Ph.D. Admission Without Mandatory Entrance Test Illegal, Cannot Be Protected Even After Thesis Submission: Bombay High Court

Aurangabad: In a significant ruling impacting university admission procedures, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) has held that admission to a Ph.D. program granted by a Vice Chancellor as a "special case," bypassing the mandatory Entrance Test (PET) required by UGC regulations and university ordinances, is illegal and amounts to a "backdoor entry." The court upheld the university's decision to cancel such an admission, even after the student had completed coursework, submitted a thesis, and appeared for the viva-voce.

The judgment was delivered by Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar in a writ petition filed by a student whose Ph.D. admission was cancelled by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University .

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a postgraduate in Botany and a National level sportsperson, was granted admission to the Ph.D. program in 2019 upon her application to the Vice Chancellor, who endorsed her request "as a special case." This admission bypassed the requirement of qualifying the Ph.D. Entrance Test (PET), which the university had admittedly not conducted between 2016 and 2021.

The petitioner proceeded with her studies, completed the UGC-mandated pre-Ph.D. course with an A+ grade, submitted progress reports, finalized her synopsis, and submitted her Ph.D. thesis in December 2021. A viva-voce was also conducted in March 2022. However, in June 2022, the university issued a letter cancelling her admission, citing its inconsistency with UGC Regulations, 2016, which mandate admission through PET followed by a presentation before the Research Recognition Committee (RRC), and stating it was contrary to reservation policy.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary and detrimental to her career, especially since the admission was granted by the university itself (through the Vice Chancellor) and she had completed the entire research process without fault on her part. She contended she met the basic eligibility criteria and relied on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments that protected students whose admissions were later found flawed but who were not responsible for the error (citing S. Krishna Sradha , Ashok Chand Singhvi , Rajendra Prasad Mathur , and Abha Georges ). She also highlighted the university's failure to conduct PET for several years.

The university, in its reply, staunchly defended its decision, stating that the petitioner's admission was "contrary to the UGC Regulations" and the University Ordinance-1009, which unequivocally require qualification in the PET. The university argued that the Vice Chancellor did not possess special powers to grant admissions bypassing the mandatory procedure and that the petitioner's admission was an illegal "backdoor entry." It also informed the court that similar actions had been taken against other candidates admitted illegally without qualifying PET. The university relied on Supreme Court judgments that refused to perpetuate illegal or backdoor admissions (citing Dental Council of India vs. Sailendra Sharma and Tejaswini D/o Rajkumar Phad ).

Court's Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the relevant legal framework, including the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 and the University Ordinance-1009 . The court noted that Clause 5.1 of the UGC Regulations, 2016 explicitly mandates that all universities "shall admit M.Phil./Ph.D. students through an Entrance Test conducted at the level of Individual University." The University Ordinance also reinforced this requirement, making PET qualification essential for eligibility to apply for admission.

The court found "no other way to secure admission except going through PET." It emphasized that the regulations aim for merit-based admissions, considering limited resources and guide capacity.

Crucially, the court looked for any provision that might empower the Vice Chancellor to grant admission outside this prescribed procedure. It concluded, "no such provision is brought to our notice either under UGC Regulations or University Ordinance or the Maharashtra Public Universities Act." The court was therefore "convinced that the Vice Chancellor of the University does not possess power or authority to admit any student for Ph.D. course de-hors the admission procedure prescribed."

Regarding the petitioner's claim of being a special case due to sports excellence or the non-holding of PET, the court found no legal basis for such exceptions in the regulations governing Ph.D. admissions. While acknowledging the non-conduct of PET for years, the court stated this "cannot be taken as a justifiable ground for Vice Chancellor to admit her."

The court distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, noting that those cases often involved situations where the student was genuinely not at fault for an error stemming from internal university actions or interpretations, or where plenary powers were used in exceptional circumstances. In contrast, the present case involved a direct bypass of a fundamental, mandatory admission procedure clearly laid down in regulations binding on the university.

The court sided with the university's precedents on illegal admissions, stating, "if the admission is granted illegally dehors the procedure laid down under the Act, such admission has to be treated as backdoor entry and permitting such admission to continue would amount perpetuating illegality."

The court concluded that the petitioner's admission was a "backdoor entry" and was "vitiated ab initio" (invalid from the very beginning). It noted that the petitioner's application itself requesting admission as a "special case" suggested she was "not innocent or oblivious of the Regulations governing admission."

Judgment and Implications

Finding no legal infirmity in the university's decision to cancel the admission based on the non-compliance with the mandatory PET requirement, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.

This judgment reinforces the mandatory nature of the Ph.D. admission procedure laid down by UGC regulations and university ordinances. It clarifies that university authorities, including the Vice Chancellor, cannot create alternative routes or "special cases" for admission that bypass these fundamental requirements, irrespective of a candidate's other achievements or the time elapsed since the flawed admission. The ruling underscores that admissions granted in violation of prescribed procedures are void from the outset and cannot be regularized or protected simply because the student has invested time and effort into the course.