VIRENDER SINGH Vs. HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this court seeking a mandamus against the Haryana Agricultural University requiring it to admit him to Ph. D. Course in Plant Breeding and Genetics for the Academic Session 1986-87. The claim of the petitioner is based on the following facts :-

(2.) It is the common case of the parties that the petitioner passed his M.Sc. Agriculture in Plant Breeding on 10-10-1986 (as per the return of the respondents) and had obtained a provisional decree of M.Sc. by 14-10-1986 appended with the petition as Annexure P-1, (the provisional Degree bearing the date of 14-10-1986). In anticipation of his success, the petitioner sought admission to Ph.D. Course in Plant Breeding and Genetics for the Academic Sessions 1986-87 as applications for the purpose had been invited by the University. The last date for submission of applications was 18-9-1986. The petitioner applied well in time but by then he had not submitted his thesis to the University, one of the pre-requisites for obtaining a final M.Sc. Degree. The petitioner was called for interview on 14-10-1986. In the list of selected candidates displayed, his name did not figure. He wrote a letter to the Registrar of the University on 28-10-1986, copy of which is Annexure P-3. On 29-10-1986, vide Annexure P-4, the Registrar informed the petitioner that the Selection Committee had not recommended his name because he had not submitted his thesis by the last date of receipt of applications i.e. 18-9-1986 and had rather submitted the same on 26-9-1986, 8 days late. Reference was made in the said letter to a decision of the Academic Council of the University in which relaxation is suggested to have been made in the rules permitting candidates to be considered for admission who had submitted their theses on the last day of receipt of application, i.e., 18-9-1986, and cleared their viva voce examination before the interview. The petitioner challenging the action of the University primarily rests his case on the past practice permitting thesis to be submitted after the last date fixed for the receipt of applications for admission. Four instances were quoted in para 9(c) of the petition and which were not denied in the return. Those instances relate to the Academic Session 1985-86 and have been read in the policy decision of the Academic Council embodied in Annexures P-5 and P-6 to assert that it was resolved by the Academic Council that for the Academic Session 1986-87 the past practice was to continue, but in future relaxation in submission of thesis beyond the last date of receipt of applications was not to be permitted.

(3.) In the return, the respondents have candidly conceded that in the previous Academic Session 1985-86 there was no condition attached that the candidates should submit their theses by the last date of receipt of applications for admission. Rather it has been admitted that theses have been accepted even beyond the last date of receipt of application as per past practice. It has been given out that the spirit of Academic Council's decision dt. 4-10-1986 regarding the past practice was on the supposition that theses must be submitted by the last date of receipt of applications, which was 18-9-1986. And it is on that score, refusal of admission to the petitioner has been justified as the thesis was admittedly submitted 8 days late on 26-9-1986.