,,,,,,
Sanjeev Narula, J",,,,,,
1. The Petitioner after being provisionally selected for admission to Ph.D. programme [hereinafter “Programmeâ€] for academic session 2021-22,,,,,,
at Dr. AJK-Mass Communication Research Centre [hereinafter “Centreâ€], Jamia Millia Islamia [hereinafter “Universityâ€] was shocked to",,,,,,
find her name deleted in the subsequent final list. She alleges that her selection was final in all respects and the University has arbitrarily and in,,,,,,
violation of Ordinance No. 9 (IX), Part I of Ordinances and Regulation (Academic) [hereinafter “Ordinanceâ€] denied her admission.",,,,,,
2. Chronology of events leading to publication of said final list: -,,,,,,
2.1 University issued a notification dated 21st March, 2022 inviting applications for admission to the Programme from eligible students, for session",,,,,,
2021-22. Petitioner, who holds a Bachelor degree as well as Post Graduate degree from Aligarh Muslim University, Uttar Pradesh, applied for the",,,,,,
same; her application registration ID being JMI07774160PH1 [hereinafter “reg. ID.â€].,,,,,,
2.2 Petitioner appeared for entrance examination, conducted on 27th May, 2022.",,,,,,
2.3 On 5th July, 2022, University provisionally directed successful candidates, including the Petitioner to appear for interview, and submit their",,,,,,
research proposal before respective department/ centre by 08th July, 2022. This deadline was later extended to 12th July, 2022.",,,,,,
2.4 University issued notice dated 06th July, 2022, announcing the schedule of interviews for 75 candidates and directing submission of documents",,,,,,
listed therein in addition to research proposal by 12th July, 2022. Said list of candidates mentions Petitioner’s reg. ID at S. No. 5.",,,,,,
2.5 Pursuant to notice dated 15th July, 2022, 34 candidates, including Petitioner, who had duly submitted their research proposals were directed to",,,,,,
appear for interviews on 19th and 20th July, 2022; Petitioner appeared before Centre’s Research Committee [hereinafter “CRCâ€] on 19th",,,,,,
July, 2022.",,,,,,
2.6 University issued notification dated 11th August, 2022 containing a list of 19 provisionally selected candidates, wherein Petitioner’s reg. ID",,,,,,
was mentioned at S. No. 5 under “Entrance Test Qualified Category†[hereinafter “Initial Notificationâ€]. Per said notification, candidates",,,,,,
were required to report to office of the Director of Centre, for verification/ submission of documents, and collect an ‘Offer Letter’ between",,,,,,
24th to 26th August, 2022. This date was revised to 7th to 9th September, 2022 vide notice dated 16th August, 2022.",,,,,,
2.7 The CRC held a meeting on 23rd August, 2022 (recorded in minutes dated 31st August, 2022) where further deliberations were held on said 19",,,,,,
candidates of which 11 were selected. Parallelly, University again revised the date of collection of ‘Offer Letter’ to 12th to 14th September,",,,,,,
2022 vide notice dated 27th August, 2022, wherein it was stated that candidates seeking admission in Ph.D. programmes recommended by Board of",,,,,,
Studies [hereinafter “BoSâ€]/ Committee of Studies [hereinafter “CoSâ€] were requested to complete admission formalities and Deans of,,,,,,
faculties/ Directors of centres were requested to make arrangements for admission and verify documents at time of admission prior to issuing fee slip.,,,,,,
2.8 Subsequently, CoS held a meeting on 01st September, 2022 (recorded in minutes dated 08th September, 2022), wherein aforesaid 11 candidates",,,,,,
recommended by CRC, were endorsed.",,,,,,
2.9 On 12th September, 2022: -",,,,,,
(a) Petitioner visited University to complete admission formalities.,,,,,,
(b) On same day, vide a notification, list of 11 candidates selected and recommended by CRC and CoS, was published which did not contain",,,,,,
Petitioner’s name or reg. ID. [hereinafter “Impugned Notificationâ€].,,,,,,
(c) Another notification in File No. COE/(ET-2022)/JMI.2022 was issued on the same day, whereby candidates seeking admission in Ph.D.",,,,,,
programmes recommended by BoS/CoS out of the provisional list sent to Deans of faculties/ HoDs/ Directors of centres by the Controller of,,,,,,
Examination, were requested to complete admission formalities from 12th to 14th September, 2022 and were further advised to enquire their final",,,,,,
selection in the programme from their concerned centre.,,,,,,
2.10 Petitioner filed a representation with Respondent-University on 13th September, 2022 against the Impugned Notification, pursuant to which, a",,,,,,
meeting was held on 20th September, 2022 between Respondent-University and Petitioner; however, no clarification was provided thereafter and",,,,,,
hence, present petition has been preferred.",,,,,,
Â,,,,,,
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS,,,,,,
3. Mr. Govind Manoharan, counsel for Petitioner makes following submissions:",,,,,,
3.1 Respondent-University has acted in contravention of paragraph 2(g) of Ordinance, which envisages four stages of selection: (i) publication of",,,,,,
eligible candidates to appear in entrance test; (ii) presentation of documents by shortlisted candidates and discussion of research area/ presentation,,,,,,
before CRC; (iii) recommendation of candidates based on criteria by CRC; and (iv) endorsement of said recommended candidates by BoS/CoS.,,,,,,
Petitioner cleared all four stages which culminated into Initial Notification. Petitioner relies upon the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’ and,,,,,,
Respondent-University cannot be permitted to go back on the promise held out to the Petitioner without any legitimate reason. The notifications issued,,,,,,
by the Respondent are unequivocal representation to the Petitioner of her selection for the Programme. The sole requirement left to be fulfilled by,,,,,,
Petitioner was submission of documents and collection of ‘Offer Letter’, which was arbitrarily denied.",,,,,,
3.2 Notifications dated 16th and 27th August, 2022 which extended the deadline for collection of ‘Offer Letter’, did not substitute or replace the",,,,,,
Initial Notification which declared Petitioner as a provisionally selected candidate. Hence, said notification was never recalled or superseded. In fact,",,,,,,
notification dated 27th August, 2022 mentioned that all candidates recommended by BoS/ CoS were to complete admission formalities from 12th to",,,,,,
14th September, 2022 and collect the ‘Offer Letter’. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner had visited the University on 12th September, 2022 for the",,,,,,
same.,,,,,,
3.3 The Impugned Notification did not provide any reason for publication of altered list of candidates or for denying admission to Petitioner.,,,,,,
3.4 Petitioner is entitled to restitutionary relief of grant of admission, on account of violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India by",,,,,,
University. [Reliance is placed upon decision in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, (2020) 17 SCC 465.]",,,,,,
3.5 Qua CRC’s subsequent meeting held on 23rd August, 2022 prior to Impugned Notification, which came to light in the proceedings â€" the",,,,,,
same was an ex-facie deviation and departure from the Ordinance since there is no provision to such effect. University has also failed to provide an,,,,,,
explanation despite multiple opportunities. Thus, the University ‘altered the rules of the game, with the game still in progress’. [Reliance is",,,,,,
placed upon the decision of this Court in Aviral Shankar Pandey v. Delhi University, W.P. (C) 5623/2020, decided on 16th September, 2020.] In the",,,,,,
same vein, it is stated that an outsider, such as Petitioner, must be protected in case of failure of a public authority from following its specified internal",,,,,,
procedure. [Reliance is placed upon the decision in MRF Ltd. v. Manohar Parrikar & Ors and connected matters, (2010) 11 SC 374.]",,,,,,
3.6 CRC, despite interviewing the Petitioner on 19th July, 2022, has re-considered Petitioner’s candidature by way of additional internal",,,,,,
deliberations. This is manifestly in contravention of Ordinance.,,,,,,
3.7 University’s manifest arbitrariness is evidenced by self-contradictory versions submitted in the course of proceedings and pleadings â€" (i) in,,,,,,
order dated 26th September, 2022, the Court recorded Dr. Kasim’s submission that Petitioner’s selection in Initial Notification was subject to",,,,,,
further interviews of candidates by DRC/CRC and meeting with faculty members prior to making recommendation requiring endorsement by,,,,,,
BoS/CoS, whereas the Court noted that there was no provision of such an internal meeting, and (ii) in order dated 31st October, 2022, University",,,,,,
stated that list of candidates in Initial Notification was tentative as CRC had only awarded marks out of 30 upon a ‘preliminary interview’ given,,,,,,
that marks of written exams were not known and accordingly, final list could not be prepared, however paragraph 2(g) of Ordinance contemplates",,,,,,
only a single interview â€" neither a preliminary nor final interview. Moreover, reliance is also placed upon averments in the counter affidavit",,,,,,
[paragraphs 9, 23 and 27-28] which state that CRC had provisionally selected/recommended candidates listed in Initial Notification for admission to",,,,,,
the Programme. Thus, Respondent’s acts are manifestly arbitrary, capricious and based on preference rather than reason. [Reliance is placed on",,,,,,
decision in Sanchit Bansal & Anr. v. Joint Admission Board & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 157; Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences,",,,,,,
(2012) 7 SCC 389.],,,,,,
3.8 Qua Respondent’s submission of non-availability of a supervisor in the specialised research area of Petitioner’s research proposal â€" the,,,,,,
same is an after-thought at the behest of University given that the research proposal was submitted even prior to conduct of interview itself. Further,",,,,,,
such barrier to admission was not communicated to Petitioner till the course of proceedings in present petition.,,,,,,
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS,,,,,,
4. Per contra, Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for Respondent-University submits that:",,,,,,
4.1 Respondent-University has complied with paragraph 2(g) of Ordinance which envisages six steps: (i) shortlisted candidates called for interview by,,,,,,
Centre, (ii) candidates have to bring original documents in interview for verification, (iii) discussion on broad area of research through presentation",,,,,,
before CRC, (iv) CRC assesses the competency of candidates to pursue research and if proposed research would contribute to new/ additional",,,,,,
knowledge, (v) CRC based on performance of candidates, recommends names, on basis of criteria like availability of seats, supervisor etc., and (vi)",,,,,,
recommendation of CRC shall be endorsed by BoS/CoS, which is communicated to Dean of concerned faculty. The afore-said steps are not just",,,,,,
followed by the Centre, but all 70 departments and centres of University.",,,,,,
4.2 CRC conducted a preliminary assessment of candidates and their research proposals in interviews conducted on 19th July, 2022. At this juncture,",,,,,,
CRC was not in receipt of the marks obtained by candidates in written examination. Only marks secured in the interview were submitted to Controller,,,,,,
of Examination [hereinafter “CoEâ€] of University. No final list was prepared and no supervisor was assigned to any candidate.,,,,,,
4.3 Subsequently, Initial Notification was issued by CoE on the basis of cumulative marks secured in both â€" interview and entrance examination,",,,,,,
which contained a list of 19 shortlisted candidates. Said list was to be forwarded to CRC for further deliberation, prior to approval from CoS.",,,,,,
Consequently, CRC, in a meeting held on 23rd August, 2022 (recorded in minutes dated 31st August, 2022) deliberated availability of a suitable",,,,,,
supervisor, competence of candidate et al., per paragraph 2(g) of Ordinance and selected 11 candidates. The same was approved by CoS vide",,,,,,
meeting held on 01st September, 2022 (recorded in minutes dated 08th September, 2022). On 8th September, 2022, a final list containing said 11",,,,,,
candidates was thereafter sent to Ph.D. Coordinator of University, i.e., CoE and Registrar, University. Thus, per paragraph 2(g) of Ordinance, names",,,,,,
of 11 candidates recommended by CRC were duly endorsed by CoS, and Impugned Notification i.e., notification dated 12th September, 2022, was",,,,,,
issued pursuant to the same.,,,,,,
4.4 Petitioner has misread the Initial Notification which was indubitably provisional in nature, for want of verification of documents and pending",,,,,,
approval of CoS.,,,,,,
4.5 CRC meeting held on 23rd August, 2022 (recorded in minutes dated 31st August, 2022) noted in “comments†column vis-à -vis Petitioner that",,,,,,
“no available faculty member possess the requisite specialization in the research area of scholar as indicated at the time of interviewâ€.,,,,,,
Assignment of a supervisor is critical for progress of Ph.D. scholars in terms of guidance and mentorship for the Programme. For this reason,",,,,,,
admission to Programme is hinged on the availability of supervisors and not just seats. Every candidate takes at least 5 years to finish the Ph.D.,,,,,,
programme and supervisors have limited vacancies as per University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of,,,,,,
M.Phil./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 [No. F.1-2/2009(EC/PS)V(I) Vol. II. Gazette notification dated 5th May, 2016, paragraph 6.5.] [hereinafter",,,,,,
“UGC Guidelinesâ€]. Selection of candidates needs to be judicious and vacancies cannot be filled within one session itself â€" as it would bar,,,,,,
Ph.D. admissions for next few years.,,,,,,
4.6 Where candidates do not demonstrate required competence to carry out doctoral research or the proposals of candidates do not align with the,,,,,,
expertise of existing supervisors, or are scattered or inconclusive in terms of determining a specialisation or have high levels of plagiarism/ ‘similarity",,,,,,
index’ scores â€" their candidature is not considered in line with paragraph 5(a) of Ordinance.,,,,,,
4.7 Respondent’s admission process was not arbitrary and Petitioner cannot seek admission on the basis of ‘legitimate expectation’ and in,,,,,,
consequence thereof, negate disapproval of her candidature by University. [Reliance is placed upon decision in Ram Pravesh Singh and Ors. v. State",,,,,,
of Bihar and Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1001 and GNCT of Delhi v. Naresh Kumar, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3942]",,,,,,
ANALYSIS,,,,,,
5. Petitioner cleared written examination and was shortlisted for interview that was conducted on 19th July, 2022. Thereafter, University published",,,,,,
notification dated 11th August, 2022, the linchpin of Petitioner’s claim, which is reproduced hereinbelow:",,,,,,
“JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI -110025",,,,,,
(A Central University),,,,,,
 NAAC Accredited Grade ‘A++’,,,,,,
SL. No.,APPLICATION ID,ROLL NUMBER,,,,
1,JMI07811217PH1,P1018016,,,,
2,JMI07796385PH1,P1018003,,,,
3,JMI07814117PH1,P1029002,,,,
4,JMI07833298PH1,P1018037,,,,
5,JMI07774160PH1,P1018032,,,,
6,JMI00755671PH1,P1018040,,,,
7,JMI07833565PH1,P1018011,,,,
8,JMI0781537PH1,P1029005,,,,
S. No.,"Name & Roll No. of
Applicant and their
Research
Proposal",Title of Proposal,"Assigned
Supervisor
/ Comments",,,
,xx ..,xx ..,xx,,,
5.,"Ikra Khan
P1018032","Meme â€" As A
Tool Of Political
Communication in
India: History
Scope & Its
Effectiveness","N o  available
faculty member
possess  the
requisite
specialization in
the research area
of scholar as
indicated at theÂ
time of
interview.""",,,
,xx ..,xx ..,xx,,,
17,"Ikra
Khan
Entrance
Test","Meme â€" As A
Tool Of
Political
Communication
in India:
History Scope
 &  Its
Effectiveness",39%,04,"The Proposal is
weak and entirely
composed of
scattered material
from the internet.
The reading list
given at theÂ
end of the
proposal hasÂ
no reference
w i t h i n the
proposal. It is
difficult to
 determine
 how much of
the proposal is
 written  by
 the candidate
who does notÂ
appear to
understand  Â
the Academic
Expectations  of
 a PhD.Â
Difficult to
assign
supervisor.
The high level of
similarity checks
is of concern.
Clause 5(a):
No Supervisor
with suitable
specialization","Not
Selected
xx    ..    xx   ..    xx,,,,,,
(supra) to apply the ‘doctrine of indoor management’ is equally misplaced, as the said doctrine has no application to the facts of the present",,,,,,
case. Likewise, S. Krishna Sradha (supra), which pertains to grant of admission to MBBS courses also cannot be applied to the facts of the present",,,,,,
case as herein denial of admission is not on account of denial of fair treatment, but because she was not found to be meritorious.",,,,,,
Conclusion,,,,,,
17. For the reasons discussed above, departure from the stipulated admission process is manifest, which the Court disapproves. This finding will",,,,,,
perhaps give some consolation to the Petitioner, but not entirely, as the Court finds no compelling ground to grant her any tangible relief. At this stage,",,,,,,
annulment of entire admission process, which is complete, would cause extreme hardship to all candidates who have confirmed admissions and are",,,,,,
progressing with their Ph.D. programmes. The Court has also considered the relief of granting admission to the Petitioner, without disturbing the",,,,,,
admissions already granted, as a seat has been reserved by way of interim order. However, since she has been denied admission both on merits as",,,,,,
well as under paragraph 5(a) of the Ordinance, and not because of a malafide action, such a relief also cannot be granted. Moreover, as it turns out,",,,,,,
vacancy in Ph.D. programmes refers to not ‘seats’ available at the centre/ department but to number of scholars a Ph.D. faculty member can,,,,,,
be assigned for supervision. Court is informed that as per UGC Guidelines, there is a limitation regarding the number of candidates that can be",,,,,,
supervised by a supervisor. Thus, selection of candidates needs to be judicious, and on consideration of several factors over which the Court cannot sit",,,,,,
in appeal.,,,,,,
18. In light of the foregoing, the present petition is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any. The interim order dated 26th September, 2022 is",,,,,,
vacated.,,,,,,
Postscript,,,,,,
19. The Court hopes and expects that going forward, the University shall conduct admissions strictly as per the procedure laid down under the",,,,,,
Ordinance.,,,,,,
