The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding force of the provisions contained in the prospectus and the need for strict adherence to the prospectus conditions in the admission process.

REKHA PALLI, J.

1. Both the present writ petitions are based on similar facts and seek similar prayers and are accordingly being decided vide this common order.

2. The petitioners, 18 in number having taken admission in M.Phil/Ph.D.(Master in Philosophy/Doctorate in Philosophy) in the respondent no.1/University in the academic session 2016-17, have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the circulars dated 21.09.2017, 25.09.2017 & 24.10.2017 issued by respondent no.1/University.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the respondent no.1/University had on 08.02.2016 issued the prospectus inviting applications for the said course for academic session 2016-17 and the said prospectus clearly stated that admissions pursuant thereto would be governed by the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations 2009, which had been issued on 01.06.2009.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that based on this prospectus, all the petitioners had applied for admission in the respondent no.1/University. They further submit that, however, before the petitioners could actually take admission in respondent no.1/University, the UGC had amended its regulations on 05.05.2016 and the same were notified on 05.07.2016 and are hereinafter being referred to as UGC (Minimum Standards & Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2016. Learned counsels for the petitioners submits that based on these regulations issued by the UGC in 2016, the respondent no.1/University had vide the impugned circulars imposed the condition as incorporated in the Regulations of 2016, even though they had all taken admission pursuant to prospectus issued in February 2016, which was based on the Regulations of 2009. Learned counsels for the petitioners have drawn my attention to circular dated 14.07.2017 in support of their contention, that after seeking clarification from its Legal Cell, the respondent no.1/University had itself clarified that the UGC Regulation, 2016 would be applicable to the scholars getting enrolled for the academic year 2017-18 onwards and therefore the UGC Regulation, 2016 could not have been applied to the petitioners as they had admittedly taken admission in the academic year 2016-17.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of this Court in Varun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & Ors. reported as (2011) 179 DLT 24 (DB) to contend that once the respondents had issued a prospectus clearly pointing out that the admission will be governed based on the UGC Regulations 2009, the conditions of the petitioners’ admission could not be altered at a subsequent stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that in view of the well settled legal position that the students are to be governed by the conditions of the prospectus pursuant whereto they had taken admission, the respondent no.1/University could not have applied the UGC Regulations of 2016 to the petitioners.

6. Ms.Monika Arora, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/University fairly submits that in view of the aforesaid legal position, she does not oppose the present petitions and states that all the petitioners and other students who have taken admission in respondent no.1/University in the academic year 2016-17 would be governed by the UGC Regulations of 2009.

7. Ms.Monika Arora, also relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Parmender Kumar & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported as (2012) 1 SCC 177 in support of her plea that once the admission prospectus to any course is issued and the admission procedure is initiated, the State Government does not have the jurisdiction to thereafter change the criteria relating to the condition of admission.

8. She also relies on a decision dated 25.08.2017 of this Court in Assitant Prof. Sutapa Das v. Assistant Registrar Evaluation Centre JNU & Anr. in W.P.(C)No.6816/2