Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12.5 The respondents, on the other hand, have adverted to the fact that the Department of Buddhist Studies in the past, more precisely, between 2008 and 2013 has conferred Ph.Ds on students which are related to the field of Political Science, Sociology and Philosophy.

12.6 A cursory examination of the titles of the Ph.Ds awarded in the Department of Buddhist Studies would show that each one of them seem to be connected to the period when Buddhism took its roots in India. Anyone who has studied Indian Philosophy would know that a large section of Indian Philosophy is rooted in Buddhism. Suffice it to say, that whether, Masters, in a particular subject would have relevance is something which cannot be ordinarily assessed by the courts as they are not experts in the field. But this would not relieve the experts of their obligation to assess the relevance of the subject in which the applicant has qualified at the Masters level. This is not an area which is completely immune from judicial review, as sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents. In this particular case, I do not propose to venture in this particular direction as there isn't available on record; enough material, to sustain the charge. 12.7 There is another ground of challenge raised by the petitioners. It is contended that the University of Delhi failed to evaluate the candidates on the basis of API. The University of Delhi, in its additional affidavit, has clearly explained that at the time when the selection was carried out, that part of UGC Regulation 2010 which required them to assess candidates on the basis of API scores, had not kicked-in. As per the affidavit of the University of Delhi, the part pertaining to API scores, referred to in the regulation, was adopted by the EC only on 17.08.2013. Having regard to the same, I am not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the selection process was faulty as candidates were not evaluated based on API scores.