203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:19.05.2026 AMAN RANI ...Petitioner Vs.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Sharma, Standing counsel with Mr. Raywant Kaushish, Advocate for respondent No. 2-UGC.

Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Sukhmani Patwalia, Advocate for respondent No. 3-U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 9.

***

A SHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondent-University in not permitting her to pursue Ph.D. course on account of orders impugned in the writ petition. It is urged that the action of the respondent-University is arbitrary.

2. Undisputed facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition are noticed at the outset. The petitioner cleared entrance test with 19th rank for pursuing Ph.D in Law. She cleared the test on 20.08.2019. For almost a year i.e. till 20.08.2020, not much happened on account of ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic. The registration etc. also could not be formalized during this period. Even for the period between 20.08.2020 to 30.03.2021, academic activities were disrupted due to COVID-19 Pandemic. The Ph.D. course actually commenced on 01.04.2021. The process followed in terms of the course involves initial registration followed by pre-Ph.D. coursework. This coursework is supposed to be completed within a period of one semester extendable to two semesters. After completion of the pre-Ph.D. course, a synopsis has to be submitted by the candidate within a further period of six months, which is further extendable by six months twice i.e. in all 2½ years. It is thereafter that the research activity further proceeds. In the pre-Ph.D. course, there are three papers to be cleared. The petitioner cleared two papers out of the said three, for which, the result was declared on 29.08.2022. With regard to the third paper, which is the 'Review of Literature', it was declared that the petitioner re-appear and the same was re-submitted in August 2022. The result for the paper 'Review of Literature' was declared on 27.09.2023.

3. Though learned counsel for the University states that the result was declared orally in the class but we are not much impressed by such a stand, as the declaration of result has to be in a manner consistent with the process itself. It remains undisputed that such result was formally declared only on 27.09.2023.

4. The period of 2½ years within which the synopsis could be submitted was to end on 30.09.2023. The petitioner, therefore, submits that effectively she only had three days' time to submit the synopsis, which was wholly deficient for the purpose. It is pointed out that the guidelines for the course specifically provide for 1½ years, within which the synopsis has to be submitted. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the period provided to her for submission of synopsis was extremely short in comparison to the permissible duration within which it had to be done and therefore, the University has erred in not permitting the petitioner to submit the synopsis thereafter within a reasonable period. The petitioner submits that the synopsis has been submitted online before the University on 21.01.2025, but the University has not taken cognizance of it. It is in this context that the petitioner has actually filed the present writ petition in October, 2024 seeking an appropriate direction to the University to allow her a reasonable time for submission of synopsis. It is contended that the unusual delay on the part of the University in declaration of result for the paper 'Review of Literature' cannot be a ground for the University to arbitrarily disrupt the ongoing Ph.D. course of the petitioner.

5. On the previous occasion, we requested Mr. Gaurav Chopra, learned senior