'Country In Dire Need Of Research Work': Allahabad High Court Restores Admission Of PhD Student On Verge Of Completing Course
The Allahabad High Court has held that after completing 5 years of PhD course, a student cannot be denied completion merely due to some alleged irregularity during the admission process.While granting relief to the petitioner student, Justice Alok Mathur observed,“the country is making its best efforts to grow from a developing nation to a developed one. Repeatedly, it is said that to become...
The Allahabad High Court has held that after completing 5 years of PhD course, a student cannot be denied completion merely due to some alleged irregularity during the admission process.
While granting relief to the petitioner student, Justice Alok Mathur observed,
“the country is making its best efforts to grow from a developing nation to a developed one. Repeatedly, it is said that to become a developed nation huge research work is required to be conducted within the Country. Now, when the students are pursuing their research work and are at the verge of completion it is highly improper to restrain them from completing their research on legal technicalities.”
Observing that the “country is in dire need of research work”, the Court held that the denial of 5 years of research work by the PhD student is a loss for the nation.
Factual Background
The Petitioner, a law graduate, secured admission to a Ph.D. (Sociology) from Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow, through an Entrance Test in 2016. For the first time in 2021, the petitioner approached his supervisor to submit a related report and seek extra time. The Supervisor refused to accept the report and asked the petitioner to wait for further intimation.
Since the petitioner was not permitted to pursue his PhD, he approached the writ Court, where direction was issued to the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow, to decide the petitioner's representation. Subsequently, an order dated 06.10.2022 was issued to the petitioner stating that his admission was cancelled since he had failed to supply an affidavit despite being asked repeatedly.
Relying on the admit card and information regarding scholars enrolled in session 2016-17, counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had been duly admitted to the course after qualifying for the entrance test.
Per contra, counsel for the university argued that the petitioner had not qualified for the entrance tests based on certain information available to the university, and an affidavit was being sought from the petitioner in this regard. Since the petitioner did not submit the affidavit and his name was not showing in the final selection, his admission was cancelled.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that in the information regarding PhD scholars for 2016-17, which the petitioner provided, his name appears at Serial No. 3 and that it was undisputed that the petitioner had been pursuing the course from 2016 to 2022.
In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, the Apex Court held that the blame for wrongful admissions of candidates lies with the institutions, in this case engineering colleges, which granted admission to ineligible candidates in the first place. The court held that the students cannot suffer on account of the university's faulty admissions.
“The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges,” held the Apex Court.
Relying on the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, Justice Mathur held that since the petitioner was granted admission to the PhD course and allowed to continue for 5 years, his admission cannot be cancelled when he is on the verge of completing the degree.
“Even presuming some irregularity did occur at the time of admission in Ph.D. course, the same cannot now be made the basis for denying petitioner from completing his course.”
In the absence of any allegation of misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner, the Court held that the University could not cancel the petitioner's admission and was also bound to give him an extension as per the rules.
Holding that the country needs more research work to move from a developing nation to a developed nation, the Court quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's admission and directed the University to consider the petitioner's application for an extension.
Case Title: Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505 [WRIT - C No. - 1213 of 2023]
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 505