LAWS(DLH)-2011-2-340

SURENDER KUMAR Vs. AJK MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CENTRE

Decided On February 21, 2011
SURENDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
AJK MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH CENTRE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste, by this petition impugns the decision dated 3rd December, 2010 of the respondent No.1 Institute (of the respondent No.2 Jamia Millia Islamia University) rejecting the petitioners application / proposal for admission to the Ph.D. programme. THE petitioner avers that the said decision is arbitrary, biased, without application of mind and without just and proper reasons.

(2.) THE petitioner had first applied for admission to the Ph.D. programme of the respondents in August, 2009 when his application was rejected for the reason of his then not having minimum 55% eligibility marks for admission to the said programme. It is the case of the petitioner that though the respondents were not following the UGC guidelines of relaxation of 5% marks for the Scheduled Castes candidates but the petitioner nevertheless enrolled himself for another post graduation course in Mass Communication and by the dint of his hard work secured 65% marks therein and in January, 2010 again applied for admission to the Ph.D. programme with the project topic / research proposal of "Portrayal of Dalit in Hindi Art Cinema". THE petitioner claims that the respondents on 8th March, 2010 rejected his candidature on the ground that his proposal has no scholarly importance. THE petitioner claims to have in October, 2010 again applied, with the project / topic of research being ,,Construction of Dalit Image in Hindi Art Cinema ? Reality or Prejudice; A Comparative Study of Hindi Offbeat and Blockbuster Cinemas during 1970-2009".

(3.) THE petitioner has contended the aforesaid decision to be arbitrary for the reason that while the project report submitted earlier was of 10 pages, this time around, it was of 25 pages and thus the reasoning given of the petitioner having merely made cosmetic changes in his earlier project report is erroneous. THE counsel for the petitioner argues that the changes from 10 to 25 pages cannot be cosmetic.