DEVENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY vs JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY AND ORS

$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ LPA 792/2023 & CM APPL. 63216-63218/2023
DEVENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY ….. Appellant

Through: Mr. Azad Bansala, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Advocates
versus

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
AND ORS. ….. Respondents

Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Kushal, Advocates for UOI and JNU
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Mr. Akhil Hasija, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh and Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Advocates for R-4

% Date of Decision: 07th December, 2023

CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18th September, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3699/2023, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking relief against the denial of admission in Ph.D. course in Jawaharlal Nehru University (“JNU”)/respondent no.1 for the academic year 2023-2024, has been dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
2.1 The respondent no.1/university grants admission to the Ph.D. courses conducted by it in two modes. One mode is Entrance Examination, wherein the prospective students sit for Computer Based Test (“CBT”) and are granted admission on the basis of clearing the said Entrance Examination. The second mode is where the prospective students have a Junior Research Fellowship (“JRF”) through qualifying inter alia the University Grants Commission (“UGC”) National Eligibility Test (“NET”), in short “UGC NET-JRF”. Such candidates, who are UGC NET-JRF, are exempted from sitting in the Entrance Examination and admission is granted to them on the basis of viva-voce and interview (“Exempted Category”).
2.2 The appellant applied in respondent no.1/university in the year 2022 for pursuing Ph.D. in Medieval History vide his application dated 19th September, 2022, under the Exempted Category on the basis that he had appeared for NET-JRF in 2019-2020 cycle and was awarded the National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste Students (“NFSCS”) vide Fellowship Award Letter dated 30th November, 2020 (“NFSCS Award Letter”).
2.3 Pursuant thereto, the appellant was invited for viva-voce by the respondent no.1/university, by letter dated 05th January, 2023. On receipt of the said letter, the appellant uploaded all his documents and gave his interview on 18th January, 2023. The appellant secured a Category Rank – 1 in the results declared under the Exempted Category. He was offered provisional admission by the respondent no.1/university vide letter dated 17th February, 2023.
2.4 Thereafter, the appellant was denied admission under the Exempted Category, aggrieved by which, the appellant made representation dated 19th March, 2023 to the concerned authorities of respondent no.1/university requesting for his admission to be considered. However, the said representation of the appellant was rejected on the ground that he did not have UGC NET-JRF.
2.5 Against the said decision of respondent no.1/university, the appellant herein filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 3699/2023 praying for directions to respondent no.1/university to grant him admission to pursue Ph.D in Medieval History. Vide the impugned order dated 18th September, 2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
3. On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that the Award Letter of the appellant was considered to be equivalent to a JRF Award Letter all throughout the respondent no.1/university at different stages of admission. Therefore, the respondent no.1 is precluded by the principles of estoppel from denying admission to the appellant after verifying the documents of the appellant on four occasions and approving the same. On the basis of the conduct and representation of the respondent no.1/university, the appellant was induced into withdrawing his admission from M.Phil., which he was pursuing at the University of Delhi, in order to confirm his admission to the respondent no.1/university. It is submitted that the NFSCS Award Letter is at par with JRF Award Letter. To avail any of the said two fellowships, the student has to clear the NET-JRF of the UGC.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has justified the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. The Admission Policy and Procedure 2023-2024 of the respondent no.1/university stipulates entrance examination in the form of CBT, followed by viva-voce for admission to Ph.D. courses. However, the JRF qualified candidates are exempted from the CBT and they are required to apply separately under the JRF category. Such candidates are directly called for viva-voce upon being shortlisted. Thus, the relevant portions of the Admission Policy and Procedure 2023-2024 of respondent no.1/university reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
1 Admission Notice:
The Admission Announcement for admission to various programmes of study at UG/COP, PG & Ph.D. level is published separately in appropriate media by JNU/NTA for information of prospective candidates.

The candidates shall be considered for admission to the following programmes: –
Ph.D., M.Tech., MPH., PGD, M.A., M.Sc., MCA, MBA, B.Tech., B.A. (Hons.) 1st year in Foreign Languages, B.Sc.-M.Sc. Integrated programme and Part-Time courses.

2 Computer Based Test (CBT):
The Entrance Examination for admission to various programmes of study in JNU is held at the pan India centres. This enables the University to have a far wider regional outreach giving an opportunity to a larger number of candidates to seek admission in JNU.

3. Viva Voce Examination:
No viva voce examination is held for admission to any programme except for Ph.D. The candidates are admitted on merit on the basis of their performance in the Computer Based Test (CBT) and the deprivation points added to their score in accordance with the approved admission Policy and Procedure of the University.

For admission to Ph.D. the candidates are invited for CBT examination and candidates qualifying in the CBT examination shall be called for viva voce Examination. Qualifying marks for the candidate belonging to General Category and EWS category is 50%. Whereas, qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC, PWD categories is 45%. It is to be noted that a candidate who scores 50% and above for General Category and EWS category & 45% and above for SC/ST/OBC (non-creamy layer)/PWD in the computer based test, does not automatically qualify for being shortlisted for the viva-voce. Please see point 3.4 for the maximum number of candidates to be called for viva voce.

xxx xxx xxx

3.4 The maximum number of candidates to be called for viva voce for admission to each programme of study for Ph.D. programme shall be as follows:

Number of students after examination to be invited for viva-voce examination will be as follows:

(1) For General Category
Intake x 5 times
(2) For SC/ST/OBC/EWS Categories
Intake x 8 times
(3) For PWD Category
8 times – wherever available

With regard to (1) above, it is further, clarified that in case of reserved category scoring equal or more marks than General, then such reserved category candidates shall be called for viva-voce as per seat matrix given for (1) above.

JRF qualified candidates shall be exempted from Computer Based Test (CBT).They are required to apply separately under JRF category. Such candidates shall be shortlisted and called directly for viva-voce.

GATE qualified candidates applying to the School of Engineering are also exempted from Computer Based Test (CBT). They are required to apply separately under GATE category. Such candidates shall be shortlisted and called directly for viva-voce.

xxx xxx xxx

9. Admission of JRF holders to Ph.D. programme:
Only those candidates who fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements as prescribed for admission of candidates to Ph.D. programmes as mentioned in the respective schools/centres and have qualified for Junior Research Fellowship through CSIR, UGC National Eligibility Test (NET), ICMR, AYUSH, DBT examination are eligible to apply separately in the prescribed form under this category in the respective school/centre/Special Centre wherever separate intake through JRF category is available (the link for this category will be available on the JNU website). Such candidates shall be exempted from appearing in Computer Based Test (CBT). However, candidates shall have to appear for an interview and their selection will depend on their performance in the interview. Candidates who have appeared in these examinations, but results awaited may also apply under this category. However, such candidates will be interviewed upon submission of a valid proof of having qualified for or awarded the JRF certificate at the time of interview. Please note that candidates who have been awarded “Lectureship” (without JRF) in the CSIR/UGC examination and any other fellowship on the basis of Lectureship (without JRF) (Assistant Professorship) are not eligible and will not be interviewed. In case of candidates applying under JRF category selection will be done on the basis of 100% viva score.

Admission of GATE holders to Ph.D. programme in the School of Engineering

Only those candidates who fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements as prescribed for admission of candidates to Ph.D. programme as mentioned for the School of Engineering and qualified for GATE fellowship are eligible to apply separately in the prescribed form under this category (the link for this category will be available on the JNU website). The intake will be as per the availability of number of fellowships and requirement of seats in the School. In case of candidates applying under GATE category, selection will be done on the basis of 100% viva score.

xxx xxx xxx”

7. It is the unequivocal stand of respondent no.1/university that candidates seeking admission in the NET-JRF category in Ph.D. course must have qualified for JRF through CSIR, UGC-NET, ICMR, AYUSH, DBT examination, in terms of the aforesaid Admission Policy of the respondent no.1/university.
8. The letter dated 05th January, 2023 issued by the respondent no.1/university to the appellant for the viva-voce for admission to Ph.D. programme under NET-JRF Category also specifies in categorical terms that only those candidates shall be considered for admission to Ph.D. programme (without appearing in the JNU’s Entrance Examination) who fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements as mentioned in the e-Prospectus of the University and have qualified a JRF through inter alia UGC-NET. The letter dated 05th January, 2023 issued by respondent no.1/university reads as under:
“JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
New Delhi-110067

No. Admission/11(iv)/2022-23 Date: 05-01-2023

Viva-voce for admission into Ph.D. programme for the Academic Session 2022-23

Dear Candidate,

With reference to your application for admission to Ph.D. programme under NET-JRF category for the academic session 2022-23, you are invited for viva-voce as per the details/schedule given below:

Programme
Subject
Date
Time
Venue
Ph.D.
Medieval History
18/01/2023
10.00 AM onwards
329, CHS office, SSS-III, JNU

The eligibility criteria for admission under NET-JRF category is briefed below for your information:

Only those candidates shall be considered for admission to Ph.D. programme (without appearing in the JNU’s entrance examination) who fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements as mentioned in the respective Schools/Centres in the e-Prospectus of the University and have qualified a Junior Research Fellowship through CSIR, UGC National Eligibility Test (NET), ICMR, AYUSH, DBT examination.

Please note that candidates who have been awarded “Lectureship” (without JRF) in the CSIR/UGC examination and any other fellowship on the basis of Lectureship (without JRF) (Assistant Professorship) are not eligible and will not be interviewed.

You will not be eligible to appear in the viva-voce for admission to Ph.D. programme under NET-JRF category without meeting eligibility criteria and submitting a proof of having qualified NET-JRF (with validity of the date upto seeking admission or upto 15.03.2023)

xxx xxx xxx”

9. Reading of the aforesaid demonstrates in clear terms that the candidates who do not have a qualified NET-JRF, will not be eligible for grant of admission to the Ph.D. programme.
10. Perusal of the documents on record makes it manifest that the appellant is the recipient of the NFSCS and not the NET-JRF. The NFSCS is a Central Sector Scheme introduced by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India to provide opportunities to Scheduled Caste students for pursuing higher education leading to M.Phil/Ph.D. degrees in Sciences, Humanities and Social Science streams. The said scheme of NFSCS as introduced by the Government of India reads as under:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT
Department of Social Justice & Empowerment

CENTRAL SECTOR SCHEME OF ‘NATIONAL FELLOWSHIP FOR PROVIDING FELLOWSHIP TO SCHEDULED CASTE STUDENTS TO PURSUE M.Phil. & Ph. D

Effective from 01.04.2020
I. Background
National Fellowship scheme for Scheduled Caste Students, is a Central Sector Scheme introduced during the financial year 2005-06 to provide opportunities to Scheduled Castes students for pursuing higher education leading to M.Phil/Ph.D degrees in Sciences, Humanities and Social Science streams.

II. Objectives:
The objective of the scheme is to provide fellowships in the form of financial assistance to students belonging to SC category to pursue higher studies leading to M.Phil/Ph.D in Science, Humanities, Social Science, in Indian Universities/Institutions/Colleges recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC).

III. Scope of the scheme
The scheme provides for new 2000 Fellowships (1500 Junior Research Fellows for Humanities/ Social Sciences and 500 Junior Research Fellows for Science stream) per year to such Scheduled Caste students to undertake advanced studies and research leading to M.Phil/ Ph.D Degrees, who have qualified in the following tests:

i) National Eligibility Test- Junior Research Fellowship (NET-JRF) of UGC or

ii)UGC-Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (UGC-CSIR) NET–JRF joint test.)

These 2000 slots are over and above the number of SC students selected under the normal reservation policy of the Government for UGC Fellowships. The scheme is implemented on the pattern of the scheme of UGC Fellowships being awarded to research students pursuing M. Phil/Ph.D.

The scheme covers all Universities/Institutions recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as under:

a. Central/State Universities (including constituent and affiliated institutions) included under Section 2(f) of UGC Act, 1956 and having valid accreditation from NAAC.

b. Deemed Universities under Section 3 of UGC Act i.e. Institution for higher education notified by Central Government to be deemed University, in consultation with UGC and having and having valid accreditation from NAAC.

c. Institution fully funded by State/ Central Government and empowered to award degrees.

d. Institutions of National Importance as notified by Ministry of Human Resource Development.

(mhrd.gov.in/institutions-national-importance)

XXX XXX XXX”

11. Reading of the aforesaid Scheme indicates clearly that the NFSCS is a separate fellowship that is granted by virtue of the Central Sector Scheme of the Government of India. The said fellowship cannot be treated at par with NET-JRF, which is a totally separate fellowship. The qualifications prescribed by the University are very clear to the effect of having UGC qualified NET-JRF to be entitled for admission to a Ph.D. programme in the Exempted Category. The educational qualifications as prescribed by the University cannot be directed to be deviated from by the courts. Thus, Supreme Court in the case of Indresh Kumar Mishra and Others Versus State of Jharkhand and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 42 has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx

20. As per the settled proposition of law, in the field of education, the Court of Law cannot act as an expert normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate is possessing the requisite qualification should better be left to the educational institutions, more particularly, when the Expert Committee considers the matter.

21. In the present case, the educational qualifications required have been specifically mentioned in the advertisement. There is no ambiguity and/or confusion in the advertisement providing educational qualification and the post for which the applications were invited (History/Civics). There cannot be any deviation from the educational qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. Once having found that the respective writ petitioners appellants herein were not having the requisite qualification as per the advertisement, namely, the postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History, which was the requirement as per the advertisement and thereafter their candidature was cancelled, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have rightly refused to interfere with the same. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.

22. As observed hereinabove in the online applications, it was stated by the respective petitioners that they are having the postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and only at the time of verification of the documents, when the respective certificates were produced, at that time only, the authorities came to know that the respective writ petitioners have the degrees in one branch of History and not in History as a whole and therefore the show-cause notices were issued so that the respective petitioners can clarify and satisfy that they are having the requisite qualification of postgraduate/Bachelor degree in History and after giving them the opportunity, the decision has been taken and that too after obtaining the Expert Committee’s opinion.

Xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Likewise, Supreme Court in the case of Shikhar and Another Versus National Board of Examinations and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 425 has held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
9. While we understand that the present cut-off date for the completion of the internship would put certain students at a disadvantage, we are conscious that it is the domain of the executive and regulatory authorities to formulate appropriate eligibility standards for admission. In Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur v. Soutrik Sarangi, a three-judge Bench of this Court held that courts should be circumspect in exercising their powers of judicial review in matters concerning academic policies, including admission criteria. In that case, this Court refused to interfere with the eligibility criteria for appearing in JEE (Advanced) 2021 which prevented a candidate who had secured a seat in one of the IITs from competing in a subsequent examination. This Court relied on All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, where it was observed that judicial interference motivated by concerns of mitigating the hardship faced by students may result in unintended consequences adversely affecting the education system. This Court held thus:
“19. The reasoning of the High Court of Criterion 5 not permitting IIT students to participate in IIT (Advanced) for the second time being arbitrary, in the opinion of this Court is not supportable. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that in matters such as devising admissions criteria or other issues engaging academic institutions, the courts’ scrutiny in judicial review has to be careful and circumspect. Unless shown to be plainly arbitrary or discriminatory, the court would defer to the wisdom of administrators in academic institutions who might devise policies in regard to curricular admission process, career progression of their employees, matters of discipline or other general administrative issues concerning the institution or university. It was held by this court in All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan
“16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realizing the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.”
20. Given this general reluctance of courts to substitute the views of academic and expert bodies, the approach of the High Court in proceeding straightaway to characterize the rationale given by the IIT in fashioning the Criteria No. 5 cannot be supported.”
(emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx”
13. The eligibility and qualifying criteria for admission to a course, as prescribed by a university are decided by the experts after taking note of various aspects in order to protect the standards of education. The University or an educational institution has the absolute authority to prescribe a qualifying and eligibility criteria. The courts will not interfere in academic matters, as such decisions are best left to the wisdom of the academic experts. Therefore, no concession can be granted by this Court to direct admission of the appellant in the respondent no.1/university, when the appellant does not meet the prescribed criteria as set down by the University. It is settled law that courts should not substitute its judgment for that of academicians, when the dispute relates to educational affairs, except where any provision or principle of law has to be interpreted or enforced.
14. The respondent no.2/UGC has categorically stated in its counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge that the appellant herein has not qualified the NET-JRF of the UGC. Thus, UGC in its counter affidavit has stated as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

3. That in order to maintain a uniform standard of teaching and research in the country, University Grants Commission conducts National Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as NET Exams), where on the basis of marks secured, the students are classified under 3 heads:

I. Eligible for Assistant Professor and award of Junior Research Fellowship funded by UGC (hereinafter referred to as JRF). These students are referred to as qualified NET-JRF;

II. Eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor only.
These students are referred to as qualified NET;

III. Unsuccessful candidates.

4. That the petitioner claims to have qualified NET Exam under Assistant Professor Category only in the Subject “History”. The Petitioner has not qualified the NET-JRF of the UGC.

5. That the candidates attaining top rank in National Eligibility Test-Junior Research Fellowship (NET-JRF) examination of University Grants Commission (UGC) examination are eligible to be provided with J?nior Research Fellowship (JRF) of UGC.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

15. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge has categorically held that the fellowship obtained by the appellant does not find mention in the Admission Policy of the respondent no.1/university and thus, rejected the claim of the appellant in the following terms:
“16. It is palpably observed that in the present case, the petitioner had not qualified for the NET-JRF examination through the prescribed category of examinations in the aforementioned Admission Policy, rather, he is seeking to avail benefit of admission based on the NFSCS fellowship. Also, the fellowship obtained by the petitioner does not find mention in the Admission Policy of respondent no.1-Univeristy for being treated as qualified and eligible for admission in NET-JRF category in the Ph.D. course.

17. In my considered opinion, it is prudent to leave the onus of deciding the matters concerning eligibility criteria for admission in particular courses, on the respective institutions, which shall decide the same in adherence to the extant regulations. The position of law regarding the interference of writ courts in policy decisions is well settled and expounded through catena of judgments, which succinctly affirm that the writ courts should keep their hands off, unless the concerned policy is grossly arbitrary or malafide or suffers from patent illegality. Reliance may be placed on the decision in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.
[Emphasis supplied]

18. A congruent view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, whereby, it was of the opinion that any intermeddling with decisions pertaining to the academic matters would lead to chaos in education and cause deterioration in standards of education. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced as under:

16. The courts are neither equipped nor have the academic or technical background to substitute themselves in place of statutory professional technical bodies and take decisions in academic matters involving standards and quality of technical education. If the courts start entertaining petitions from individual institutions or students to permit courses of their choice, either for their convenience or to alleviate hardship or to provide better opportunities, or because they think that one course is equal to another, without realising the repercussions on the field of technical education in general, it will lead to chaos in education and deterioration in standards of education.

17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University [(1980) 3 SCC 418 :
1980 SCC (L&S) 436] this Court observed:
“11. … Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. …
***
17. … While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.”
[Emphasis supplied]”

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the appellant does not meet the requisite eligibility criteria for admission to the Ph.D course in the respondent no.1/university under the Exempted Category, i.e., without taking the Entrance Examination of the university. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MINI PUSHKARNA, J
DECEMBER 7, 2023
au

LPA 792/2023 Page 4 of 16