IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, JJ.
Suganya Jeba Sarojini - Petitioner
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Represented by its Registrar and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12063 of 2021
Decided On : 12-03-2024
ULTRA VIRES - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION TO PH.D. DEGREE IN LAW - UGC REGULATIONS - BAR COUNCIL RULES
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenges the eligibility criteria for admission to the Ph.D. Degree in Law, arguing that the requirement of a two-year Master's Degree in law is ultra vires the Constitution and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned regulations encroached upon the powers of the University Grants Commission (UGC) to make regulations regarding the validity of a degree program and minimum standards of eligibility. It held that the UGC's recognition of the one-year LLM program made candidates possessing it eligible for the Ph.D. program.
Issues: The main issue was whether the requirement of a two-year Master's Degree in law for admission to the Ph.D. program was valid and in compliance with UGC regulations and Bar Council rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while universities could prescribe higher standards for admission, they could not dilute the norms and standards prescribed by the UGC. It emphasized that the UGC had the power to define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any university.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, read down the impugned regulation to remove the requirement of a two-year Master's Degree, and directed the respondent to admit the petitioner to the Ph.D. program.
ORDER :
D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare that Regulation 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University Ph.D Regulations, 2020 is ultra vires the Constitution and hence null and void to the extent that they prescribe possession of two years Master's Degree in law as eligibility criteria for admission to Ph.D., Degree in Law (Full-Time) and consequently directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to apply for Ph.D admission (Full-Time) vide 1st respondent's Ph.D admission notification: 2021 – 2022 dated 10.05.2021.)
A. The Writ Petition:
1. This Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that Regulation 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Ph.D. Regulations, 2020 as ultra vires the Constitution to the extent they prescribe possession of ‘Two Years’ Master’s Degree in law as eligibility criteria for admission to PhD. Degree in Law (Full-Time) and consequently direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to apply for Ph.D admission notification 2021-2022 dated 10.05.2021 and for such further or other orders.
B. The Case of the Petitioner:
2. The petitioner graduated in Law from Dr Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, in May 2015. She completed her Post Graduation - LL.M. (Human Rights) Degree from Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Amity University, New Delhi in the year 2016 with a good academic record of CGPA 8.08. She had cleared the National Eligibility Test for Assistant Professor (Law) in December, 2018 and has been working in the 1st respondent university on contract basis from 01.07.2019.
2.1 In the year 2020, the 1st respondent University framed Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University PhD Regulations, 2020. Clause 3.1 of the Regulations makes only those who are possessing a ‘Two Year LLM’ alone eligible for admission to PhD in the respondent University and the same reads as follows:
3.1. PhD Degree in Law(Full-Time) : Candidate’s possessing a Two Years Master’s Degree in Law from any recognised university through regular full-time study having secured a minimum of 55% of marks in the aggregate or an equivalent grade in point scale wherever grading system is followed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
2.2 The 1st respondent University also issued Notification 2021-2022 dated 10.05.2021, inviting applications from eligible candidates for Ph.D Research Programme against 110 vacancies. However, in view of the impugned regulations, the petitioner was not in a position to apply and hence the Writ Petition.
2.3 The University Grants Commission by the “Guidelines for Introduction of one-year LLM Degree Program, 2012” communicated vide letter dated 18.10.2013 bearing ref: UGC DO No.5-1/99 (CPP-II) the UGC had recognised the one year LLM programme, pursuant to which several Central and State Universities, National Law Schools and other premier Law Schools switched over to one year LLM Degree Course. It is valid even as per the Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Occasional, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020. Therefore, when the petitioner is eligible, the impugned regulations make her ineligible. The same is ultra vires and arbitrary.
C. The Case of the Respondents:
3. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. Paragraph No. 4 set out the syllabi of the one year and two year programmes and it is submitted that both programmes are not equal. The UGC Regulation permitting one year LLM Programme is only optional and not mandatory. The Bar Council of India regulations make it clear that one year Master Degree programs in Law shall remain operational and valid for temporary period. As per Clause-5 (b) of the Bar Council Regulations, the duration of LLM Degree shall be two years. Clause.6 seeks to abolish one year Master Degree and states that the same will be only valid upto
The UGC has the power to define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any university, and universities can prescribe higher standards for admission but cannot dilute the....
The UGC has the power to define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University, and the impugned regulation was not in compliance with the UGC regulations.
Eligibility for admission to three-year LL.B. course includes I.T.I qualifications, challenging prior restrictions based on past interpretations of educational norms.
The prerogative of the employer to prescribe qualifications for a post and the limited scope for judicial interference in such matters.
The judgment emphasizes that the basic qualification for admission to a course varies between universities and courses, and the explanation to a rule must be interpreted in harmony with the main sect....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.