Bombay High Court: The University is solely responsible for not verifying the seat availability before conducting Ph.D. entrance and is liable to compensate the loss.
Case Title: Nilesh s/o Ajinath Udmale v. State of Maharashtra.
Decided on October 17, 2023.
Case No. Writ Petition No.:2853 of 2023.
CORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME.
Introduction
In the present petition, the petitioner is an aspirant for a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in fine Arts. The aspirant has topped the examination conducted by the University for the same but he was denied admission to the Ph.D. Respondent No.2 as the unavailability of the seat under the supervision of the professor. The divisional bench of Hon’ble Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Hon’ble Justice Shailesh P. Brahme. Of the Aurangabad bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on observing the facts of the present case held that the respondent university is liable for the loss that occurred to the petitioner and imposed a fine of RS.50,000/- to the respondent and compensated to the petitioner.
Facts of the case
The Petitioner is an aspirant for a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in Fine Arts. The petitioner topped the examination conducted by the respondent university for the same. The petitioner belongs to the SC category and has done his Master in Fine Arts at the respondent university. Although the petitioner topped the test, he was denied admission for the same and the reason given by the respondent was that there was no supervisor available for him. The validity of the result was only one year and the petitioner could not take admission in Ph.D.
Court’s observation
The Hon’ble High Court on observing the facts and circumstances of the present case held that Dr. Shrish Ambekar had written in advance about the unavailability of the seat in Ph.D. However, the respondent university had not taken it seriously and made a big mistake in conducting the exam due to which the petitioner had suffered the loss. The petitioner can not be granted admission because the stipulated time has lapsed and it can not be undone. The petitioner has to appear again in the test for a Ph.D. for the sake of admission for the same. The Hon’ble Court held that the respondent university had violated the procedure prescribed in the UGC guideline without verifying the vacancies, the advertisement was issued on 30.12.2020. Also imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent and said to pay to the petitioner as compensation for his loss.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best family law firm, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm. Best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Aamir Hussain.
click here to view/ read judgment.