Admissions Dispute in Educational Institutions Upholding Regulations and Supernumerary Seats: Delhi High Court
Admissions Dispute in Educational Institutions Upholding Regulations and Supernumerary Seats: Delhi High Court
Case title: Satwik Raj vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & ANR
Case no.: W.P.(C) 1135 OF 2024 and CM APPL.4772 OF 2024
Dated on: 10th May 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner enrolled in the five-year BA-MA Programme in Spanish, offered by the CSPILAS, in 2018. He graduated from the programme and, thereafter, joined the master’s programme in Spanish in the CSPILAS, which he completed in 2023. He, thereafter, desired to enrol for the Ph.D. programme in Spanish studies at the CSPILAS. Admission to Ph.D. programs in the JNU is through a Computer Based Test (CBT) conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA). In the advertisement released by the CSPILAS for enrolment to the Ph.D. programme in Spanish, one seat was UR, one seat was reserved for foreign national through entrance examination and two seats were reserved for foreign nationals in absentia. The petitioner appeared in the written test followed by viva voce conducted by the CSPILAS for entrance into the Ph.D. programme in Spanish. The merit list of candidates who had undertaken the CBT for enrolment in the Ph.D. program in Spanish in the CSPILAS was released on 13 January 2024. The petitioner was fourth in merit in UR category. As there was only one UR category seat, the petitioner was not selected, either in the first or in the second merit list. It is thus that the petitioner contends that he is upper most in merit in the UR category candidates who have yet to obtain a seat in the Ph.D. programme of the CSPILAS.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
Mr. Govind Manoharan also drew my attention to Clause 6.3 of the admission policy of the JNU, “6.3 Candidates selected are required to block their seat through online mode within the time period permitted by the Admission Branch after payment of requisite fee and uploading of required documents. Subsequently, the seats left vacant in each course will be offered to the candidates next in the merit list to block the remaining seats in order of the merit. Considering the fact that admissions are required to be closed on or before the deadline mentioned in the SCHEDULE in the e-prospectus, such offers in batches shall be offered accordingly depending on the time left and number of vacancies/available for qualified candidates. And further submitted that would seek to contend that the word “next in the merit list”, as employed in Clause 6.3, would entitle him to admission in any category in which the vacancy has still remained to be filled. Mr. Manoharan emphatically points out that there is no provision in the rules or regulations governing the Ph.D. programme in Spanish in the CSPILAS, whether in the prospectus released by the JNU in that regard or elsewhere, which proscribes adjustment of the petitioner against a vacant seat in the Foreign National category. He submits that the principles which apply to adjustment of candidates falling under one reserved category against a vacancy in another category, in service law, would not apply mutatis mutandis to education law. he submits, has been clearly laid down in M. Shravana Kumar and Hari Singh Nalwa Trust, amongst others. The guiding principle when dealing with vacancies for admission into educational institutions, he submits, is that vacancies should not be allowed to remain unfilled, in the interest of ensuring that the reach of education is maximised. Where a candidate, who is willing to undergo the Ph.D. programme in Spanish is available, albeit in another category, he should not be denied admission merely because the vacancy is not in the category to which he belongs. It is this prevailing philosophy, he submits, which also guides Clause 6.3 of the admission policy of the JNU.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
Mr. Harshvardhan Korada, learned Counsel for the JNU, submits that the decisions on which Mr. Manoharan places reliance are clearly distinguishable. He draws attention to the afore-extracted passages from the counter affidavit to contend that the respondents were bound by the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedures for Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2022 UGC Regulations”), Clause 6(3) thereof reads thus; “6(3) An eligible Professor/Associate Professor/Assistant Professor can guide up to eight (8) / six (6) / four (4) Ph.D. scholars, respectively, at any given time. Mr. Korada would submit that Foreign National candidates are in a class by themselves; sui generis, as it were. They constitute a supernumerary class, over and above those which are sanctioned for admission. They cannot, therefore, be regarded as interchangeable with the UR category students. The claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected even on this ground.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Indian constitution 1950: Every High Court shall have the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction to issue writ or orders to any person or authority.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The advert to the judicial authorities cited by Mr. Manoharan, none of these decisions can, in my considered opinion, come to the aid of the petitioner. The facts of this case are, as Mr Korada correctly submits, distinguishable. Paras 14 to 17 of the counter-affidavit (reproduced supra) clearly set out the reason why the petitioner could not be accommodated against the unfilled seats reserved for Foreign Nationals. The seats reserved for Foreign National belong to a supernumerary category. None of the decisions cited by Mr Manoharan deal with supernumerary category seats. Nor, therefore, is there to be found, in any of them, a direction to accommodate candidates, who are lower in merit in the general category, against unfilled vacancies in another supernumerary category. There is, therefore, clear substance in the contention of Mr. Harshvardhan Korada, learned counsel for the respondent that these two categories of scholars are in different ‘buckets’, and conflating one with the other would clearly infract the 2022 UGC Regulations.
The above factors, when seen in the backdrop of Regulation 8. which places a cap on the number of Foreign National and other scholars whom any Ph.D. supervisor could supervise as a mandatory upper limit, clearly indicates that it is not permissible to adjust a candidate, who is not a Foreign National/International Research Scholar in the supernumerary posts which are reserved for them. Allowing such a practice may also otherwise breach Regulation 6(3) read with Regulation 8, as, if a general category Ph.D. scholar is permitted to be adjusted against the supernumerary seat reserved for an International Research Scholar, it may result in a supervisor being permitted to supervise more than the number of general category scholars which he is otherwise permitted to supervise as per Regulation 6(3) read with Regulation 8. Though Mr. Manoharan sought to contend that there is no statement on facts by the respondent, that all the Ph.D. supervisors are supervising the maximum number of general category Ph.D. scholars as per Regulation 6(3), in my opinion no such assertion is required. We are concerned here with the interpretation of the Regulations. The Regulations clearly do not envisage a Ph.D. scholar who does not satisfy the definition of an ‘International Research Scholar’ to be supervised by any Ph.D. supervisor. That apart, as I have already observed, the facts of the present case do not permit the grant of the relief that the petitioner seeks. This clause cannot therefore be cited as a basis to contend that the respondent should be directed to admit, against the unfilled seats reserved for Foreign Nationals, the petitioner, who is not a Foreign National. There is no substance, therefore, in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, with no orders as to costs. The interim order earlier granted stands vacated.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP
Click here to read the judgement
