Writ Petition No.7515/2016 21.06.2017 Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri [ENTITY], learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State. Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent No.2/University. Heard. By this writ petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] petitioner prays for following relief : A) Allowing this petition with cost by passing any appropriate order in peculiar circumstance of the case and declare the petitioner qualified for the Ph.D. after ascertaining her true and total marks in the favour of justice. B) Either after calling entire record of the Ph.D including mark-sheet, question paper and model answer-sheet the eligibility of the candidates including the shall be concluded on merit or the entire examination held by the respondent declared null and void in absence of required transparency and respondent No.2 kindly be directed to issue fresh examination with complete transparency in the supervision of a special committee within the four corners of their ordinance. I) The present petition has been filed challenging the action of respondent No.2 in the selection process for the course of Ph.D. in Law Subject. II) According to the petitioner she appeared in Ph.D. entrance examination and was not selected. The Department Research Committee was not constituted, as per the provisions of Ordinance No.90, which describes the full process of Ph.D right from notification of Ph.D. entrance to award. He has also filed an application under the RTI for obtaining certain documents. His submissions is also that those documents were not supplied to the petitioner. To support the aforesaid he has drawn our attention towards letter dated 21.11.2016 issued by the respondent No.2. He further submitted that Ph.D entrance examination was not taken on the OMR sheet rather multiple purpose answer-sheet were used. The whole process of examination was illegally taken place. III) In reply learned counsel for the respondent No.2/University has also pointed out that one [ENTITY] filed a writ petition challenging the similar action and the said writ petition was dismissed on merit vide order dated 21.12.2016 passed in [CASE NUMBER]. Thereafter, [CASE NUMBER] was filed by Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner on 08.02.2017 before the Division Bench, which was also dismissed. The [CASE NUMBER] passed on 21.12.2016 and [CASE NUMBER] passed on 08.02.2017 are reads as under: WP No. 8323-2016 21-12-2016 Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner. By filing this petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the petitioner wants either to declare him qualified for the PHD after ascertaining his total marks or to declare all entrance exam null and void in absence of required transparency and to direct respondent No.2 to conduct fresh examination with complete transparency in the supervision of a special committee. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that against point No.3 of the Notification dated 7-10-2016, candidates,who obtained less than 50% marks, were selected. Departmental Research Committee was not constituted, as per the provisions of Ordinance No.90. Against the requirement of inclusion of Professor of Law, in violation of instruction No.10 (c) of the Ordinance No.90, Head of the Department of Mathematics Professor [ENTITY] had been included in the Departmental Research Committee. Committee was constituted with only two members against the required one Chairman and three members. Not only LLM one year course passed candidates allowed to participate in selection process and then in interview conducted by Departmental Research Committee, but also finally selected for pursuing Ph.D. course against the Rules. OMR answer sheets are not checked by the OMR device and checked manually by a single member of Law subject. In the examination room, the petitioner objected over wrong options of question and also about one question whose answer was different in Hindi and English version. The petitioner tried to get copies of answer sheet of every candidate appeared in entrance exam and also tried to get information regarding selection criteria, reservation process etc. in selection of candidates under the [ACT], but the same were not provided to him. Therefore, the petitioner has come before this Court. 3. It is mentioned in point No.8 of Notification dated 7.10.2016 and note appended to instruction 11 (e) of Ordinance 90, State policy and the Rules related to the reservation shall be followed and as per instruction No.11 (a) of the Ordinance No. 90, which is being relied upon by the petitioner, criteria for the SC & ST candidates to qualify the entrance test is to obtain minimum 45% marks. As per list of qualified candidates (Anx A-2), only 4 candidates, who obtained less than 50% marks (3 candidates with 46% and 1 candidate with 49%), were selected but they all belongs to SC and ST category. 4. Instruction No.11 (f) of the Ordinance No.90 provides that if the Dean of the faculty is not available, then the [ENTITY] shall appoint any other Dean or a senior Professor of the University to chair the Departmental Research Committee (DRC). Using this power, the [ENTITY] issued a Notification dated 5.10. 2016 (Anx A-3) notifying that in such faculties where no faculty head is nominated for constitution of the DRC for the current year, the faculty head/senior Professor nominated in the previous year 2015, is nominated again. Apart from this, a list of selected candidates is annexed by the petitioner with the petition as Anexture P-6. This list shows that the selection of the candidates has been done by the DRC comprising of head of the Law faculty and a Principal and 2 other members and headed by the head of the Law faculty. Thus, the objection raised by the petitioner has no substance. 5. Other issues raised by the petitioner regarding wrong options of the questions and difference in the answer of a question in Hindi and English version are vague and without any supportive documents. If the petitioner is denied any information under the [ACT], he can redress his grievance by filing appeal under the Act. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine. [CASE NUMBER] 08/02/2017 :- Shri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner. Per : [ENTITY], J. :
Heard on the question of admission.
By this review petition, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated 21/12/2016 passed in [CASE NUMBER] whereby the petition filed under [SECTION] of [ACT] for declaring the petitioner qualified for Ph.D. or for declaring the entrance examination conducted for selection of Ph.D. aspirants, null and void was dismissed.
2. The sole grievance of the present petitioner is with regard to the transparency in selection process of Ph.D. Entrance. The concern of the petitioner is that while passing the impugned order Bench has ignored the ground of transparency taken by him in the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order in the writ petition is silent with regard to the ground of transparency, while the petitioner has specifically pointed out the issue in the subject matter and further in the ground A and B of the writ petition. It is argued that the Bench did not consider the case of [PRECEDENT] passed on 10/07/2012 and many other citations quoted by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment in the matter of [PRECEDENT] decided on 12/08/2005 in [CASE NUMBER].
4. We have considered the arguments put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the impugned order and the record of the writ petition.
5. There is no doubt that merit, fairness and transparency in the process of admission are the core issues and also in fact the soul of any process for admission in the academic courses but we are afraid that the petitioner could not point out a single instance where the University has failed to comply these principles, which are the echoes by the Hon'ble Apex Court in many pronouncement. While passing the impugned order, we have considered this aspect also and scrutinized the process with this angle also to satisfy ourselves that no illegality has been committed by the University, during the process of selection of aspirants for Ph.D. Entrance and we can certainly say that the process adopted by University was far away from all contaminated element which can affect the purity and piousness of the process of selection. It is wrong to say that the Bench while passing the impugned order did not consider the transparency factor. In very beginning para of the impugned order, it got mentioned. Suffice to say while passing the impugned order, we have considered all the citations submitted or mentioned by the petitioner and only thereafter passed the order.
6. We do not find any ground to change or modify our earlier order. In our considered opinion, no case is made out for review of the earlier order. The present petition has no merits, therefore, we decline the admission and petition stands disposed of accordingly.
IV) In view of the return filed by the respondent No.2, we find that petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Similar question has been considered in the earlier round of litigation filed by [ENTITY].
For these reasons writ petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) Judge Judge [ENTITY]