RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the writ Petitioner. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers:

(2.) THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, having found that the Petitioner had participated in the selection process and hence it will not be just and proper to turn around and challenge the basis of selection, once defeated in the process. It was also found by the learned Single Judge that the University has formed a uniform pattern as far as registration to Ph.D. for the year 2009 -2010 is concerned, to go by the old pattern. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this appeal.

(3.) YET , another contention made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that as far as process of selection for the year 2010 -2011, test was conducted in the month of August, 2010 and if so, the University could have followed the same process for admission to the 2009 -2010 as well. As we have already noted above, the process for admission to the academic session 2009 -2010 started in February, 2009, much prior to the introduction of UGC Regulations in June, 2009, whereas the process for admission to 2010 -2011 started only after the introduction of UGC Regulations in the year 2009. That makes the whole difference. Having followed the UGC Regulations, issued in the year 2009, in respect of the selection process, initiated thereafter, it cannot be said that the process, thus adopted by the University, is arbitrary or discriminatory.