HARISH KUMAR Vs. HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY HISSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who is an M. Sc. (Animal Sciences) in Livestock Production and Management (L. P. M.) from the Haryana Agricultural University, has been refused admission to the Ph. D. Course in Livestock Production and Management for the year 1985-86 run by that University. It is not in dispute that as per the merit list he was at No. 2, No. 1 being an inservice candidate who had to be admitted against the quota of students reserved for inservice people. Thus so far as fresh candidates are concerned, the petitioners was at No. 1 on the basis of his merit. The University instead of admitting the petitioners has admitted respondent No. 2 who concededly was next to the petitioners or was at No. 2 of the merit list of the fresh candidates. It is again not in dispute that this admission was governed by paragraphs 6. 1 to 6. 4 of the prospectus issued by the University. The relevant parts of these paragraphs read as follows:-" 6. 1 (a) The minimum qualifications for admission of fresh as well as inservice candidates shall be 60% marks or a grade point average of 3. 2 (4. 00 basis) at the Master's level in the subject concerned and 56% marks or a grade point average of 2. 50 (4. 00 basis) at the Bachelor's level. 6. 2 Admission to Ph. D. Programme will be made on merit without any marks for interview. . . . . . . . . . . 6. 3. The Selection Committee will prepare the merit list which will be submitted to the Academic Council for approval. 6. 4 The recommendations of the committee with the particulars of the candidates shall be intimated to the Registrar within four days or as soon as possible and they shall be placed before the Academic Council by the Registrar within a week of their receipt. Further the Dean, P. C. Studies, will, for the information of all the applicants, post on the Notice Board, the names, in order of the merit, of candidates recommended as well as candidates not recommended and this too, shall be done within 4 days or as soon as possible of the interviews. " The explanation of the University in not admitting the petitioners is offered in the written statement in the following manner:-8. Regarding para No. 8 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners was on merit list at serial No. 2, No. 1 being the person in service. He was from open quota. Before the admission was to be made to the discipline, the matter was sent for approval to the Academic Council under rule 6. 3 The meeting of the Academic Council was held on 25th Oct. , 1985. The name of the petitioners was not approved by the Academic Council for the reason that his specialisation at M. Sc. level is in Dairy Technology and there is no Ph. D. Programme in Dairy Technology in the Haryana Agricultural University i. e. with the answering-respondent. The petitioners has rightly been denied admission because his specialisation at M. Sc. level was Dairy Technology. " The submission of Mr. Sumit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that as per the admission rules which have already been reproduced above,, the petitioners fulfilled the requirement of minimum qualification prescribed and as a matter of fact was placed at No. 2 of the merit list prepared by the University itself. Still he has not been given admission to the Ph. D. course in order to accommodate the next candidate, i. e. , respondent No. 2 who happens to be the son of one of the Deans of the University. According to the learned counsel, the admission has been denied to the petitioners or his selection by the University authorities has not been approved by the Academic Council for the extraneous reasons, i. e. , the influence of the father of respondent No. 2. Leaving aside the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners attributing mala fides or extraneous considerations to these authorities for the short reason that neither the father of respondent No. 2 nor the members of the Academic Council are before me as parties, I find that ignoring of the petitioners from this admission is not sustainable under any rule governing the admission. On my repeated queries, no rule has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent saying that a student has to be admitted to the Ph. D. course only in the subject which was the subject of his specialisation in the M. Sc. course. I even recorded the statement of Dr. B. P. Sengupta, Professor and Head of the L. P. M. COAS (College of Animal Sciences) of the Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, on Feb. 27, 1986 to elicit the matter further as to why it is necessary that a students should be admitted to the Ph. D. course only in the subject of his specialisation in the M. Sc. course. All that the learned Professor has been able to say in this regard is as follows:- "no doubt it is true that the petitioners had obtained the L. P. M. degree with a specialisation in Dairy Technology and the Ph. D. course which he seek to join would also result in the granting of Ph. D. degree in L. P. M. , yet his specialisation at the Master's levels is to be taken into consideration because he has spent three-fourth of his study hours in M. Sc. course in the subject in which he has specialised i. e. Dairy Technology. it was in view of this that the admission to the Ph. D. course has been refused to the petitioners by the Academic Council. " I, however, do not feel impressed by the reasons disclosed for not admitting the petitioners to the Ph. D. course in L. P. M. It may be true that he might have devoted more time and energy to the subject of his specialisation, i. e. , Dairy Technology during the course of his M. Sc. degree, yet what is there to disentitle him to get the admission in question particularly when he is M. Sc. in L. P. M. , i. e. , the very course in which he wants to complete his Ph. D. ? The only other thing which is highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondent is that subject of Dairy Technology is no more a part of the Livestock Production and Management Department with effect from Jan. 25, 1984 and has been transferred to the Department of Animal Products Technology. But what difference does this change of the subject of Dairy Technology from one Department to the other makes so far as the admission of the petitioners to the Ph. D. programme in L. P. M. is concerned, is not explained by the learned counsel. As already point out, he is M. Sc. in L. P. M. and wants to do Ph. D. in that course, i. e. , L. P. M. Merely because his subject of specialisation at the M. Sc. level was Dairy Technology cannot, to my mind, be a just ground to not to allow him admission to Ph. D. course in L. M. P. This is more so when it is not dispute by the respondent authorities that three persons, namely, P. C. Dhiman, I. J. Juneja and A. B. Deshmukh had earlier been admitted by the University to the Ph. D. Programme in L. P. M. irrespective of their filed of research at Master's level. i. e. , Dairy Husbandry. All that is contended in this regard is that these candidates had completed their Master's Degree before 1977 when Dairy Technology was not recognised as a separate sub-discipline in the Department of L. P. M. The recognition of Dairy Technology as a separate sub-discipline or subject after 1977 or the change of the subject from L. P. M. Department to A. P. T. (Animal Products Technology Department) has, to my mind, no effect on the question as to whether the petitioners should or should not be allowed admissions to Ph. D. course in L. P. M. when he is already M. Sc. in L. P. M. It is not the case of the University even remotely that the petitioners was not eligible to apply for this admission. Rather as has repeatedly been mentioned above, the University authorities considered him eligible for this admission and as a matter of fact placed him at No. 2 of the merit list. Therefore, the plea of the University or, to be more specific, of the Academic Council that since the subject of specialisation of the petitioners at M. Sc. level was Dairy Technology, he could not be admitted to the Ph. D. course in Livestock Production and Management, is wholly unfounded. In the light of his merit, his non-admission to the Ph. D. course is violative of paragraph 6. 2 referred to above.

(2.) I thus allow this petition and set aside the admission of respondent No. 2 in preference to the petitioners. This respondent would vacate the seat for the petitioners who would be permitted by the University authorities to take up his Ph. D. course in L. P. M. At this stage it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondent No. 2 having continued the course thus far, his studies be not interrupted and the University authorities be directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for admission in the next session. The submission appears to be too late in the day in the light of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580, wherein it has been pointed out that such admissions which are violative of the norms set down by the rules and regulations not only generate a sense of resentment and frustration in the minds of unfortunate left-out young students and thus cause indiscipline in the educational institutions, but there is every risk of emboldening the erring authorities in indulging in such violation of the norms of admission with impunity. The petitioners is also allowed the costs of this litigation which I determine at Rs. 1000/ -.

(3.) PETITION allowed.