Full Judgment Text
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 April, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 7582/2012 & CMs No.19254/2012 (for stay) & 3524/2015
(for interim relief)
AMITA AGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
Versus
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. S.D. Sharma, Adv and Mr. Ravindra
Chingale, Adv. for R-1.
Ms. Padma Priya and Ms. Nivedita
Ghosh, Advs. for R-3.
Mr. Anant Prakash, Adv. for R-4 .
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petition was filed impugning the list of provisionally selected
candidates for admission to Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Programme 2012-13
st
published at the respondent no.1 National Law University‟s website on 1
th
October, 2012 and 12 October, 2012 and seeking mandamus to the respondent
no.1 University to cancel / modify the result, with the averments:
(i) that the petitioner was a candidate for admission to the Ph.D.
course 2012 conducted by the respondent no.1 University;
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 1 of 13
(ii) that the admission was to be through a written test conducted by
the respondent no.1 University, with the candidates who have
qualified for University Grants Commission–National Eligibility
Test (UGC-NET) / Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) / State
Level Eligibility Test (SLET) / Master of Philosophy (M. Phil.)
being exempt from taking the admission test and on the basis of a
presentation by the qualifying candidates before the Doctoral
Committee on the proposed topic of research;
(iii) that the petitioner submitted her Ph.D. thesis within the prescribed
th
time till 12 May, 2012 but the last date for submitting the thesis
th
was extended to 13 August, 2012;
th
(iv) that the petitioner was by e-mail dated 9 August, 2012 of the
respondent no.1 University informed of her selection in the
written test and was asked to appear before the Doctoral
th
Committee on 8 September, 2012;
(v) that the Doctoral Committee asked the petitioner to submit the
revised synopsis with some minor amendments and which was
also submitted by the petitioner;
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 2 of 13
(vi) that in the list of 13 candidates selected declared by the
st
respondent no.1 University on its website on 1 October, 2012,
the name of the petitioner did not find mention and on making
rd
enquiries the petitioner was told on 3 October, 2012 that the
Doctoral Committee had already selected 11 candidates during
th th
interviews held on 8 and 9 September, 2012 and subsequently
two more candidates had been selected;
th
(vii) that the respondent no.1 University on 12 October, 2012
uploaded a new version of the list of selected candidates with
addition of Ms. Deepika Prakash;
(viii) that it is quite evident that Ms. Deepika Prakash‟s name was not
among the seven candidates required to submit their revised Ph.D.
synopsis by the Doctoral Committee;
(ix) that on making further enquiries, the petitioner was told that
owing to a inadvertent mistake, the name of Ms. Deepika Prakash
st
was left out in the list of selected candidates declared on 1
October, 2012;
(x) that two of the selected candidates viz. Sh. Ram Kumar and Ms.
Nivedita Ghosh had secured 44 and 43 marks respectively in the
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 3 of 13
written exam and which were far below the requisite minimum
50% marks needed to qualify for interview;
(xi) that Ms. Dikshan Munjal and Mr. J.S. Dahiya whose names were
also included in the list of selected candidates were faculty
members of the respondent no.1 University and their admission is
also in violation of Ph.D. regulations;
(xii) that since the Doctoral Committee had not awarded marks for
synopsis and viva voce, ranking of the candidates for taking
decision for admission could not be done in an objective, prudent
and transparent manner.
2. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit filed by the
respondent no.1 University pleading:
(a) that the Doctoral Committee seeks to understand the research
proposal, evaluates research aptitude of the candidate and the
ability to undertake intensive and vigorous research on the
research proposal and on the basis thereof either recommends the
candidate for admission and if is of the opinion that research
proposal needs improvement, calls upon the candidate to submit a
revised proposal on the line suggested by it and after considering
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 4 of 13
the revised proposal decides whether the candidate is to be offered
admission or not;
(b) that the Doctoral Committee consists of senior professors and
experts in the field and the opinion of the said Committee is to be
given primacy as to whether the candidate is to be admitted to the
Ph.D. programme or not;
(c) that the petitioner had applied for admission to the Ph.D.
programme in the year 2011 and though qualified the entrance test
but was unable to successfully defend her research proposal
before the Doctoral Committee and therefore could not be
considered for admission;
(d) that the petitioner again applied in the year 2012 and again
qualified the entrance test and submitted a different research
proposal;
th th
(e) that the Doctoral Committee in the meeting held on 8 and 9
September, 2012 recommended admission of 12 candidates and
asked seven candidates to re-submit their proposal after revision;
(f) that the name of the petitioner figured in the list of candidates who
were asked to re-submit their research proposal;
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 5 of 13
(g) that the revised proposal submitted by the petitioner was also not
upto the mark; in fact the petitioner hardly carried out any revision
in her proposal and the revised proposal was a virtual
reproduction of the original proposal; accordingly, the Doctoral
Committee out of the seven candidates who were asked to re-
submit their proposal recommended only two candidates viz. Ms.
Manvi Tiku and Ms. Kimmi Singla for admission; and
(h) that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage of the inadvertent
error while uploading the list of candidates on the website who
were granted admission.
th
3. Vide order dated 11 February, 2014, the candidates who according to
the petitioner had been illegally admitted were ordered to be impleaded as
respondents to this petition and three candidates were so impleaded and notice
issued to them and replies / counter affidavit have been filed by Ms. Deepika
Prakash and Ms. Nivendita Ghosh.
th th
4. The counsels were heard on 10 July, 2015 and 19 August, 2015 and
judgment reserved.
5. The counsel for the petitioner argued i) that though as per the prospectus
the number of seats for Ph.D. were to depend on availability of suitable
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 6 of 13
candidates but not to exceed 10 students in an academic year but 14 candidates
were admitted; ii) that no objections were raised to the revised synopsis
submitted by the petitioner; iii) that the respondent no.1 University in reply to
the letter of the petitioner had disclosed that Ms. Deepika Prakash was selected
nd
by the Doctoral Committee on 22 September, 2012 but there was no meeting
of the Doctoral Committee on that date; iv) that the Doctoral Committee
constituted a Sub-Committee to go through the revised synopsis and which was
also not permissible under the rules of admission approved by the Academic
Council; v) that the marks obtained by each candidates before the Doctoral
Committee were not disclosed; vi) that the respondent no.1 University has not
disclosed the Ph.D. Regulations applicable at the relevant time and the
th
Regulations relied upon in response to the letter of the petitioner are of 18
September, 2012 i.e. of subsequent time; and, vii) that the entire admission
process was biased and prejudiced.
6. Per contra, the senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University
contended that a) the petitioner in the petition has not raised any ground of the
respondent no.1 University having admitted candidates in excess of the number
prescribed to be admitted; b) that only 12 candidates have been ultimately
admitted; c) that the cut off percentage for the entrance test was not 50% but
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 7 of 13
40% for general category students and 30% per Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe category students – attention in this regard was invited to the
th
document dated 30 August, 2011; d) that no case of bias or prejudice to the
petitioner has been established least made out.
7. The counsel for the respondent no.3 Ms. Nivedita Ghosh contended i)
that no marks were prescribed in the prospectus or in the Ph.D. Regulations for
qualifying the entrance test – in the absence there of, the principle of 40%
followed in LLB was to be followed for admission to Ph.D. programme also;
ii) that the eligibility marks of 40% have been followed uniformally; iii) that
she has been pursuing the programme for three years and now admission could
not be cancelled. Reliance in this regard was placed on Javed Akhtar Vs.
Jamia Hamdard MANU/DE/4078/2006; and, iv) that no case of irregularity in
admission is made out.
8. The counsel for respondent No.4 Ms. Deepika Prakash argued a) that her
name was not in the list of seven candidates who were directed to re-submit
their research proposal – in fact she had been recommended for admission but
her name remained to be included in the list of said candidates; b) that she had
secured 56% marks in the admission test i.e. more than the petitioner; c) that
she was issued the letter of admission along with other candidates; d) that there
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 8 of 13
was no sanctity to the number of seats in the Ph.D. programme and the
petitioner if had been found fit could have also been called for admission; e) it
is not the case of the petitioner that if Ms. Deepika Prakash and Ms. Nivedita
Ghosh are not admitted she would have been admitted; f) that even if the
admission of Ms. Deepika Prakash and Ms. Nivedita Ghosh were to be
cancelled, the same would still not entitle the petitioner to admission; g)
reliance was placed on A. Sudha Vs. University of Mysore (1987) 4 SCC 537
and Aman Deep Jaswal Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 9 SCC 597 to contend that
only admission of that student can be cancelled by substituting whom the
petitioner can be granted relief.
9. The counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder contended i) that as per UGC
Rules, the number of seats have to be decided well in advance; ii) that in the
advertisement published inviting applications, it was clearly stated that there
were 10 seats only; and, iii) that the arbitrariness is evident from the marks of
the interview being not disclosed or for the research papers the Regulations on
which reliance is now being placed are not available on the website.
10. I have considered the controversy. The petition is with respect to
admissions of the year 2012. Three academic years had passed by the time
arguments in the petition were heard. I had in the circumstances enquired from
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 9 of 13
the counsel for the petitioner at the outset only whether not the petition has
become infructuous and why should this Court proceed to hear and adjudicate
the same. However it was the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner, if succeeds, can be granted admission even now. Though I was
then and even now am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot in the academic
year 2016 get admission on the basis of the competition, in which she
participated, of the year 2012 in accordance with the dicta of this Court in
Shivam Shresthi Vs. Delhi Technological University MANU/DE/1757/2014
and since reiterated by the Supreme Court in Aneesh D. Lawande Vs. The
State of Goa (2014) 1 SCC 554 but since the matter had remained pending and
the petition had not been dismissed at the threshold and had remained pending,
it is deemed appropriate to adjudicate the same on merits also.
11. The senior counsel for the respondent no.1 University in response to the
query as to how, when the prospectus clearly provided that not more than 10
students shall be admitted in the Ph.D. programme in an academic year, could
more be admitted, merely stated that the nature of the programme is such
where if more candidates are found eligible, can be accommodated. I however
find it difficult to accept. If that were to be so, the respondent no.1 University
ought not to have in the prospectus provided that in no case more than 10
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 10 of 13
candidates will be admitted in an academic year. It is settled principle of law
that rules of a game cannot be changed after it has begun. If it were to be held
that notwithstanding a provision to that effect, the respondent no.1 University
is entitled to admit students in excess or students below that number, even if
otherwise found eligible for admission, the same would vest arbitrariness and
discretion in the persons for the time being manning the process of admission
of the respondent no.1 University and which cannot be permitted. The counsel
for the petitioner during the hearing handed over copy of UGC (Minimum
Standards & Procedure for Award of M.Phil. / Ph.D. Degree) Regulations,
2009 inter alia requiring number of seats for Ph.D. to be decided well in
advance and notified and advertised. The respondent No.1 University appears
to be in violation thereof also.
12. The respondent no.1 University has also not been able to give any
satisfactory reply of the argument, of arbitrariness inherent in not prescribing
the qualifying marks in the written test to be held nor the basis on which the
Doctoral Committee is to assess and evaluate the candidates. No merit list also
appears to have been drawn by the Doctoral Committee. The said process also
cannot be sanctioned. According to the petitioner, the qualifying marks were
50%. The petitioner in this regard relies on the contemporaneous website
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 11 of 13
notification and which appears to be in consonance with the Regulations supra
of the year 2009. However, according to the private respondents it was
intended to be 40% and the respondent No.1 University relies on the decision
th
of 30 August, 2011 in this regard. However there is no explanation for the
website notification cited by the petitioner.
13. Similarly, in the absence of any laid down criteria for the assessment to
be made by the Doctoral Committee and prescribed and declared weightage for
the marks of the written test and the assessment by the Doctoral Committee,
the possibility of abuse of discretion cannot be ruled out. James Hart in his
„An Introduction to Administrative Law‟ observed “A test or examination, to
be competitive, must employ an objective standard of measure. Where the
standard of measure is wholly subjective to the examiners, it differs in no
respect from an uncontrolled opinion of the examiners and cannot be termed
competitive”. Supreme Court, in Minor A. Peeriakaruppan Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu (1971) 1 SCC 38, finding that interview marks had not been
divided under various heads and not given on itemised basis but given in a
lump, held the same to be illegal.
14. I am therefore compelled to observe that all does not appear to be well
with the admission process of the respondent No.1 National Law University,
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 12 of 13
Delhi at least qua admission to Ph.D. programme, unless it has been rectified
since then; I was however not told so. I take this opportunity to remind the
respondent No.1 University that its reputation is as good as products it
produces and any dilution in competition at the stage of admission can be an
obstacle in the path to achieving academic greatness.
15. Though no relief can be granted to the petitioner but a direction is
accordingly issued to the respondent no.1 University to before commencing the
admissions to the Ph.D. programme in the year 2016 revisit the admission
criteria in terms of the observations herein above and to clearly advertise the
same so that the possibility of officials of the respondent No.1 University
manning the admission process granting admission to whomsoever they desire
can be ruled out and admissions are strictly as per declared criteria.
16. The petition is disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the respondent no.1 University.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
APRIL 19, 2016
„gsr‟
W.P.(C) No.7582/2012 Page 13 of 13