Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virender Singh Malik vs Haryana Agriculture University And ... on 23 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988P&H226, AIR 1988 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 226, (1987) 3 SERVLR 486
Author: M.M. Punchhi
Bench: M.M. Punchhi
ORDER
1. The petitioner has come to this court seeking a mandamus against the Haryana Agricultural University requiring it to admit him to Ph. D. Course in Plant Breeding and Genetics for the Academic Session 1986-87. The claim of the petitioner is based on the following facts :--
2. It is the common case of the parties that the petitioner passed his M.Sc. Agriculture in Plant Breeding on 10-10-1986(as per the return of the respondents) and had obtained a provisional decree of M.Sc. by 14-10-1986 appended with the petition as Annexure P 1, (the provisional Degree bearing the date of 14-10-1986). In anticipation of his success, the petitioner sought admission to Ph. D. Course in Plant Breeding and Genetics for the Academic Sessions 1986-87 as applications for the purpose had been invited by the University. The last date for submission of applications was 18-9-1986. The petitioner applied well in time but by then he had not submitted his thesis to the University, one of the prerequisites for obtaining a final M.Sc. Degree. The petitioner was called for interview on 14-10-1986. In the list of selected candidates displayed, his name did not figure. He wrote a letter to the Registrar of the University on 28-10-1986, copy of which is Annexure P-3. On 29-10-1986, vide Annexure P-4, the Registrar informed the petitioner that the Selection Committee had not recommended his name because he had not submitted his thesis by the last date of receipt of applications i.e., 18-9-1986 and had rather submitted the same on 26-9-1986, 8 days late. Reference was made in the said letter to a decision of the Academic Council of the University in which relaxation is suggested to have been made in the rules permitting candidates to be considered for admission who had submitted their theses on the last day of receipt of application, i.e., 18-9-1986,. and cleared their viva voce examination before the interview. The petitioner challenging the action of the University primarily rests his case on the past practice permitting thesis to be submitted after the last date fixed for the receipt of applications for admission. Four instances were quoted in para 9(c) of the petition and which were not denied in the return. Those instances relate to the Academic Session 1985-86 and have been read in the policy decision of the Academic Council embodied in Annexures P-S and P-6 to assert that it was resolved by the Academic Council that for the Academic Session 1986-87 the past practice was to continue, but in future relaxation in submission of thesis beyond the last date of receipt of applications was not to be permitted.
3. In the return, the respondents have candidly conceded that in the previous Academic Session 1985-86 there was no condition attached that the candidates should submit their theses by the last date of receipt of applications for admission. Rather it has been admitted that theses have been accepted even beyond the last date of receipt of application as per past practice. It has been given out that the spirit of Academic Council's decision dt. 4-10-1986 regarding the past practice was on the supposition that theses must be submitted by the last date of receipt of applications, which was 18-9-1986. And it is on that score, refusal of admission to the petitioner has been justified as the thesis was admittedly submitted 8 days late on 26-91986.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on their rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the respondents could no justifiably deny the petitioner the admission sought for, merely on the basis that h submitted his thesis late by 8 days. It is rather the admitted case of the parties that prior to 4-10-1986, the date on which the Academic Council took the decision, there was n specific rule requiring theses to be submitted by the last date of submission of application for admission. And even if there was a practice to insist on such a course termed as "the spirit of the Academic council decision dt. 4-10-1986" the condition as per practice was relaxable as was evident from the four instances quoted in the petition, which are not denied. Significantly, the petitioner had submitted his thesis on 26-9-1986, i.e. much before 4-10-1986 on which date the rule became rigid. And even here, despite rigidity, it was ensured that the past practice as adhere either to before was not to be lost sight of in the current Academic Session. Thus, in other words, candidates who had, on the basis of past practice, not submitted their theses by the last date of submission of application forms for admission, were well within their right to have their applications processed and considered. Undeniably, the petitioner had by then cleared the viva voce test and the provisional degree in his favour, dt. 14-10-1986, evidently took into account the thesis submitted by him. So, by the date the petitioner went for final interview he was qualified for admission from all angles. The bar put across the petitioner was thus wholly unjustified and needs to be lifted by a suitable direction.
5. Accordingly, for what has been said above, this petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to release a seat in favour of the petitioner for the Ph.D. course in Plant Breeding and Genetics as four such seats are still lying vacant, and there is no eligible candidate on the list as candidly conceded by the respondents. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned authorities for with for completing all formalities so that he can make up for the lost days in the pursuit of his studies. The respondents shall grant him the admission without demur. The petitioner shall have his costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- .
6. Order accordingly.