TRIPTI DHALLA Vs. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 22nd July 2002 whereby the respondent has cancelled the admission given to the petitioner to the Ph.D. (Phase I) programme for July 2002-January 2003 session. A prayer is also made for allowing the petitioner to join Ph.D. Programme (Phase I) for the Session July 2002.

(2.) The petitioner applied to the respondent university for admission in Ph.D. Programme Phase I. The application of the petitioner was approved by the respondent and the petitioner was offered admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner was asked to submit programme fee of Rs.10,000/-. The fee was deposited. The session was to commence in July 2002. However, the respondents vide letter dated 22nd July 2002 cancelled the admission of the petitioner. Thus by way of action of cancellation, the petitioner was not only denied admission to the Ph.D. Course but was also deprived of an opportunity of being absorbed permanently in service. It is stated that the cancellation of the admission does not fall in any of the grounds mentioned in the information brochure issued by the respondent and the cancellation of admission is based only on the ground that the offer of admission was made inadvertently. Cancellation was thus arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the grounds laid down in Clause 3.7 of the prospectus. The respondents could not have cancelled the admission after having approved and confirmed the same and after having received the programme fee within the stipulated time. The impugned letter also does not set out the reasons for cancellation of the admission.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner was invited by the respondent to present her research proposals. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Screening Committee. Vide letter dated 4th July 2001, the petitioner was again given an opportunity to appear before the Screening Committee but again the petitioner failed to appear to present her research proposal. It is further stated that inadvertently offer letters for admission to Ph.D. Programme were sent to all the shortlisted candidates. On realising its mistake, the respondent immediately sent a telegram dated 5.7.2002 to the petitioner and all other candidates who were mistakenly sent letters for offer of admission. The fee deposited by the petitioner was also returned to her. The letter offering admission was only an offer and did not constitute final registration of the petitioner.