Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Shilpa Gorakh Chavan – Petitioner
Versus
The University Grants Commission and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7795 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2024
PETITIONER - Admission to Ph.D. course - UGC Regulations, 2016, Ordinance-1009 of the University - Summary of Acts and Sections: UGC Regulations, 2016, Clause 5.1; University Ordinance-1009, Clause 2(a), (b), (c), (d), (e)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student with a postgraduate degree in M.Sc. Botany, was admitted to a Ph.D. program under special circumstances by the Vice Chancellor. The University later cancelled her admission, citing non-compliance with UGC Regulations and reservation policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's admission was contrary to the prescribed procedure under UGC Regulations, 2016 and University Ordinance-1009. The Vice Chancellor did not possess the authority to admit students de-hors the admission procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's admission to the Ph.D. program was valid under the UGC Regulations and University Ordinance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the admission of the petitioner was a backdoor entry to the Ph.D. program, as it was granted without complying with the mandatory PET examination and other admission procedures outlined in the UGC Regulations and University Ordinance.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the University's decision to cancel the petitioner's admission to the Ph.D. program.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:
(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University to grant notification as well as degree of Ph.D. in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The petitioner contends that she is a student. She has acquired a postgraduate degree i.e. M.Sc. Botany in the year 2018. She was intending to continue her higher studies in the field of Botany. The petitioner further states that she is a National level sportsperson and participated in the events in Rifle Shooting. She has been awarded Silver Medal for her excellence in the game. According to the petitioner, the University failed to conduct Ph.D. Entrance Test (for short ‘PET’) during the period from 2016 to 2021. Therefore, Vice Chancellor was pleased to grant her admission to Ph.D. as a special case by order dated 24.01.2019. Further she was permitted to carry her research under guidance of Dr. Narayan Pandure as research guide. The petitioner joined her course with effect from 22.03.2019. Her joining report is signed by her Guide Dr. Narayan Pandure as well as Head of the Department. The University granted research approval. The communication to that effect was issued by Deputy Registrar, Ph.D. Section. The petitioner attended pre-Ph.D. course conducted by UGC in the year 2021 and secured A+ grade with 7.08 CGPA. The petitioner continuously submitted her progress report up till 31.12.2021. The petitioner submitted pre-synopsis for the Ph.D. course in the field of Botany. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her final synopsis. Thereafter petitioner submitted her Ph.D. thesis to the Department of Botany. She was given a letter for viva-voce scheduled on 14.03.2022 in the University campus. However, viva-voce has been conducted by virtual mode.
4. On 04.05.2022, the petitioner made an application to the University and requested for issuance of Notification regarding completion of her viva-voce examination. However, the said communication was not replied. At this stage, the University issued impugned communication dated 06.06.2022 stating that the admission of the petitioner in Ph.D. course is cancelled, since her admission was inconsistent with the UGC Regulations, which requires admission to Ph.D. course only through PET examination followed by presentation before Research Recognition Committee (RRC) of the University. Similarly, her admission is contrary to the reservation policy.
5. Petitioner contends that the action of the University is arbitrary. The petitioner was admitted in the year 2019 to the Ph.D. course. She has completed her research and submitted thesis. At this stage, cancellation of her admission to the Ph.D. course would be contrary to the own decision of the University and detrimental to her career advancement.
6. The respondent-University filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed the prayer on the ground that the admission of the petitioner was contrary to the UGC Regulations made operative since the year 2016 to regulate the procedure for admission to the Ph.D. course. Any admission granted without securing merit in the PET examination would be illegal. Admittedly, the petitioner has not passed PET examination. The Vice Chancellor do not possess any special power to grant admission dehors PET examination. It is further contended that the University has taken similar action against 16 candidates, who were illegally admitted to Ph.D. course without qualifying PET. The petitioner cannot seek Writ of Mandamus to regulate her backdoor entry.
7. We have con
Admission to academic programs must adhere to the prescribed procedures and regulations, and any deviation from the same may be considered a backdoor entry, leading to cancellation of admission.
Students cannot be penalized for institutional errors, especially after years of study, as it undermines the pursuit of essential research work.
Adherence to the admission timeline, finality of admissions, and the eligibility of candidates for admission against vacant seats based on the Admission Policy and Procedure 2021-2022.
The tenure of a research Scholarship shall be three years counted from the date of joining. The initial award shall however, be released for one year and then renewed from year to year up to the thir....
Principles of natural justice necessitate an opportunity to be heard before cancellation of admission; failure to provide this renders the decision invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
