Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:07.11.2013 vs State Of Haryana And Others on 7 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Kumar Vinod
2013.11.15 12:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.17204 of 2012 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.17204 of 2012
Date of decision:07.11.2013
Vijay Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate, and
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate,
for respondent nos.2 to 4.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral)
The Kurukshetra University invited applications for enrollment for Ph.D. Course in Hindi. There were two modes of enrollment i.e. entrance test and the candidates who are exempted from taking entrance test. The petitioners applied in the exempted quota. Admissions were to be made in terms of the Ordinance of Doctorate in Philosophy (Ph.D.) (Annexure P-1) issued by the University. The Department of Hindi of the University published a list of common merit of the students to be enrolled in the Ph.D. showing names of the petitioners as well but later on, vide letter dated 12.06.2012, provisional admission of the petitioners were cancelled on the ground that it was only for 4 pre-determined seats. Hence, this writ Kumar Vinod 2013.11.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17204 of 2012 [2] ***** petition has been filed assailing the letter dated 12.06.2012 as well as for issuance of a direction to the respondents to re-admit the petitioners to complete their Ph.D. Course in Hindi.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily; firstly in cancelling admission of the petitioners and then re-notifying 24 candidates for the purpose of 4 pre-determined seats in August, 2012. It is also submitted that the petitioners were duly qualified and their admissions could not have been cancelled.
Counsel for the University has submitted that as per Note-2 appended to Clause 3(a) of the Ordinance and application form for Ph.D., the admission to Ph.D. Course is to be in order of merit as per clause 8.1 to 8.4 subject to availability of seats and experts for guidance/supervision in the area of research. It is further submitted that the candidates pursuing M.Phil. Course or any other course cannot be considered for enrollment to Ph.D. course till their course is completed. Insofar as the seats for exempted quota is concerned, those were to be filled up in order of preference of UGC/CSIR - JRF, GATE, NET, SLET. It is further submitted that the occasion of enhancement in number of candidates has arisen because of the availability of supervisors/guides in the concerned subject.
It is further submitted that the petitioners are all belonging to exempted category in which only 11 seats are meant for General category out of 24, out of which only 2 seats were available to the petitioners as all others who have been given admission were Junior Research Fellows. Insofar as petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, they were lower in merit Kumar Vinod 2013.11.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17204 of 2012 [3] ***** because the seat given to Sudha Jolly, who is at Sr. No.10 in the table of Annexure R-2/2, had secured 84.82 marks and Ram Murthi, who is at Sr. No.11, had secured 67.27 marks, whereas petitioner nos.1 and 2 have got 64.35 and 63.86 marks respectively, which were lower than the marks secured by Ram Murti who has got 67.27 marks. It is also submitted that though the other candidates in General Category (Exempted) had secured higher merit but still they could not be considered for admission because they did not submit their Detail Marks Certificates of M.Phil. by 31.10.2011 in view of Note-2 appended to clause 3(a) of the Ph.D. Ordinance. It is further submitted that respondent no.4 submitted his Detailed Marks Certificate of M.Phil. on 18.05.2012 and petitioner no.5 did not submit it at all. Insofar as petitioner no.3 is concerned, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, his overall merit was 63.14 but still he was not eligible because he did not clear his M.Phil. by 31.10.2011.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present writ petition. As explained by learned counsel for the University, the number of seats were enhanced with the increase of number of Supervisors and Guides and the petitioner nos.1 and 2, who were in General category and were not JRF, could not made their place in the merit list because they were lower in merit and the other petitioners did not submit their Detailed Marks Certificate of M.Phil. before the cut off date, as prescribed in Note-2 appended to clause 3(a) of the Ph.D. Ordinance and could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of admission in Ph.D. Kumar Vinod 2013.11.15 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.17204 of 2012 [4] ***** In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
November 07, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE