Court directed that a fresh rank list shall be prepared by consolidating the marks obtained in the written examination and interview.
The present review petition is filed by the writ petitioners producing therewith Annexure-1 UGC regulations dated 16.10.2018 contending that, at the relevant time of notification for admissions (Ext.P3 in the writ petition) the said UGC regulations were in force and applicable. As per the said UGC regulation, 70% weightage is to be given to the entrance test and 30% weightage is to be given to the interview. Not only that the University failed to bring to the notice of this Court the said fact, but it also failed to follow the said regulations. Therefore, the judgment is sought to be reviewed, is the contention.
The stand taken by the University is that, the University had not adopted the UGC regulations dated 16.10.2018, and hence it is not binding on them.
The existence of Annexure-1 UGC regulations and its non-consideration are sufficient grounds for reviewing the judgment.
Resultantly, the Review Petition is allowed. The judgment dated 21.02.2023 is recalled. The writ petition is restored to file.