JUDGMENT :

Vivek Chaudhary, J.

1. Heard Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent University.

2. Petitioner who is a Ph.D. student of Fine Arts, studying in respondent University has approached this Court by the present writ petition for a mandamus claiming that respondent University is arbitrarily restraining her from completing her Ph.D. course in which she has already put in five years, on the ground that there is some irregularity in her admission.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr. Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation University (For Differently Abled) Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'University') was incorporated by State Act No.1 of 2009. A notice was issued by the University for holding admission process for Ph.D through entrance examination on 25.08.2015. Petitioner applied for Ph.D. in Fine Arts and participated in the selection process. After the selection process, petitioner stood fifth in the merit list and since only four vacancies were available for Ph.D. in Fine Arts, therefore, she could not be selected. The Vice-Chancellor of the University meanwhile entertained applications for Ph.D. from NET/GATE/SLATE candidates. Petitioner who had cleared her UGC NET (thrice cleared NET) being qualified also applied and Vice-Chancellor approved her admission on due recommendation made by the selection committee finding her qualified. Petitioner got her admission in November, 2015 and continued her research work. No objection with regard to her admission was ever raised. It appears that there were certain allegations with regard to working of the then Vice-Chancellor of the University and, thus, he was removed. Petitioner after completion of five years in Ph.D. sought extension of one year for completing her work as prescribed by rules, however, University declined petitioner to continue with research work and for accepting her further fees. University in pursuant to Academic Council resolution dated 11.05.2018 constituted a three member committee on 15.03.2019 to look into the manner in which the erstwhile Vice-Chancellor had permitted admission in Ph.D. courses. On 30.05.2019 the committee submitted an interim report and it appears that on the basis of said report, petitioner and other candidates were required to submit a declaration and affidavit that they were selected through examination and interview. Since, petitioner could not file such an affidavit in the language required by the University, she is not being permitted to continue her research work. Hence, petitioner has filed present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no mistake on part of petitioner and she was granted admission by the University authorities in accordance with rules. The admission was not objected to for five years and now when the petitioner is nearly on verge of completing her Ph.D. she is being unnecessarily restrained from completing the same. He places reliance upon the following cases:-

(i) Abha George and Ors vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Anr., [2022 SCC Online Del 366],

(ii) Javed Akhtar vs Jamia Hamdard [2006 SCC Online Del 1504],

(iii) Ashok Chand Singhvi v. University of Jodhpur and Ors. [(1989) 1 SCC 399] and

(iv) Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and Anr. [AIR 1986 Supp. SCC 740]

5. Learned counsel for the University submits that as per Ph.D Ordinance of 2014 of the University, admission in Ph.D. course could only be available for four vacancies in Fine Arts after a written examination and interview. Petitioner stood fifth on merit but only four seats in Fine Arts were available, hence, she could not be granted admission in the said selection process. He further submits that Vice-Chancellor of the University has illegally granted admission to the petitioner in violation of rules and therefore, pet