# Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 155
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-04
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 4529 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ms-suneeta-bharti-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48650
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

A. Education Law - University Grant
Commission Act, 1956 - UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of
M.Phill./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016
- Research Eligibility Test - Applicability
of Regulation on State Universities -
Regulations outlined by the University
Grants Commission are obligatory upon all
the State Universities and Institution
through the Republic - However, in view
of the decree of the Apex Court in the case
of Kalyani Mathivanan, it is vibrant that
unless or until, any procedures enclosed
by the UGC are espoused and instigated
by the State Legislation, the same will be
relatively
mandatory
and
will
be
comparatively directory. (Para 24)
B.
Education
Law
-
UGC
(Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of
M.Phill./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 -
Deen Dayal Upadhya, Gorakhpur University
Research Ordinance 2018 - Cancellation of
admission on the ground of non-fulfillment
of Clause 3.1 (b), which provide that only
those candidates will be qualified for
admission in Ph.D. Course, who fortified
second division marks in undergraduate
course
-
Legality
of
clause
3.1
(b)
challenged - Held, Clause 3.1 (b) being in
consonance with the regulations framed by
the UGC and not in violation of the same, is
not foist or incompatible to the regulations
outlined by the UGC - University has not
committed any illicitness or aberration in
cancelling the admission of the petitioners.
(Para 24, 25 and 27)
C.
Education
Law
-
Cancellation
of
admission - Doctrine of estoppels -
Applicability
-
Held,
question
of
application
of
estoppel
against
Statute/Public Policy does not arise, as
the Ordinance, 2018 outlined by the
respondent-University has a statutory
dynamism and the respondent-University
cannot be constrained to take admission
of a student against the qualifications
prescribed in statutes. (Para 29 )
D. Jurisprudence - Rule of equity -
Applicability - Role of the court - Equity
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can supplement to but cannot supplant
the statutory provisions and if any room is
given for impartiality or compassion, the
recruitment rules would become nugatory
and field would be left open for nepotism.
Thus, it is not permissible to bend the law
for adjusting equity - The Courts and
Tribunals, while dealing with the statutory
provisions, should not be channelled with
altruistic contemplation and emotional
appeal for the reason that if Courts
advance on these basis, it would amount
to fluctuating or modifying the statutory
provisions or necessities of law (Para 32)
Writ petition disposed of (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,982 of 140,771. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39982 for what follows._

6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
District Judge that the University is a local
authority and the premises in question
owned by Kumaon University are the
public premises is correct. The contention
of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the provisions of the Act are not
applicable to the case at hand is not
acceptable. To my mind the case law,
(1998) 3 SCC 530: (AIR 1998 SC 1125),
does not help the petitioner. The findings
recorded by the learned District Judge on
this score do not call for any interference
in writ jurisdiction by this Court."

17. In view thereof, it is held that
K.G.M.U. is covered by the term local
authority and, therefore, provisions of U.P.
Public Premises Act are applicable upon
the same.

18. Therefore, no interference with
the impugned order is called for.

19. The writ petition lacks on merits
and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A155
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 4529 of 2021
with Writ-C No. 5265 of 2021

Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rohit Pandey
A. Education Law - University Grant
Commission Act, 1956 - UGC (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of
M.Phill./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016
- Research Eligibility Test - Applicability
of Regulation on State Universities -
Regulations outlined by the University
Grants Commission are obligatory upon all
the State Universities and Institution
through the Republic - However, in view
of the decree of the Apex Court in the case
of Kalyani Mathivanan, it is vibrant that
unless or until, any procedures enclosed
by the UGC are espoused and instigated
by the State Legislation, the same will be
relatively
mandatory
and
will
be
comparatively directory. (Para 24)
B.
Education
Law
-
UGC
(Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of
M.Phill./Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 -
Deen Dayal Upadhya, Gorakhpur University
Research Ordinance 2018 - Cancellation of
admission on the ground of non-fulfillment
of Clause 3.1 (b), which provide that only
those candidates will be qualified for
admission in Ph.D. Course, who fortified
second division marks in undergraduate
course
-
Legality
of
clause
3.1
(b)
challenged - Held, Clause 3.1 (b) being in
consonance with the regulations framed by
the UGC and not in violation of the same, is
not foist or incompatible to the regulations
outlined by the UGC - University has not
committed any illicitness or aberration in
cancelling the admission of the petitioners.
(Para 24, 25 and 27)
C.
Education
Law
-
Cancellation
of
admission - Doctrine of estoppels -
Applicability
-
Held,
question
of
application
of
estoppel
against
Statute/Public Policy does not arise, as
the Ordinance, 2018 outlined by the
respondent-University has a statutory
dynamism and the respondent-University
cannot be constrained to take admission
of a student against the qualifications
prescribed in statutes. (Para 29 )
D. Jurisprudence - Rule of equity -
Applicability - Role of the court - Equity
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can supplement to but cannot supplant
the statutory provisions and if any room is
given for impartiality or compassion, the
recruitment rules would become nugatory
and field would be left open for nepotism.
Thus, it is not permissible to bend the law
for adjusting equity - The Courts and
Tribunals, while dealing with the statutory
provisions, should not be channelled with
altruistic contemplation and emotional
appeal for the reason that if Courts
advance on these basis, it would amount
to fluctuating or modifying the statutory
provisions or necessities of law (Para 32)
Writ petition disposed of (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Ran Vijay Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
(2018) 2 SCC 357
2. Tridip Kumar Dingal & ors. Vs St. of W.B. &
ors.; (2009) 1 SCC 768
3. Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs Rajasthan Public
Service Commission; (2007) 8 SCC 785;
4. Rajesh Kumar & ors. etc. Vs St. of Bihar &
ors. etc.; (2013) 4 SCC 690
5. Vikas Pratap Singh & ors. Vs St.of
Chhattishgarh & ors. (2013) 14 SCC 494; and
6. Ram Naresh Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2018) 3 UPLBEC 2134.
7. Amrit Prasad Vs St. of U.P.; 2016(1) ADJ 690
8. Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020; Ramjit Singh
Kardam & ors. Vs Sanjeev Kumar & ors.
9. Ashok Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Bihar & ors.
(2017) 4 SCC 357
10. Madras Institute of Development studies &
anr. Vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & ors. (2016) 1
SCC 454
11. R. Chitralekha Vs St. of Mysore & ors. AIR
1964 SC 1823
12. Bharathidasan University & anr. Vs All India
Council for Technical Education & ors. (2001) 8
SCC 676
13. St. of T.N. & anr. Vs S.Vs Bratheep (Minor)
& ors. (2004) 4 SCC 513
14. Visveswaraiah Technical University & anr. Vs
Krishnenedu Halder & ors.; (2011) 4 SCC 606
15. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University
& anr. Vs Jai Bharath College of Management
and Engineering Technology & ors.; (2021) 2
SCC 564
16.
Registrar,
Chhatrapati
Shahuji
Maharaj
University Vs Vinay Gupta & ors.; 2009 (3) ADJ 263
17. Civil Writ Petition No. 4294 of 1987;
Shamsher Singh Tyagi Vs St. of Har.
18. SWP No. 1558 of 2017; Tanveer Ahmad Vs
Skuast & ors.
19. St. of Raj. & ors. Vs Lata Arun; JT 2002 (5)
SC 210
20. A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society
Vs Government of A.P.; (1986) 2 SCC 667
21. Gurdeep Singh Vs St. of J. & K. & ors.;
(1986) 2 SCC 667
22. Rajasthan State Industrial Development Vs
Subhash Sindhi; (2013) 5 SCC 427
23. U.O.I. Vs Godfrcy Philips Pvt. Ltd.; (1985) 4
SCC 369
24. Civil Appeal No. 6015-6027/2011; St. of T.N.
Vs K. Shyam Sundar
25. Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2020; Ramjit Singh
Kardam Vs Sanjeev Kumar & ors.
26. Osmania University Teacher's Assc. Vs St. of
Andhra Pradesh & anr. (1987) 4 SCC 671
27. S. Satyapal Reddy & ors. Vs Government of
A.P. & ors.; (1994) 4 SCC 391
28. Brahmo Samaj Education Society & ors. Vs
St. of W.B. & ors.; (2004) 6 SCC 224
29. Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs Shantanu
Shukla; (2002) 6 SCC 127
30. U.O.I. Vs S. Vinodh Kumar; (2007) 8 SCC
100
31. Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs Public Service
Commission; (2011) 1 SCC 150
32. Chandigarh Administration Vs Jasmine Kaur;
(2014) 10 SCC 521
33. Pradeep Kumar Rai Vs Dinesh Kumar
Pandey; (2015) 11 SCC 493
6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
157
34. Madras Institute of Development Studies &
anr. Vs Sivasubramaniyam & ors.; (2016) 1 SCC
454
35. Ashok Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Bihar & ors.;
(2017) 4 SCC 357
36. Delhi Development Authority Vs Ravindra
Mohan Aggarwal & ors.; (1999) 3 SCC 172
37. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Radhey Shyam
Sahu & ors.; (1999) 6 SCC 464
38. Union of India & ors. Vs Kirloskar Pneumatic
Co. Ltd.; (1996) 4 SCC 453
39. St.of U.P. & ors. Vs Harish Chandra & ors.;
(1996) 9 SCC 309
40. Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad &
ors. Vs Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & ors.; (1997)
10 SCC 264
41. Shish Ram & ors. Vs St. of Hary. & ors.;
(2000) 6 SCC 84
42. Dr. H.S. Rikhy etc. Vs The New Delhi
Municipal Committee; AIR 1962 SC 554
43. Bengal Iron Corporation Vs Commercial
Taxes Officer & ors.; AIR 1993 SC 2414
44. S. Saktivel Vs M. Venugopal Pillai; (2000) 7
SCC 104
45. Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs Shakuntala
Shukla; (2002) 6 SCC 127
46. I.T.C. Ltd. Vs Person Incharge, AMC,
Kakinada & ors.; (2004) AIR SCW 792.
47. A.C. Jose Vs Sivan Pillai; AIR 1984 SC 921
48. Union of India & ors. Vs Godfrey Philips
India Ltd.; (1985) 4 SCC 369
49. Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs University of
Jodhpur & ors.; 1989 Supreme (SC) 38
50. Dr. Pawan Kumar Agarwal & Etc. Vs The
University of Calcutta And Anr.; AIR 1998 Cal
105
51. Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka
University & Another; 1986 (Supp) SCC 740
52. Abha George & ors. Vs All India Institute of
Medical; 2022 SCC Online Del 366
53. Madamanchi Ramappa & anr. Vs Muthaluru
Bojjappas; AIR 1963 SC 1633
54. Gauri Shanker Gaur Vs St. of U.P.; AIR 1994
SC 169
55.
Ahmedabad
Municipal
Corporation
Vs
Virendra Kumar Patel; (1997) 7 SCC 650
56. Smt. Rampati Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
AIR 1997 All. 170
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Singh and Mr.
Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Rohit Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent-University and
Dr. Amar Nath Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Primarily this writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners for the ensuing
relief:

"(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari calling for the
records
and
quashing
the
impugned
decision dated 15.01.2021 taken by the
High Level Deans Advisory Committee as
well as the impugned notification dated
16.01.2021 issued by the respondent nos. 2
and 3 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition);

(b). Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent
University
to
allow
the
petitioners to continue with their Ph.D.
Course Programme in view of their
admissions already granted;

(c). to issue such other and further
appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case;

(d). to award the cost of petition in
favour of the petitioner."

3. Consequently, an amendment
application has been filed on behalf of the
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners in the contemporaneous writ
petition for pursuing auxiliary relief, on
which following order was passed by the
Court on 5th August, 2021:-

"Re: C.M. Amendment Application
No.02 of 2021

Heard.

Amendment application is allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is
directed to carry out necessary amendment
within three days.

Re: Writ Petition

As per the amendment, vires of Clause
3.1
(b)
of
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay,
Gorakhpur
University
Research
Ordinance, 2018 (Minimum Criteria and
Procedure for Research Degree-P.hd.) has
been challenged, learned counsel for
University as well as learned Standing
Counsel representing the State are granted
three weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed
within one week thereafter.

List this matter after four weeks."

Pursuant to the above order, learned
counsel for the petitioners has sought
following prayer:
"ia). to issue a writ, order or direction that
Clause 3.1 (b) of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya
Gorakhpur University Research Ordinance,
2018 (Minimum Criteria and Procedure for
Research Degree Ph.D) be declared, as
ultra-vires and for the same reasons, be
quashed only to the extent that it prescribes
the minimum marks of second division under
graduate degree for becoming eligible to
qualify admission to its Ph.D. Course
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition)."

4. As the rudimentary realities and the
permissible
facets
intricate
are
indistinguishable in both the writ petitions,
they have been amalgamated and heard
together and are being decided by this
conjoint verdict. The particulars chronicled
in Writ -C No. - 4529 of 2021 (Ms. Suneeta
Bharti and 3 Others Versus State Of U.P.
And 2 Others) are being canned to be the
leading case.

5. According to the petitioners, the
realistic milieu of the case is as follows:

Petitioners
belong
to
District
Gorakhpur.
They
being
prospective
candidates were pursuing admission in PrePh.D. Course for the Session 2019-2020 of
which advertisement/news item was issued
by the Deen Dayal Upadhyay University,
Gorakhpur
(for
short
"respondentUniversity").
The
said
news
item/advertisement contained the broadspectrum rules and directives issued by the
University with regard to the Research
Eligibility Test (RET) for the session 20182019, in which some conditions existed for
the Session 2019-2020 as well. The said
general rule and instructions were issued in
light of the Ordinance-2018 issued by the
respondent-University orchestrated under
its first Statutes. The said general rules and
instructions also enclosed the examination
schedule for the Pre Ph.D. course for
which, time schedule for online application
being filled up, was from 4th January, 2019
and the same was to come to an end on
25th January, 2019. The examination was
to be held in the second and third week of
month of February, 2019. The academic
minutiae are mirrored in the application
forms
of
the
petitioners,
which
encompasses the percentage obtained in
undergraduate
and
post-graduate
examinations. Petitioner no.1 had applied
for the Pre Ph.D. course in the subject of
Hindi, petitioner no.2 in the subject of
Mathematics, petitioner no.3 in the subject
of Commerce and petitioner no.4 in the
subject of Sanskrit, respectively.
6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
159

Clause 5 B ( ि) of the general rule and
instructions lays down that a candidate
seeking admission in the Ph.D. Course will
be eligible only if he/she has notched
second division marks in undergraduate
course 'or' the appropriateness laid by the
University Grants Commission (hereinafter
referred to in short, 'UGC') issued from
time to time, which thus, makes a candidate
eligible
for
the
said
course,
who
accomplishes either of the same.

It is the case of the petitioners that
since they satisfied the minimum eligibility
laid by the UGC in its notifications dated
5th May, 2016 and 28th August, 2018
known as "University Grants Commission
(Minimum Standards and Procedure for
Award
of
M.Phil/Ph.D
Degrees),
Regulations, 2016 (herein after referred to
as the "Regulations, 2016") and its (1st
Amendment) Regulations, 2018, were,
thus, eligible as per its qualifications.

Clause-3 of the Regulations, 2016 lays
down
the
eligibility
benchmarks
for
admission to Ph.D programme.

Clause 2 of the Regulations, 2016 read
with first amendment, 2018 lays down that
a candidate is eligible for admission to
Ph.D. programme, if he/she scores second
division marks in post-graduate level, as
such, if he or she has scored less than 2nd
division marks in undergraduate course
then also is eligible for admission in the
course.

Further, it is the case of the petitioners
that in view of the eligibility laid down by
the UGC vide their Regulations, the
petitioners were settled admission in the
Ph.D. Course on the metier of their having
attained second division marks in postgraduate course, as they had not scored
second
division
marks
in
their
undergraduate
course.
The
UGC
Regulations, which was amended in 2018,
exist as on date, as per the superlative
acquaintance/information of the petitioners
to stipulate the eligibility of the candidate
seeking admission in Ph.D. Programme
Course to possess second division marks in
undergraduate course, which limits the
same having scored only in post graduate
course itself and not otherwise. The
examination for the pre Ph.D. Course to be
held by the University could not be held in
the month of February, 2019 and the same
was held in the first week of March, 2019.
After result being avowed in the month of
May, 2019, interviews were held in the
month of July and August, 2019 for each
and every department individually, as per
their expediency. After the result of the
interview, on deposit of the requisite fees,
which, in the facts of the present case, were
deposited by the petitioners in the month of
February, 2020, the candidates including
the petitioners were granted admission, and
the curriculums started subsequently. The
copies of the eligibility certificates and
attendance sheets have been enclosed as
Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

According to the petitioners, the PrePh.D. Course Examination was scheduled to
be held in the month of March-April, 2021
and the students, who pass the said
examination, would have been granted
admission in regular Ph.D. Course, which is
of approximately 3 to 4 years. However, due
to the Pandemic (Covid-19), the course was
disordered and the same recommenced in the
third quarter of year 2020. Further vide office
order dated 24.11.2020 issued by the
Registrar, on the application of the Ph.D.
Course students and also in view of the order
of the Vice-Chancellor dated 10.11.2020, a
committee of four members was established
under
the
Chairmanship
of
Professor
Dwarika
Nath,
Head
of
Philosophy
Department along with 3 other members. The
said committee acquiesced its report dated
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
03.12.2020 with unblemished endorsement
that the UGC Regulations, 2016 should be
made germane, taking into contemplation the
interest of the students as well as the
prosperity of the area, society and the
University as a whole. However, flouting the
recommendation of the Committee dated
03.12.2020 (without any reasons recorded),
the Vice-Chancellor, under his Chairmanship,
held a meeting on 15.01.2021 of the High
Level Deans Advisory Committee, in which a
pronouncement was taken that the students
having enrolled in the Ph.D. Programme
Course, in defilement of the Ordinance-2018,
their admissions stand negated, without
affording any opportunity to them. The said
impugned pronouncement of the High Level
Deans
Advisory
Committee
dated
15.01.2021, has not been provided to the
petitioners, as such, the same has not been
conveyed on record before this Court. In the
said meeting of the High Level Deans
Advisory Committee dated 15.01.2021, it
was also determined that the prospective
students, seeking admission in the Ph.D.
Programme Course and who do not possess
the
minimum
eligibility,
as
per
the
Ordinance-2018, should not be granted
admission, in the said course, if not granted
till date. Further, it was also resolved that
persons accountable, for such admissions,
should be held answerable and explanation
and clarification should be sought from them.
In light of the decision of the High Level
Deans
Advisory
Committee
dated
15.01.2021, the impugned notification dated
16.01.2021 has been issued by the Registrar,
after which, the admissions granted to the
petitioners stood cancelled, a copy of which
has been enclosed as Annexure No. 7 to the
writ petition.

6. It is appurtenant to remark here that the
general rules and instructions mentioned in
the news item/advertisement, which was
issued by the respondent-University for Pre
Ph.D. Course for the Session-2019-2020
pursuant to which the petitioners applied
with regard to Research Eligibility Test of
the session 2018-2019, are in light of the
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur
University Research Ordinance, 2018 and
also in light of the report of a Four
Members' Committee of the respondentUniversity dated 3rd December, 2020,
which
was
instituted
under
the
Chairmanship of Professor Dwarika Nath,
Head of Philosophy Department, by the
order of the Vice-Chancellor of the
respondent-University
dated
10th
November, 2020. The said four Members'
Committee
in
the
said
report
has
recommended that the UGC Regulations,
which are relevant and instigated, should be
made applicable taking into consideration
the interest of the students. The copies of
the order of the Vice-Chancellor and the
report of the said Committee have been
enclosed as Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 to the
writ petition.

7. It would be efficacious to reproduce
relevant paragraphs of the report of the said
Committee, which read as follows:

"1.यह वक, की विश्वविद्य िय में ि िू
ितयम ि शोध अध्य देश 2018 (पी-एच्.डी. शोध
उप वध के विये न्यूितम म पदांड एिां प्रविय )
के विांदु सांख्य 3.1 ि में उल्लेखित है- "स्न तक
स्तर पर वद्वतीय श्रेणी अथि विश्वविद्य िय
अिुद ि आयोि द्व र समय-समय पर ि िू
वियमोां के अिुस र प्र प् ांक होि आिश्यक
होि ।" (प्रवतविवप सांिग्न)-01
2. यह वक, की इसी सांदभय में विश्वविद्य िय
अिुद ि आयोि िे पत्र ांक वम०स०1-22/2020
(सू०क०अ०/िेतिम ि) वदि ांक 19 फरिरी
2020 में स्पष्ट है वक विश्वविद्य िय अिुद ि
आयोि आयोि द्व र ि िू विवियम सभी
6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
161
शैक्षवणक सांस्थ िोां के विये विि वकसी
िदि ि के अविि यय रूप से ि ध्यक री है।
(प्रवतविवप सांिग्न)-02
3. यह वक, की विश्वविद्य िय अिुद ि आयोि
के इसी विवियम को स्वीक र करते हुए उ०प्र०
सरक र के पत्र ांक 7/2018/266/ सत्तर-1-2018-
16(74)/2011, वदि ांक 24 अिस्त 2018 द्व र
सम्यक
विचोर पर ांत
उत्तर
प्रदेश
र ज्य
विश्वविद्य िय अवधवियम, 1973 की ध र
66(क) के अांतियत र ज्य सरक र को प्र प्
शखियोां के अधीि उच्च वशक्ष विभ ि, उत्तर
प्रदेश के अांतियत र ज्य विश्वविद्य ियोां में
एम.वफि/पी-एच्.डी. उप वध प्रद ि करिे हेतु
विश्वविद्य िय अिुद ि आयोि (एम.वफि/पी-
एच्.डी. उप वध प्रद ि करिे हेतु न्यूितम
म पदांड एिां प्रविय ) विवियम 2018 को
यथ ित रूप मे ि िू वकये ज िे क आदेश
वदय है। (प्रवतविवप सांिग्न)-03

...............

सवमवत उि तथ्ोां के आिोक में इस विष्कर्य
पर पहुांचती है वक भ रत में उच्च वशक्ष के
सिोच्च वियमि करिे ि िी सांिैध विक सांस्थ
विश्वविद्य िय अिुद ि आयोि, िई वदल्ली
द्व र
पी-एच्.डी. मे प्रिेश के विये विध यररत न्यूितम
अहत य विवियम- "विश्वविद्य िय अिुद ि आयोि
(एम.वफि/पी-एच्.डी. उप वध प्रद ि करिे हेतु
न्यूितम म िदांड और प्रविय विवियम 2016"
में ि िू प्र िध ि को ही छ त्र वहत, क्षेत्र विशेर्
के वहत, सम ज एिां विश्वविद्य िय के व्य पक
वहत मे ि िू वकए ज िे की प्रिि सांस्तुवत
करती
हैं।"

8. Primarily, the existent writ petition has
been paraded for quelling the impugned
decision dated 15.01.2021 of the High Level
Deans Advisory Committee as well as the
queried notification dated 16.01.2021 on the
ground that the same are in teeth of the
Research Eligibility Test general rule and
instructions issued in regards to Ph.D. Course
Programme by the respondent-University as
well as the Regulations issued in this esteem
from time to time by the UGC, thus, rendering
the same pertinacious as well as fallacious. It
has also been itemized in the writ petition that
the assailed decision as well as the notification
is tangibly proscribed and capricious on the
part of the respondent-University. as the same
is antagonistic to the UGC Regulations.

9. As the amendment application was
filed subsequently, whereby Clause 3.1 (b) of
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University
Research Ordinance, 2018 (Minimum Criteria
and Procedure for Research Degree Ph.D) is
being
confronted,
hence,
during
the
progression of argument, succeeding questions
have arisen before this Court, which are
germane for determining both the writ
petitions:-

10. Issue No.1:

(i) Whether the Regulations edged by the
UGC are binding upon any State University of
India?

(ii) Whether the minimum qualification
prearranged by the respondent-University for
expansion of edification upto graduate level
for Pre-Ph.D./Ph. D. Course is divergent to the
Regulations framed by the UGC?

(iii) Where the Regulations framed by the
UGC mentioning the minimum qualifications
upto Graduate Level for any course or degree
is silent, then the Ordinance outlined by a
University counseling minimum qualifications
shall triumph over the Regulations of the UGC
or not?
(iv) Whether the Ordinance mounted by the
respondent-University
prescribing
minimum qualification upto and undergraduate level is in congruence with the
Regulations framed by the UGC?
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Issue no.2:

Can the petitioners, who have applied
for Pre-Ph.D./Ph.D. degree course, with
open eyes, contest the vires of the
Ordinance,
wherein
the
minimum
qualification for Pre-Ph.D./Ph.D. course is
prescribed, after their admissions being
found illegitimate and conflicting to the
conditions
declared
in
the
Advertisement/news item read with Clause3 (1) (b) of the Ordinance of University,

Issue no.3:

Whether the University can terminate
the admission of the petitioners after some
epoch of interval on the liability of its own
officials/officers?

Issue no.4:

Whether UGC Regulations-2016 and
2018 have been embraced by the State
Government?

Apart from the above, learned counsel
for the petitioners has also raised an issue,
that principle of estoppels and acquiescence
will apply against the University in the
actualities of the present case.

11. Respective Submissions:

In sustenance of the relief, as prayed
for in the present writ petition as well as on
the issues referred to above, learned
counsel for the petitioners have advanced
his submissions, which are as follows:

(i)
The
petitioners
had
secured
admissions in pre-Ph.D. Course for the
Session 2019-2020 after appearing in the
written examination charted by interview,
as such, they had qualified the rigorous
assessment undertaken by the respondentUniversity for the said course.

(ii) The petitioners had also undergone
classes, which is patent from the attendance
sheets, a copy of which has been enclosed
as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

(iii) Certainly, the petitioners were not
2nd Division in undergraduate course,
which was the per-requisite, as per the
Ordinance-2018 but the UGC Regulations,
in this regard, were silent and as they had
appeared in the examination piloted by the
respondent-University by no deception or
caricature on their part, as their applications
divulged having obtained 3rd Division in
undergraduate examination, as such, now
the respondent-University cannot cancel
their admission after such a long interval,
which will amount to taking the catbird seat
or advantage of the wrong perpetrated by
them and the petitioners are at no
accountability (also in the event that till
date no action has been taken against any
of
the
officials
of
the
respondentUniversity).

(iv) Further, the norm of estoppels and
acquiescence will also apply against the
University.

(v)
Further,
the
Ordinance-2018,
which fixes second division to be scored by
a candidate in under-graduate course for
seeking admission to the Ph.D. Course is,
thus, haphazard and unconscionable.

Further, the said fixation has no nexus
to the object sought to be realized, rather it
defeats, as the petitioners are selected
candidates, as such, the Ordinance is
profoundly erroneous and unmerited, hence
the same be declared as ultra-virus.

(vi) Further, this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is a Court
of equity and even-handedness, as such, the
relief can be molded even if the Ordinance
is
not
professed
ultra-virus,
as
the
petitioners have continued in the said
course for nearly two years and their
admissions, thus, can be protected.
6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
(vii) To draw the consciousness on the
aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel
for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
several judgments of the Apex Court as
well as judgment of Single Judge of this
Court, which are as follows:

(a) Ran Vijay Singh & Others
Versus State of U.P. & Others reported in
reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357;

(b) Tridip Kumar Dingal & Others
Versus State of West Bengal & Others,
reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768;

(c) Rajesh Kumar Daria Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785;

(d) Rajesh Kumar & Ors. etc.
Versus State of Bihar & Ors. etc.,
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690;

(e) Vikas Pratap Singh & Others
Versus State of Chhattishgarh & Others
reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494; and

(f) Ram Naresh Singh And 26
Others vs State Of U.P. And 29 Others,
reported in (2018) 3 UPLBEC 2134.

(viii)
Thus,
in
view
of
the
commandment law laid down by the Apex
Court and by this Court, the petitioners'
entitlement to aegis of their admission, in
the atypical particulars of the present case,
needs to be examined.

Undeniably, as the petitioners have
been
selected
after
undertaking
the
stipulated procedure (written test followed
by interview). There is no caricature or
deceit on their part. Having scrutinized
their studies fittingly, for about two years,
it would be undeserved to tolerate the
respondent-University to jettison their
admissions by lobbing them out of the
course, in view of the ruling laid down by
the Apex Court.
(ix) Further, the University-establishments
must take an altruistic and public-spirited
assessment in the matter, otherwise, it
would also be "grave travesty of justice", if
the petitioners/students nosedive to get the
relief, as prayed.

12. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondentUniversity has advanced his arguments on
the aforesaid following issues, which are as
follows:

(i) The University Grants Commission
(hereinafter referred to as the "UGC") has
been established by the enactment of the
Central
Government
being
University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Act,1956"). Under
Section
26
of
the
Act,
1956,
the
Commission
is
accredited
to
make
Regulations. Under Section 26 (f), the
UGC can frame Regulation delineating the
minimum criterions of directives for grant
of any degree by any University and under
Section 26 (g), the Commission can frame
Regulation
regarding
preservation
of
cannons and harmonization of labor or
conveniences in University.

In
implementation
of
aforesaid
muscles, the Commission has framed
University Grants Commission (Minimum
Standards and Procedure for Award of
M.Phil/Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2009
and
in
supersession
thereof,
the
Commission framed Regulations of 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the "UGC
Regulations, 2009"), which has been
further amended in 2018 being first
amendment and second amendment of
2018.

Under Clause-2 and 3 of Regulations,
2016, the Commission has approved
minimum eligibility criteria for admission
to M.Phil and Ph.D. programme. Under
Clause-5, the Regulations provide the
modus operandi for admission and Clause-
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5.2.2 provides that Higher Educational
Institutions shall notify number of seats for
admission,
distinctive
discipline-wise
dissemination of available seats, criteria for
admission,
process
for
admission,
examination centers and all relevant
information for the assistance candidates.

Now reverting back to the present
substance, it is acknowledged that the
question with regard to applicability of
UGC Regulations on the University, it is
acquiesced that in respect of Central
Universities, it is obligatory for those
Universities to uphold the guidelines issued
by UGC, whereas in respect of State
Universities, it has to be first befittingly
accepted by the State Government and
thereafter, direction is to be dispensed by
the
State
Government
to
all
State
Universities to integrate the precise UGC
Regulation in the Statute or Ordinances of
the concerned University.

The aforesaid issue of applicability of
UGC Regulation on the State Universities
by adoption came up for contemplation
before the Apex Court in the case of
Kalyani Mathivanan v. k.v. Jeyaraj and
Others (2015) 6 SCC 363, wherein it has
been held that unless the UGC Regulations
are formally adopted by the State and the
Statutes are amended, it cannot be applied
ipso facto upon the State Universities.

The aforesaid Judgment of Apex Court
was followed by this Hon'ble Court in the
case of Amrit Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2016(1) ADJ, 690.
(ii) The petitioners in this writ petition have
applied pursuant to the Advertisement
issued by the answering respondentUniversity for Research Eligibility Test,
2019. In the guidelines and instructions, it
has been clearly stipulated that the
candidates
are
required
to
possess
minimum
second
division
marks
in
graduation.
The
petitioners
have
consciously
applied
pursuant
to
the
advertisement and they themselves placed
them in a situation where, at the time of
scrutiny of their eligibility, they have been
found ineligible on account of not having
minimum
second
division
marks
in
graduation, as per Clause-3.1 (b) of the
University Research Ordinances, 2018. The
case laws, which have been relied upon in
support of the aforesaid submission, are as
under:

(a). Ramjit Singh Kardam & Others
v. Sanjeev Kumar and Others Civil Appeal
No. 2103 of 2020.

(b). Ashok Kumar and Another v.
State of Bihar and Others reported in
(2017) 4 SCC 357

(c). Madras Institute of Development
studies
and
Another
Versus
K.
Sivasubramaniyan and Others reported in
(2016) 1 SCC 454.

(iii) The respondent-University has
framed
the
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyaya
Gorakhpur
University
Research
Ordinances, 2018 (Minimum Criteria and
Procedure for Research Degree- Ph.D.), in
accordance with the UGC Regulations for
admission in Ph.D/M.Phil.

Referring to the case of the Apex
Court in the case of R. Chitralekha v. State
of Mysore and Others AIR 1964 SC 1823,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentUniversity submits that a State Law
providing for such standards, having regard
to Entry-66 of List-I, would be struck down
as unconstitutional only if the same is
found to be so heavy or devastating, so as
to wipe out or appreciably abridge the
Central field and not otherwise. The Court
also pointed out that if a State law
prescribes higher percentage of marks for
extra-curricular activities in the matter of
6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
165
admission to colleges, it cannot be said that
it would be encroaching on the field
covered by Entry 66 of List-1. The law is
now fairly well settled that while it is not
open for the Universities to dilute the
norms and standards, as prescribed by the
regulatory bodies such as UGC or AICTE,
it is always open to the Universities to
prescribe enhanced norms.

He further submits that the role of the
Universities vis-a-vis the AICTE, the Apex
Court
has
held
in
Bharathidasan
University and Another v. All India
Council for Technical Education and
Others reproted in (2001) 8 SCC 676, that
AICTE is not a super power with a
devastating role undermining the status,
authority and autonomous functioning of
the Universities in areas and spheres
assigned to them.

A three Judges Bench of the Apex
Court in case of State of T.N. and Another
v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others
reported in (2004) 4 SCC 513, wherein this
Court held that even the State Government
can prescribe higher standards than those
prescribed by AICTE.

The above principle was later applied
in
the
case
of
Universities
in
Visveswaraiah Technical University &
Another Vs. Krishnenedu Halder &
Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606,
wherein the Apex Court considered the
previous decisions and summarized the
legal position emerging there-from.

The Apex Court, in its latest judgment
of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological
University and another v. Jai Bharat
College of Management and Engineering
Technology and others, Civil Appeal No.
4016 of 2020 held that the powers of the
Universities to enhance the norms and
standard cannot be doubted.

This Court in the case of Registrar,
Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University
vs. Vinay Gupta & Others, reported in
2009 (3) ADJ 263, also laid down that the
prescriptions by the University of having at
least
45%
marks
in
the
qualifying
examination i.e. graduation course is an
additional qualification, which is fully
supported by the ratio of the judgments of
the Apex Court.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court,
while dealing with identical controversy in
Civil Writ Petition No. 4294 of 1987 in the
case of Shamsher Singh Tyagi Vs. State of
Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir High
Court in SWP No. 1558 of 2017 in the case
of Tanveer Ahmad Vs. Skuast &Others,
have also held that the University Grants
Commission lays down the minimum
standards required and the Universities can
prescribe higher qualifications, which are
in consonance (not contrary) with the UGC
Regulations. The only requirement that has
to be followed is that the qualifications
prescribed have to be reasonable and
attainable by the candidates.

The
UGC Regulations
prescribes
Minimum Standards and Procedure for
Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degrees. The word
"minimum
qualification"
has
been
discussed by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in para-11 of the Shamsher Singh
Tyagi (supra).

In deduction, it is acquiesced that the
respondent-University has prearranged the
minimum stipulations for admission to
Ph.D. Course in harmony with the UGC
Regulations and they are not in desecration
to the same. It is within the authorities of
the University to counsel rational and
realistic higher qualifications to conserve
the necessary standard of tutelage in the
University.
(iv) The University can terminate the
admission of the petitioners, as they do not
possess the minimum eligibility criteria as
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
per the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur
University Research Ordinance, 2018. It is
further submitted that there stands no
estoppel
against
law,
therefore,
the
University was thoroughly vindicated in
annulling the admissions of the students.

The Apex Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lata Arun JT 2002
(5) SC 210, examined the cancellation of
admission of a candidate to the General
Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse
Course on the ground that the Respondent
did not possess the eligibility criteria. In the
said case, initially the High Court had
allowed the writ petition and the special
appeal filed, against the judgment passed
therein, before the Division Bench of the
High Court was also dismissed. However,
the Apex Court allowed the appeal and held
that the High Court was in error in issuing
directions to the appellants to treat the
respondent as a candidate possessed of all
the prescribed qualification and to declare
the result.

The Apex Court in the case of A.P.
Christians Medical Educational Society v.
Government of A.P. reported in (1986) 2
SCC 667, Court observed that the Apex
Court cannot by its fiat direct the
University to disobey the statute to which it
owes its existence and the regulations made
by the University itself. The Apex Court
cannot imagine anything more destructive
of the rule of law than a direction by the
court to disobey the laws."

In the case of Gurdeep Singh v. State
of J. & K. and Ors. (1986) 2 SCC 667, the
Apex Court examined the selection of a
candidate, who was ineligible to be
admitted. It quashed his selection and made
its observations in paragraph 9 of the
judgment.

Other relevant case laws, which
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentUniversity in support of the aforesaid, has
relied upon are as follows:

(a)
Rajasthan
State
Industrial
Development vs. Subhash Sindhi reported
in (2013) 5 SCC 427;

(b) U.O.I. vs. Godfrcy Philips Pvt.
Ltd. reported in (1985) 4 SCC 369.
(v) The countering respondent-University,
i.e. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur
University, Gorakhpur has been established
under U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. As
per Section-7 of the Act, which advocates
the control and callings of University, it is
provided under sub-Section-1 that it is the
authority
and
responsibility
of
the
University to provide for instruction in
such
branches
of
erudition,
as
the
University may think apposite and to make
provision for research for furtherance and
propagation of awareness.

Sub-Section-3 provides powers and
duties of the university to institute degrees,
diplomas and other academic distinctions.

Sub-Section-4 provides powers and
duties
of
the
University
to
hold
examination and to grant and confer the
degrees and diplomas and other academic
distinctions.

Sub-Section-6 provides powers and
duties of the university to confer honorary
degree or other academic distinctions in the
manner and under condition laid down in
the Statute.

Under Section 51 (2) of Act, 1973, the
University is authorised to casing its
Ordinances
for
distinctive
matters
including (a) admission of students to the
University
and
their
enrollment
and
endurance, as such, (b) the course of study
to be laid down for all degrees, diplomas
and
other
academic
distinctions
of
University, (c) the condition under which
the students shall be admitted to the
examinations, degrees and diplomas of
6 All. Ms. Suneeta Bharti & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
167
University and shall be entitled for
accolade of such degrees and diplomas.