Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 Date of Order: 13th October, 2011 Raghu Garg and another ...Petitioners Versus Board of Management of Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Longowal and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. R.K.Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kohal Dev, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioners to the Ph.D. Programme in Computer Science and Engineering against five seats reserved for full time (with fellowship). Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners hold qualifications of B.Tech and M.Tech, in Computer Science & Engineering. They applied for admission to the Ph.D. course in Computer Science & Engineering. The prospectus provides Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -2- for a total of 150 marks divided equally between marks secured in the post graduate degree, the entrance examination and the interview. The petitioners sat for the entrance examination and thereafter appeared for the interview. Petitioner no.1 has secured 67.9 marks, whereas petitioner no.2 has secured 62.3 marks, out of 150 marks. The final result was declared on 20.07.2011, Balwinder Singh and Satish Kumar were recommended for admission to the Full Time Ph.D. Programme (with fellowship). Satish Kumar had withdrawn his candidature, before declaration of the result. As four seats are still available, the respondents should be directed to grant admission to the petitioners. It is further argued that the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners had not completed their M.Tech course by the date of interview and did not submit their certificates as required by Rule 1.4 of the Rules and Regulations for Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) Degree (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), is false to the knowledge of the respondents. The mark sheets were received by the petitioners on 14.07.2011, and were produced at the time of interview on 16.07.2011. The document, Annexure P-11 clearly records marks obtained by the petitioners in their M.Tech. examination. The candidates whose results were awaited, were not interviewed. It is further argued that the only criteria prescribed in Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -3- the prospectus is marks for post graduate degree, entrance examination and interview. The prospectus does not prescribe any cut of percentage or that a candidate must obtain 50% marks out of the total of 150 marks. The Counseling Committee had no jurisdiction, of its own, to prescribe a criteria that only such candidates would be offered admission as have secured 50% out of 150 marks. It is further argued that the criteria of 50% marks was framed after the results of the entrance and M.Tech. examinations. The respondents were aware of the marks secured by candidates and, therefore, framed a criteria so as to intentionally exclude the petitioners. It is further argued by reference to a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1993(2) P.L.R.,212, Amardeep Singh Sahota v. The State of Punjab etc., that the criteria laid down in a prospectus cannot be altered and any change in the eligibility criteria, is null and void. Reference in this regard is also made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as 1997(4) RSJ, 512, Swaranjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioners were denied admission on the ground that they did not produce their original certificates at the time of counseling and on the ground that they have not secured 50% marks out of a total of 150 marks, divided equally between the entrance examination, the post graduate degree and the interview. The petitioners have secured 67.9 and 62.3 marks, Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -4- respectively, which are clearly less than 50%. It is, however,admitted that the condition requiring a candidate to obtain 50% marks, is not prescribed in the prospectus. It is argued that this alone does not render the admission process illegal or void. The Selection/Interviewing Committee decided, in accordance with power conferred by rule 1.3 of the Rules that only such candidates would be recommended for Ph.D as have secured 50% marks out of 150. The procedure adopted by the Committee is in accordance with the rules. The mere fact that decision is not referred to in the prospectus does not render the admission process illegal or void. I have heard counsel for the parties, considered the arguments and perused the paper book. The petitioners applied for admission to the full time Ph.D. Programme in Computer Science and Engineering with fellowship. The Selection/Interview Committee has rejected their candidatures on the grounds that they have not attained the qualifying criteria of 50% marks and have not submitted their original mark sheets, of the M.Tech examination. The ground that the petitioners did not produce their original certificates at the time of counseling/interview, stands falsified by the list Annexure P-11. The list clearly records the marks obtained by the petitioners in their M.Tech examinations. If the petitioners had not produced these certificates, their marks would not have appeared against their names, in the list, Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -5- Annexure P-11. The stand taken by the University is contrary to its own document, Annexure P-11 and must, therefore, be rejected. Even otherwise, there was no occasion for the petitioners to withhold original certificates (Annexures P-13 and P-14), which were issued to them on 14.07.2011. The second ground for rejection is failure of the petitioners' to secure 50% marks out of 150. The question that requires to be answered, in the context of admission to a Ph.D course, is whether in the admitted absence of a criteria in the prospectus requiring a candidate to secure 50% marks out of 150, the Selection/Interview Committee could have rejected the petitioner's candidature by prescribing such a criteria before the interview. The Selection Committee decided in its meeting held, on the date of interview, that it would recommend only those candidates who have secured 50% marks out of 150. The decision taken by the Selection/Interview Committee, reads as follows:- “The following points were discussed and agreed upon:- 1. It was decided to select the candidates, who will score at least 50% marks out of 150 total marks (50 marks for Entrance Examination + 50 marks for PG Degree + Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -6- 50 marks for Interview) for Admission in Ph.D Programmed of CSE Department Minimum 20% marks (15% marks for SC/ST candidates) are required to qualify the Entrance Examination i.e. SET-VIII.” As a general rule, eligibility conditions have to be set out in the prospectus and once published cannot be altered, added to or changed to the detriment of a candidate. Reference in this regard may be made to Amardeep Singh Sahota and Swaranjit Singh and another (supra). The situation in the present case is, however, slightly different. A doctorate(Ph.D) unlike, other academic courses is conferred for original research. The right to prescribe a criteria that ensures academic excellence in research, rests with academia. Inherent in such a right is the right to prescribe a criteria that ensures excellence in research. By prescribing a criteria that only such candidates shall be offered the Ph.D course as have obtained 50% marks, the Selection/Interview Committee has endeavoured to ensure excellence in the filed of research. The power to prescribe such a criteria is drawn from Rule 1.3 of the Rules, which reads as follows:- “1.3 Eligibility for Admission Minimum Qualification for Admission The eligibility conditions given below are the absolute minimum Departments may prescribe Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -7- any requirements over and above these subject to the approval of the Central Research Committee, CRC. Master's Degree in Engineering/Technology/ Science/ Humanities/ Management with 55% of marks (50% for SC/ST).” Rule 1.3 clearly postulates that eligibility conditions prescribed by the authorities are a bare minimum and a department may prescribe any requirements over and above these eligibility conditions. The Committee has taken decision dated 16.07.2011 in furtherance of the power conferred by Rule 1.3 of the Rules. The argument that this condition cannot be applied as it alters the eligibility criteria and does not find mention in the prospectus, in my considered opinion, disregards the fact that the criteria has been prescribed to maintain standards of excellence and to ensure that candidates, who do not meet the criteria, are not recommended for Ph.D. The course adopted by the respondents, in prescribing a minimum of 50% in accordance with Rule 1.3 in my considered opinion cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, for want of any reference to it in the prospectus. An Interview Committee can always frame a criteria, while considering suitability of candidates, particularly in Ph.D Courses. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, in the absence of any illegality in the condition requiring a candidate to Civil Writ Petition No.13270 of 2011 -8- secure 50% marks out of a total of 150, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. October 13th , 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE