Retrospective application of academic regulations is permissible if the petitioner fails to comply with established requirements, affirming the authority of educational institutions to enforce compliance.

CAV Judgment

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the memo dated 11.10.2022, the order dated 06.07.2022, and the order dated 01.05.2022, all issued by respondent No. 1, i.e., the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to constitute a Committee comprising 5 to 7 members from other IIMs or other eminent Professors, for considering the petitioner’s case in a lawful and fair manner.

2. The case, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner was admitted to the Executive Fellow Programme in Management (EFPM) at IIM Raipur in 2017 and completed all academic requirements under the EFPM Manuals applicable from 2017 to 2019. This included coursework, approved research publications, and submission of his Ph.D. thesis before the new EFPM Manual 2020 came into force. However, IIM Raipur illegally cancelled his admission by applying the 2020 Manual retrospectively, citing non-compliance with new publication-related rules, including prior approval for journal publication fees. These rules were not in force when the petitioner published his work or submitted his thesis. The petitioner challenges this arbitrary and retrospective action on the part of respondent authorities as a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The petitioner seeks quashing of the cancellation, restoration of admission, and completion of the Ph.D. viva process as per the earlier applicable EFPM rules.

3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner applied and was admitted to the EFPM (Executive Fellow Programme in Management) at IIM Raipur during the 2017–2018 academic session, having successfully cleared the due process of selection. At the time of admission and during the course of the programme until mid- 2020, the rules and regulations governing the petitioner were those laid down in the EFPM Manuals of 2017–2019, none of which prescribed or made it mandatory for the candidate to pay journal publication fees. The petitioner diligently complied with all academic requirements as per the existing EFPM Manuals, including but not limited to coursework, TAC formation, comprehensive viva, thesis proposal approval, paper presentations, and publications in UGC/Scopus-indexed journals. The petitioner’s TAC (Thesis Advisory Committee) approved the research proposal and supervised the entire research process, including approving the publications. The petitioner’s thesis was submitted for evaluation in early 2020, well before the introduction of the new EFPM Manual 2020, which for the first time included a clause requiring prior approval for publication fees or treating such payments as misconduct. However, based on the retrospective application of the 2020 Manual, the petitioner’s EFPM admission was cancelled arbitrarily, without following principles of natural justice or affording an opportunity of hearing. The action taken was not only without jurisdiction but also violated the legitimate expectations and accrued rights of the petitioner, who had already completed all academic formalities under the then-prevailing guidelines.

4. It is argued by the petitioner that the action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice and the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed. He submits that the petitioner was admitted to the Executive Fellow