The court emphasized that expert bodies in education should establish examination content, and judicial intervention is unwarranted unless clear violations of established policies are proven.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10469/2020, the Appellant has filed the instant appeal.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant intended to pursue M.Phil/Ph.D (International Law) from Centre for International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). It is stated that Appellant took entrance examination for M.Phil/Ph.D (International Law) and he was called for viva voce of both the courses.

3. The Appellant herein submits that as per the JNU Admission Policy and Procedure, 2020-21 and the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D Degrees) Regulations, 2016, the entrance test for M.Phil/Ph.D should consist of 50 per cent questions from research methodology and 50 per cent subject specific questions. He states that in the M.Phil/Ph.D examination conducted by the Respondent, only 3 per cent questions were asked from the research methodology syllabus.

4. Material on record indicates that the Appellant herein had filed W.P.(C) 7442/2020. The case put up in the said writ petition was that the e-prospectus for the entrance examination of M.Phil and Ph.D for International Studies is in violation of the Admission Policy and the UGC Regulations. It was the grievance of the Appellant that the Respondent did not declare/notify any syllabus for 50 per cent portion of the research methodology for any of the examination. The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 03.10.2020 in W.P.(C) 7442/2020 rejected the said contention holding as under:

"6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has drawn my attention to an email that was written by petitioner No.1-Mr.Nishant Khatri on 24.04.2020 which was replied to immediately on 06.05.2020 by Prof.V.G. Hegde, Chairperson of the Centre for International Legal Studies where it has been clarified that research methodology component is intrinsic and integrated in the syllabus.

7. I cannot help noticing the delay and laches in filing of this writ petition. Admittedly, the e-prospectus was issued on 02.03.2020 which contained the notified syllabus. It is the own case of the petitioners that they have been trying to get clarifications since March 2020 and have been writing e-mails. Now, at the last minute just before the exam which to be held on 05.10.2020, the present writ petition has been filed. An explanation is sought to be given by the petitioners for the delay stating that they received their admit cards sometimes on or around 21.09.2020 and hence, now they have approached this court. In my opinion, there is no reason to have waited for the last minute and to file this writ petition just two days before the exam when the petitioners knew about the syllabus since March 2020. The writ petition is clearly hit by delay and laches.

8. That apart, I may also have a look at the syllabus that has been clearly spelt out in the prospectus/admission policy. The syllabus has been spelt out as follows: