IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Ms. Suneeta Bharti And 3 Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondents
Writ -C No. -4529, 5265 of 2021
Decided on : 04-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – University Grants Commission Act, 1956 – Section 26, 26 (g), 26 (f), U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 – Section-7, 51(2) – Power of High court to issue writs - Petitioners for ensuing relief – Realistic milieu – Consequently, an amendment application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in contemporaneous writ petition for pursuing auxiliary relief, on which following order was passed by the Court - “In interpreting a statute even handedness will not discharge against a public statute of broad spectrum policy in cases admitted to fall within the statute and it is the responsibility of the Court to give effect to the legislative intent." (Para 32)
Finding of the Court :
Courts and Tribunals, while dealing with statutory provisions, should not be channelled with altruistic contemplation and emotional appeal for reason that if Courts advance on these basis, it would amount to fluctuating or modifying the statutory provisions or necessities of law – It has been held by Apex Court that "in interpreting a statute even handedness will not discharge against a public statute of broad spectrum policy in cases admitted to fall within statute and it is responsibility of Court to give effect to legislative intent" –Thus, equity can supplement to but cannot supplant statutory provisions and if any room is given for impartiality or compassion, recruitment rules would become nugatory and field would be left open for nepotism – Thus, it is not permissible to bend the law for adjusting equity.
Results: Writ petitions disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh and Mr. Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-University and Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Primarily this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the ensuing relief:
“(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned decision dated 15.01.2021 taken by the High Level Deans Advisory Committee as well as the impugned notification dated 16.01.2021 issued by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition);
(b). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent University to allow the petitioners to continue with their Ph.D. Course Programme in view of their admissions already granted;
(c). to issue such other and further appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;
(d). to award the cost of petition in favour of the petitioner.”
3. Consequently, an amendment application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners in the contemporaneous writ petition for pursuing auxiliary relief, on which following order was passed by the Court on 5th August, 2021:-
“Re: C.M. Amendment Application No.02 of 2021
Heard.
Amendment application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to carry out necessary amendment within three days.
Re: Writ Petition
As per the amendment, vires of Clause 3.1 (b) of Deen Dayal Upadhyay, Gorakhpur University Research Ordinance, 2018 (Minimum Criteria and Procedure for Research Degree-P.hd.) has been challenged, learned counsel for University as well as learned Standing Counsel representing the State are granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. List this matter after four weeks.”
Pursuant to the above order, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought following prayer:
“ia). to issue a writ, order or direction that Clause 3.1 (b) of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University Research Ordinance, 2018 (Minimum Criteria and Procedure for Research Degree Ph.D) be declared, as ultra-vires and for the same reasons, be quashed only to the extent that it prescribes the minimum marks of second division under graduate degree for becoming eligible to qualify admission to its Ph.D. Course (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).”
4. As the rudimentary realities and the permissible facets intricate are indistinguishable in both the writ petitions, they have been amalgamated and heard together and are being decided by this conjoint verdict. The particulars chronicled in Writ C No.4529 of 2021 (Ms. Suneeta Bharti and 3 Others Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others) are being canned to be the leading case.
5. According to the petitioners, the realistic milieu of the case is as follows:
Petitioners belong to District Gorakhpur. They being prospective candidates were pursuing admission in Pre-Ph.D. Course for the Session 2019-2020 of which advertisement/news item was issued by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur (for short “respondent-University”). The said news item/advertisement contained the broad-spectrum rules and directives issued by the University with regard to the Research Eligibility Test (RET) for the session 2018-2019, in which some conditions existed for the Session 2019-2020 as well. The said general rule and instructions were issued in light of the Ordinance-2018 issued by the respondent-University orchestrated under its first Statutes. The said general rules and instructions also enclosed the examination schedule for the Pre Ph.D. course for which, time schedule for online application being filled up, was from 4th January, 2019 and the same was to come to an end on 25th January, 2019. The examination was to be held in the second and third week of month of February, 201
A.C. Jose Vs. Sivan Pillai reported in AIR 1984 SC 921
Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur & Ors. reported in 1989 Supreme (SC) 38
Ashok Kumar & Another Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357
Annamalai University Vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department & Others
A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society vs. Government of A.P. reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667
Bengal Iron Corporation Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer & Ors.
Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shantanu Shukla reported in (2002) 6 SCC 127
Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lukcnow & Ors.
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal & Ors.
Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs. The New Delhi Municipal Committee
Dr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal & Etc. vs. The University of Calcutta And Anr. reported in AIR 1998 Cal 105
Gauri Shanker Gaur Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1994 SC 169
Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others
Gurdeep Singh v. State of J&K. and Ors.
K.V. Jeyaraj & Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 363
Kalyani Mathivanan VS. K.V. Jeyaraj & Others reported in (2018) 6 SCC 363
Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486
Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar
M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors.
Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi & Others
Registrar, Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University vs. Vinay Gupta & Others
Ran Vijay Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others reported in reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357;
Rajesh Kumar Daria Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785;
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. etc. Versus State of Bihar & Ors. etc.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development vs. Subhash Sindhi reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427;
Ram Naresh Singh And 26 Others vs State Of U.P. And 29 Others
State of T.N. and Another v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 513
State of Tamil Nadu & Another Vs. Adhiyhaman Education & Research Institute & Others
S. Satyapal Reddy & Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. & Ors.
State of Tamil Nadu & Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) & Others
Shish Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
S. Saktivel Vs. M. Venugopal Pillai
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra & Ors.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lata Arun 2002 (5) JT 210
Tridip Kumar Dingal & Others Versus State of West Bengal & Others
U.O.I. vs. Godfrcy Philips Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1985) 4 SCC 369.
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd.
Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar reported in (2007) 8 SCC 100
Visveswaraiah Technical University & Another Vs. Krishnenedu Halder & Others
Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission reported in (2011) 1 SCC 150
Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Ors. Vs. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & Ors.
Eligibility criteria for academic admissions cannot be altered after the admission process has commenced, ensuring fairness in selection.
Admission to academic programs must adhere to the prescribed procedures and regulations, and any deviation from the same may be considered a backdoor entry, leading to cancellation of admission.
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
Employment and Service matter - Appointment as an Associate Professor in the School of Social Sciences of the Mahatma Gandhi University - Selection committee – Qualiification - Absence of post doctor....
Misrepresentation in the application form regarding eligibility for admission can lead to the cancellation of provisional admission, and equity or sympathy cannot override statutory rules for admissi....
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.