Patna High Court
Simpi Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIR 2021 PATNA 156, AIRONLINE 2021 PAT 86
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8089 of 2020
======================================================
Simpi Kumari (Female), aged about 28 years, wife of Abhishek Pradhan,
residing at Raja S.N. Road (Near Dr. Arun Sinha, Mashak Chak), P.S.-
Adampur, District Bhagalpur - 812001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Special Secretary, Department of Higher
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur through its Registrar.
3. The Vice-Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
4. The Registrar, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.
5. The Coordinator, College Development Council, Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur
University, Bhagalpur.
6. The Officer on Special Duty (Research), Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University,
Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate
For the State/R1 : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav (Adv.), GP 23 with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha (Adv.), AC to GP 23
For the University/R2-6 : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2021
Heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, learned Government
Pleader 23 along with Mr Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned
Assistant Counsel to GP 23 for the State, and; Mr. Ashhar
Mustafa, learned counsel for the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur
University (hereinafter referred to as the "University").
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the
following reliefs:
".... for issuance of an appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
2/8
Writ(s)/Order(s) or direction and thereby
to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondent University,
particularly the Coordinator
(Respondent No.5) to allow the petitioner
to appear in Interview in
PAT/19/NET/JRF, to appear before
Interview board of the University for
taking admission in Research
methodology class along with PAT-19
qualified candidates for this purpose,
since she (petitioner) has already
successfully passed Pre-Ph.D. Test held
in Sept. 2017, Result of which has been
declared in January, 2018.
(I) The petitioner being eligible candidate be
allowed to appear before the Interview
board for admission in Ph.D. course
along with PAT-19 (Pre-Admission Test
for Ph.D.) qualified candidates.
(ii) The petitioner being entitled for taking
admission in Research Methodology class
as per Regulation of T.M.B. University be
allowed to face interview and to take
admission in Ph.D. course.
(iii) After being successful in interview she be
also permitted to participate in online
classes for Research Methodology class
(Course).
(iv) The petitioner be paid the cost of legal
proceeding throughout.
(v) The petitioner be also granted any other
relief/s permissible under the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The moot question for consideration in the present
application is whether the concerned regulation of the
University Grants Commission, as adopted by the University on
27.01.2018, would be applicable with regard to the examination
viz. Pre-Admission Test for PhD 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
3/8
"PAT 2017") insofar as the period of validity of the result of the
said examination is concerned for admission into the PhD
Course.
4. The following facts are not in dispute - The
process for conducting the PAT 2017 examination began with
publication of notice on 23.05.2017; pursuant to the same, the
petitioner also applied for taking the examination, which was
held on 14.09.2017, and; the result was declared on 09.01.2018.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the examination result of the petitioner is required to be
considered valid for three years in view of the subsequent
regulation adopted by the University on 27.01.2018, which
stipulated such period of validity of the result of the concerned
examination, and clearly specified that the same would come
into effect from the 2017-18 Session. Learned counsel submitted
that as the examination was held and result declared after
Session 2017-18 had begun, it would but naturally cover the
case of the petitioner and she has to be given such benefit and,
accordingly, allowed to take admission in the PhD programme
without having to again clear such examination under the new
regulation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the University
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
4/8
submitted that the process for the PAT 2017, which the
petitioner appeared for and cleared, having started in May, 2017,
and governed at the relevant time by the ordinance which was
issued prior to the later ordinance, clearly stipulating that the
period for which the result of the examination would be valid
for only one year, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel clarified that based on that result, people were
counselled and had taken admission in the PhD programme
within one year, but the petitioner did not take any initiative
within time for taking admission in PhD programme for the next
two years and suddenly, she has woken up. Learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner was now attempting to take
advantage of the new regulation. It was submitted that the
petitioner's contention(s) is/are not fit to be entertained for the
reason that when the process for the PAT 2017 commenced, the
new regulation, having not been adopted/promulgated by the
University, was not even in existence and in any view of the
matter, the adoption/promulgation of the regulation as far as the
University is concerned, was only on and with effect from
27.01.2018 i.e., after the declaration of the result of the PAT
2017.
7. Learned counsel for the State adopted in toto the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
5/8
arguments of learned counsel for the University.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties, the Court does not find merit in the present application,
so as to necessitate its intervention under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
9. On a plain reading of the regulation, which was
finally promulgated by the University on 27.01.2018, especially
Clause 1.2 thereof, clearly reads "those candidates, who have
been registered for PhD before the promulgation of this
ordinance would be governed by the earlier ordinance issued
from time to time under which he/she had been admitted".
Further, just the closing line of the Preamble at Clause 1.1 states
that it "shall come into force from the session 2017-18". The
Court would pause here. Even though the mention/reference is
to Session 2017-18, but it is no longer res integra that for a
process which has begun on any particular date, the law
applicable or in operation on the said date would apply and no
subsequent change would affect the process. Admittedly, in the
present case, the process was set into motion via publication of
notice on 23.05.2017. Further, the timelines for Session 2017-18
also give support to the view being taken by this Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
6/8
inasmuch as, the relevant academic session in the University
runs from 1st July of the year to 30th June of the succeeding year.
Thus, on both the aforesaid counts, benefit of the new/later
ordinance cannot be granted to or claimed by the petitioner.
10. The mere publishing or circulation of model
regulations by the University Grants Commission would not
ipso facto lead to a situation where all regulations issued by the
University Grants Commission could be said to be binding on
the universities concerned, except when duly
adopted/promulgated, when such university happens to be a
State University. Hence, the new/later regulation would become
effective only when adopted/promulgated by the university
concerned, when such university happens to be a State
University. In the present case, the University has been
operating under the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Support
for this reasoning can be drawn from the Hon'ble Supreme
Court's decision in Kalyani Mathivanan v K V Jeyaraj, (2015)
6 SCC 363, the relevant paragraphs being:
'20. We have heard the learned counsel for
the parties and the issues that arise for our con-
sideration are:
(i) whether the UGC Regulations, 2010 are
mandatory in nature; and
(ii) whether in the event of conflict between
the University Act, the regulations framed there-
under and the UGC Regulations, 2010, the pro-
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
7/8
visions of the UGC Regulations, 2010 would
prevail or not; and
(iii) whether the post of Vice-Chancellor of a
university is to be considered as part of the
teaching staff.
xxx
31. The Annexure to the UGC Regulations,
2010 prescribes the minimum qualifications for
appointment and other service conditions of uni-
versity and college teachers, librarians, Direc-
tors of Physical Education and Sports.
xxx
56. We have noticed and held that the UGC
Regulations, 2010 are not applicable to the uni-
versities, colleges and other higher educational
institutions coming under the purview of the
State Legislature unless the State Government
wish to adopt and implement the Scheme subject
to the terms and conditions therein. In this con-
nection, one may refer to Para 8(p)(v) of Appen-
dix I dated 31-12-2008 and Regulation 7.4.0 of
the UGC Regulations, 2010.
xxx
62.3. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are manda-
tory to teachers and other academic staff in all
the Central universities and colleges thereunder
and the institutions deemed to be universities
whose maintenance expenditure is met by UGC.
62.4. The UGC Regulations, 2010 are direc-
tory for the universities, colleges and other
higher educational institutions under the
purview of the State legislation as the matter has
been left to the State Government to adopt and
implement the Scheme. Thus, the UGC Regula-
tions, 2010 are partly mandatory and is partly
directory.'
(emphasis supplied)
11. There is yet another lens from which the matter
can be examined. The petitioner, when (i) she filled up the
examination form; (ii) she gave the examination, and; (iii) the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8089 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021
8/8
results were declared - at all these points of time is deemed to
have been aware of the fact that the results of the PAT 2017
were valid only for a period of one year. Thus, it is not a case
where the petitioner is being put at a disadvantageous position,
than she was in when the aforementioned sequence of events
transpired.
12. In the present case, the examination was
conducted, and the result declared prior to the date of
promulgation of the later ordinance by the University on
27.01.2018. In the opinion of this Court, the University cannot be faulted in asserting that the benefit of the later/new regulation cannot be given to the petitioner. The Court can sympathise with the petitioner, at best, but cannot grant the relief prayed for. To quote from Gaurav Jain v Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 652, 'Charity beyond law is an injustice to others.'
13. Hence, in the aforesaid background, the writ application stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances herein, there shall be no order as to cost.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/-
AFR/NAFR AFR U T