SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 249

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, A.K. SIKRI
TWINKLE WADHWA … PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. . . . RESPONDENTS
WP(C) NO5163 OF 2010
Decided On : 30.01.2012

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. M.R. Shamshad, Advocate with Mr. A.S. Azhad, Advocate.
Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Adv. for Respondent No.1/University of Delhi

The judgment emphasizes the need for a contextual and rational interpretation of statutory provisions and the authority of the Academic Council to grant exemptions from the Ordinances.

Headnote:

Judicial Officer - Enrollment for Ph.D. Degree Programme - UGC Regulation, 2009, Ordinance VI-B - The court discussed UGC Regulation, 2009, Ordinance VI-B, and the power of Academic Council to grant exemption from the operation of any of the Ordinances.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Judicial Officer, sought enrollment for a Ph.D. Degree Programme at the University of Delhi. The University's refusal was based on the requirement of study leave for two years to fulfill residency requirement, which the petitioner was unable to obtain due to her official duties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's job profile facilitated her research and that the requirement of study leave was not applicable in her case. The court recommended the Academic Council to consider waiving the requirement for the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the study leave requirement for enrollment in the Ph.D. Programme and the rationality of the University's decision in the petitioner's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a situationalist approach and the importance of a reasonable and just interpretation of statutory provisions. It also highlighted the power of the Academic Council to grant exemptions from the Ordinances.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition and recommended the Faculty of Law to forward the petitioner's case to the Academic Council for a decision on the waiver request within two months.

Judgment

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, A.K. SIKRI

1. The petitioner herein is a Judicial Officer in Delhi Judicial Service. After successfully undergoing the selection process, she was appointed as Judicial Officer. At that time, she was pursuing her course in Masters of Law (L.L.M). She successfully completed the said course in the year 2009. With a desire to pursue higher education, she applied to the respondent University of Delhi for being enrolled for the Ph.D. Degree Programme on 27th July, 2009. For pursuing this Ph.D course, she had applied to her employer viz High Court of Delhi for permission to pursue the said course. This permission was duly granted to her by the High Court on 19th September, 2009 wherein it was mentioned that the permission was subject to the condition that “joining of course by her should not affect her disposal and maintaining of official punctuality” and „course timing should not overlap normal court working hours” and no study leave would be granted to her except the leave for actual date of examination.

2. It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that just before the petitioner had applied for enrollment for the Ph. D. Degree Programme, on 1st June, 2009, the University Grants Commission issued UGC (Minimum Standards and procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the UGC Regulation, 2009). Regulation 13 thereof reads as under:-

“13. After having been admitted, each M.Phil/Ph. D student shall be required by the Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and Colleges/Institutions of National Importance, as the case may be, to undertake course work for a minimum period of one semester. The course work shall be treated as pre M.Phil/Ph. D preparation and must include a course on research methodology which may include quantitative methods and Computer Applications. It may also involve reviewing of published research in the relevant field. The individual Universities, Institutions, Deemed to be Universities and College/Institutions of National Importance, as the case may be, shall decide the minimum qualifying requirement for allowing a student to proceed further with the writing of the dissertation. If found necessary, course work may be carried out by doctoral candidates in sister Department/Institutes either within or outside the University for which due credit will be given to them.”

Pursuant thereto, the Delhi University issued Ordinance VI-B incorporating clause 4D and E which read as under:- “4D. University/College Teachers holding a permanent, temporary or ad-hoc positions having completed two years of service as Teacher in a Department/Constituent Colleges of the University of Delhi.” 4E. Candidates sponsored by their employers shall be considered only if they get study leave for a period of two years to fulfill residency requirement of the University of Delhi.”

3. In the application made for enrollment to the doctoral degree, the petitioner had proposed her topic of research as “Validity of Pre-Nupital Contracts-A Comparative Study”. It would be worthwhile to mention that at that time the petitioner as Judicial Officer was discharging her duties of MM/Mahila Court. In that capacity, she was dealing with matrimonial and women related issues. According to her, while dealing with these cases, she thought of the aforesaid topic for the purpose of doctoral research as she was gaining practical experience while dealing with such cases on day to day basis.

4. As is clear from clause 4D and E of Ordinance VI-B that if a candidate for enrolment of Ph.D. Programme happens to be a teacher in the University or College, whether in permanent, temporary or ad-hoc capacity, the requirement for her/him is two years of service as teacher. On the other hand, if the said candidate is employed somewhere else (like the petitioner), the candidature is to be considered only if such a candidate is able to ge














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top