VINEET ASHEESH PANDEY Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to the Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') having issued a Bulletin inviting applications for admission to Ph.D. and M.Phil programme through Research Entrance Test (RET) and direct admission (RET Exempted) in various disciplines including Performing Arts for registration in September, 2012 and March, 2013 session, the appellant-petitioner, who had passed M.Phil in Musicology from the University, applied for admission in two disciplines, namely Vocal (RET Exempted Category) and Musicology (RET Category). The admitted case of the appellant is that he was selected to be given admission as a Ph.D. student in Vocal Music (RET Exempted Category) but still was not registered for Ph.D. Such decision was communicated to the appellant by the University on 23.1.2013. Challenging the same, the appellant filed a writ petition No. 30347 of 2013, which was disposed of on 28.5.2013 with the direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the Banaras Hindu University to decide the representation of the petitioner in this regard, by speaking and reasonable order. Pursuant thereto, when representation was not decided, the appellant-petitioner filed a contempt petition and thereafter by the order dated 13th/14th, August, 2013, the representation of the appellant-petitioner was rejected with the following directions:

(2.) Challenging the same, the appellant-petitioner filed a writ petition No. 49436 of 2013 with the prayer for quashing the orders dated 23.1.2013 and 13th/14th, August, 2013 passed by the respondent-University. It was also prayed that Clause U. 2.2 (g) of the Information Bulletin for admission in Ph.D. and M.Phil programmes issued by the University, be declared ultra vires the UGC Regulations and the respondent-University, be directed to provide Supervisor/Co-supervisor to the petitioner and register the petitioner to Ph.D. course in Vocal Music for the year 2012-13.

(3.) The said writ petition has been dismissed by judgment and order dated 6.12.2013, primarily on the ground that it is wrong to say that no assistance was given to the petitioner by the University for identifying a mutually agreeable Supervisor and also after holding that Clause U. 2.2 (g) of the Information Bulletin is not contrary to Regulation 12 of the Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'UGC'). Aggrieved by the said judgement, this intra Court appeal has been filed.