Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
SHUBHANSHU SINGH & OTHERS – Petitioners
Versus
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 1557 of 2017 & C.M. No. 7018 of 2017
Decided On : 16-03-2017
JNU ADMISSION POLICY - UGC REGULATIONS - ADOPTION - PROCEDURE - ACADEMIC COUNCIL - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL - STATUTORY REGULATIONS - BINDING NATURE - DEVIATION - WEIGHAGE OF WRITTEN AND VIVA-VOCE - RATIO - UGC ACT, 1956 - SECTIONS 2(F), 14, 26(1)(F) & (G) - JNU ACT, 1966 - STATUTES 15, 36 - REGULATIONS 5.2.1, 5.3, 6.5 - UGC (MINIMUM STANDARDS AND PROCEDURE FOR AWARD OF M.PHIL/PH.D DEGREE) REGULATIONS, 2016 - CLAUSES 1.2, 1.3, 5.2, 6.5, 12, 13.2 - RATIO DECIDENDI : The UGC Regulations, 2016 are binding on the respondent University in view of the operation of provisions of the UGC Act, 1956. The Academic Council and Executive Council are necessarily to adopt the Regulations in the University Ordinance without any deviation. The plea of the petitioners if accepted then the same would result in rewriting Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is impermissible and such an interpretation would also run contrary to the provisions of the UGC Act and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and would have wide ramifications across all the Universities in India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, students of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), challenged the Admission Policy 2017, Resolution 10 of the 141st AC meeting, Resolution 6.1 of the 266th EC meeting, and Resolution 6 of the 142nd AC meeting, and any other Ordinance, Resolution, or Amendment in consequence of the afore-stated impugned Resolutions. They contended that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Notification 2016, which notified Regulations with regard to Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree, was not properly adopted and implemented by the University. The University, on the other hand, argued that the UGC Regulations are mandatory and binding on all Universities, including JNU, and that the University had followed the proper procedure in adopting and implementing the Regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the UGC Regulations, 2016 are binding on the respondent University in view of the operation of provisions of the UGC Act, 1956. The Academic Council and Executive Council are necessarily to adopt the Regulations in the University Ordinance without any deviation. The plea of the petitioners if accepted then the same would result in rewriting Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which is impermissible and such an interpretation would also run contrary to the provisions of the UGC Act and the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and would have wide ramifications across all the Universities in India.
Issues: 1. Whether the UGC Regulations, 2016 are binding on the respondent University? 2. Whether the University followed the proper procedure in adopting and implementing the UGC Regulations?
Ratio Decidendi: The UGC Regulations, 2016 are binding on the respondent University in view of the operation of provisions of the UGC Act, 1956. The Academic Council and Executive Council are necessarily to adopt the Regulations in the University Ordinance without any deviation.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by five petitioners with the following prayers:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ:
(a) Quash and set aside the Admission Policy 2017 dated 11.02.2017; Resolution 10 of the 141st AC meeting, Resolution 6.1 of the 266th EC meeting and Resolution 6 of the 142nd AC meeting and any other Ordinance, Resolution or Amendment in consequence of the afore-stated impugned Resolutions;
(b) Quash & set aside the Corrigendum to Admission to Direct Ph.D. programme for Monsoon Semester 2017-18 published on the University website on 31.01.2017;
(c) To direct the Respondent to make public all the correspondence with the UGC regarding the clarifications to the UGC Notification 2016;
(d) To direct the Respondent to convene a Academic Council meeting to deliberate the adoption and implementation of the UGC Notification 2016 in the light of the clarifications received from the UGC and the academic schedule of 2017-2018;
(e) To direct the Respondent to allow the students enrolled to integrated M.Phil/Ph.D. programme to continue with their provisional Ph.D enrolments till the deliberation and adoption, if any, on the Admission Policy in the light of the UGC Notification by the Academic Council;
Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed.
2. Respondent herein is Jawaharlal Nehru University established under the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.
3. Petitioner no. 1 is enrolled in an Integrated M.Phil/Ph.D Programme in 2014 and is currently in his provisional Ph.D. Petitioner no. 2 belongs to OBC category has completed her BA/MA in German Language and currently is studying MA in Labour and Development Study from the Centre for Informal Sector and Labour Studies and intends to apply for the Integrated M.Phil/Ph.D Programme at the Centre for Study of Regional Development or the Centre for Study of Discrimination and Exclusion. Petitioner no. 3 is currently in the 4th Semester of the Integrated M.Phil/Ph.D Programme at the Centre for Media Studies. Petitioner no. 4 has completed her M.Phil Programme and it is her case that her application for Ph.D Programme was rejected due to change in Admission Policy. Petitioner no. 5 is in the 2nd Semester of the Integrated M.Phil/Ph.D Programme with the Centre for Political Studies.
4. The facts as noted from the writ petition are that a Notification dated July 5, 2016 was issued by the University Grants Commission notifying Regulations titled as University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2016 (Regulations in short). It is averred that on May 27, 2016, taking into consideration the concerns over the discriminatory impact of viva-voce marks on candidates from marginalized and disadvantaged background, the Academic Council in its 140th (A) meeting had set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor Abdul Nafey to look into the allocation of marks for viva-voce in the admission process. On September 28, 2016, the Agenda for the 141st (A & B) meeting of Academic Council (AC) to be held on October 7, 2016 was circulated amongst the AC members. The Agenda items included approval of the Minutes of the 140th (A) meeting and the consequent Report of Action (Item no. 2) and admissions for the year 2016-17 (Item no. 3) for 141st (A) meeting and adoption of Notification of 2016 of the UGC (Regulations) for 141st (B) meeting. That on October 7, 2016, the Academic Council vide Resolution (iv) approved the intake/ proposed offers for admission to direct Ph. D. Programme. It is the case of the petitioners that as
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
