Bombay High Court Fines University For Denying PhD Admission To Candidate Due To Unavailability Of Research Guide

The Bombay High Court recently imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad to a PhD Entrance Test (PET) topper who was not assigned a research guide before expiry of his PET result and was denied admission as a consequence.

A division bench of Justice Mangesh S Patil and Justice Shailesh P Brahme sitting at Aurangabad deprecated the university for not verifying the number of vacancies with the research guide of Fine Arts subject before inviting PhD applications.

“The minimum which could have been done by the respondent No. 2/university was to make available guide promptly to avoid an educational loss…This is discrimination causing great hardship to the petitioner. This is gross violation of the rules. The petitioner is a meritorious scholar and belongs to reserved category. The respondent No. 2 is responsible for loss of valuable years of the petitioner. We deprecate the conduct of the respondent No. 2 and the officers concerned with the process of admission or R.R.C. Their attitude is callous which has resulted in frustration and harassment”, the court held.

The petitioner, Nilesh Udmale, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, applied for admission to the PhD program in Fine Arts at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. He had successfully cleared the PET, 2021 and the subsequent viva voce and emerged as the highest scorer. His result was declared on March 20, 2021 and was valid till March 16, 2022.

When no research supervisor was found, the validity of his result was extended till June 30, 2022. However, due to a lack of vacancies with the only available research supervisor in Fine Arts, Dr. Shirish Ambekar, the university denied him admission. The university communicated this decision to him on February 2, 2023.

Udmale challenged this decision in the present writ petition. He sought an extension of the PET result's validity, the declaration of the final merit list, and the provision of a research guide from inter-disciplinary studies.

Udmale argued that the university's actions were arbitrary and violated established policies. He emphasized that the university had published the admission advertisement without ascertaining the availability of vacancies, leading to procedural irregularities and causing considerable hardship to him. He further contended that the rules did not prohibit the allotment of the petitioner to a research guide from inter-disciplinary studies.

The university, on the other hand, justified the decision by citing the prescribed norms and regulations, including the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines. It highlighted the limitation on the number of scholars a research guide could supervise and the stipulated period of validity for the PET results.

The court highlighted the importance of verifying the availability of vacancies before conducting the entrance test. It emphasized that the advertisement clearly stated that admission was subject to the availability of vacant seats and that the petitioner did not possess an indefeasible right to admission.

The court noted that Dr. Shirish Ambekar had written to the university on November 26, 2020, well in advance, stating that there was no vacancy with him. “The respondent No. 2/university should have taken cognizance of his intimation. But these lapses on the part of the university may not help the petitioner because the rules do not provide such a situation”, the court observed.

However, the court held that the petitioner's case for parity based on past instances of exceeding quotas was not permissible under the established rules. The court said that while allotment of the petitioner to a research guide from other subject falling in the category of inter-disciplinary studies is permissible, it cannot be done after the expiration of the result's validity.

The court ultimately dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, citing the expiry of his result. However, it granted him compensation for the university's negligence, highlighting the loss of crucial academic years and the discrimination suffered by the petitioner, a meritorious scholar from a reserved category.

Advocates Swapnil Joshi, Mahesh Swami and Saie Joshi i/by JP Legal Associates represented the petitioner.

AGP SG Sangale represented the state.

Advocate SS Tope represented the university.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2853 of 2023

Case Title – Nilesh s/o Ajinath Udmale, v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.