G. Veeran and Others Vs The Registrar University of Madras, Head of the Department Department of Ancient History and Archaelogy University of Madras and University Grants Commission

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

K. Chandru, J.@mdashThe Petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for a declaration declaring that the revised regulations in respect of admission to Ph.D programme in terms of Appendix H Clause 1 as null and void and ultravires to the University Grants Commisison regulations for full implementation of the reservation in admisison for SC and ST students. This revised prayer was made in M.P. No. 1 of 2011 and that the same was ordered on 6.4.2011.

2. By the impugned regulations, which was effective from July, 2004, the University had issued admisison procedure in Appendix H. In the detailed instructions with reference to admission, it was stated as follows:

Admission:

The admission should be made purely on merit basis.

i. The Entrance Test which will be conducted by the respective Department / College/ Institution shall carry a maximum of 50 marks as detailed below:

ii. The candidate should secure at least 25 marks out of 50 marks in the Entrance Test (Written and Oral).

iii. The remaining 50% of marks shall be from the qualifying examination.

3. The Petitioners were aggrieved by the prescription of entrance test and admission on merit. It was stated by them that the said regulation was in conflict with the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission. The guidelines are binding on the Respondent University. The Petitioners have extracted various paragraphs from the UGC regulations as notified by the Respondent University.

4. But, however, a perusal of the said notification enclosed by them does not show any reference made to Ph.D admission programme. It is in the nature of general direction for admissions, so that various reserve communities can get admission to various colleges and Universities. Such a direction is unnecessary in respect of this State as there is already law prescribing quota in respect of SC/ST communities prescribed for their entry. The subsequent guidelines sent by the UGC also did not deal with the Ph.D admission programme.

5. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent University. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the guidelines relied on by the Petitioners, dated 27.6.2005 issued by the University will apply to only the UG and PG Programmes and not to the University admission to Ph.D Programme. It was also stated that in admitting the students for Ph.D. Programme, the communal roster is not being followed. In paragraphs 6,7,8 and 10, it was averred as follows:

6... Students are selected only on the basis of merit. Since, the students'' selection and admisison is based on various parameters such as (a) the topic of research taken by the students, (b) availability of the Supervisor with the specialization on the same area of study taken by the students, (c)availability of vacancy under the particular Supervisor and (d) the willingness of the Supervisor to guide the students. Under these circumstances, the University is selecting the students only on the basis of merit. Furthermore the Clause 2(a), (b) and (c) of the Guidelines of the UGC is effectively implemented in all the courses conducted by the University of Madras. In so far as the Ph.D. is concerned, as it is a research programme, as per the University Regulations, merit system is followed by conducting an entrance test. As far as the Clause 8 of the UGC guidelines is concerned, it provides guidelines for admission to the courses such as UG and PG. At the same time the Clause does not forbid the University from conducting an entrance test for the candidates applying for admisison to Ph.D. Programme. The University is scrupulously following the Admission Procedure (APPENDIX-H) as printed on the page Nos. 22,23 and 24 of the Application Form that was passed by the Syndicate of the Madras University. As such the Respondent are bound to follow the Regulations framed and passed by the various competent bodies of the University such as Board Research, Academic Council, Syndicate and Senate.

7.I respctfully submit that as there is no reservation for the admission to Ph.D. Programme, which cannot be determined and fixed and followed due to the reasons mentioned supra, question of allocating certain percentage of seats for SC and ST and filing the same based upon the marks obtained in the qualifying examination does not arise. The 1st Petitioner, who filed the affidavit on behalf of other three Petitioners had appeared for the entrance on 17.11.2008 and failed to secure pass mark in the entrance eam as prescribed in the Revised Regulations that came into effective from July 2008. As he had failed to secure pass mark in the entrance examination he was not admitted for the Ph.D. Programme. Thus, after having failed to secure the pass mark in the entrance examination, the 1st Petitioner in collusion with othe Petitioners, who had not appeared for the entrance exam, had chosen to file this Writ Petition with an ulterior motive of harassing the Respondents.

8.I respectfully submit that University of Madras sofar admitted students to the Ph.D Programmes in various Departments based on the Regulations passed by the various competent authorities of the University time to time. As per the Regulations of the University, entrance examination is mandatoryt for admission to Ph.D. Programme. So far, all the candidates including candidates belonging to S.C. And S.T. had already undertaken the entrance examination. Even in the Department of Ancient History and Archaeology, in the month of March 2009 one Mr. J. Ranjit, who belongs to S.C. Community, had pased the entrance and joined as University Research Fellow on 05.03.2009. Hence, the contention of the Petitioners that the selection to Ph.D Programme should be on the basis of qualifying marks is untenable and unsistainable. As such the Respondents are bound to follow the Regulations passed by Authorities of the University, they are not empowered to pass orders on the representations alleged to have been submitted by the Petitioners.

10...the guidelines of the U.G.C. have been wrongly misconstrued by the Petitioners since the same will be applicable only with regard to the courses run by colleges and the University Departments but whereas the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is a research programme and it is not a course as erroneously understood by the Petitioners....

6. In view of the above stand of the University, the Petitioners'' case cannot be countenanced. The courts are not expert in deciding academic matters and it is not for them to decide as to what course should be taught in universities and what should be their curriculum. This note of caution was sounded in The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, wherein Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench held that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be.

7. The same principle was reiterated in Dr. J.P. Kulshreshtha and Others Vs. Chancellor, Allahabad University and Others, wherein it was held as under: (SCC p.426, para 17): "While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies. But university organs, for that matter any authority in our system, are bound by the rule of law and cannot be law unto themselves. If the Chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court out."

8. Both these decisions were quoted with approval in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in P.M. Bhargava and Others Vs. University Grants Commission and Another,

9. In the absence of any specific UGC guidelines binding on the University, the Respondents have not committed any violation of procedure. The Petitioners do not have any legal or enforceable right on their part. In the light of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. Accordingly, the wit petition will stand dismissed. No costs.