IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 10489 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------- SAYIKUMARAN NAIR,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN THAMPY,KALLUVILA HOUSE, MUTTAPPALAM,PERUMGUZHY PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 305. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF INDIAN LEGAL THOUGHT,REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, SURYAKALADY HILLS,S.H.MOUNT PO KOTTAYAM 786 006. 2. DIRECTOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF INDIAN LEGAL THOUGHT,SURYAKALADY HILLS, S.H.MOUNT PO KOTTAYAM . ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10489 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF MARK LIST OF LLM FINAL DEGREE EXAMINATION DATED 1.12.2007 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS DATED 23.10.2008 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION CARD EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 7.6.2010 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF INTERVIEW DATED 25.1.2011 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED REGULATIONS 2010 FOR PHD REGISTRATION FOR M.G. UNIVERSITY TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 10489 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him registration for Ph.D. 2. Petitioner passed LLB in 1992 and LLM in April, 2007. On the basis of an application for registration for Ph.D Course, he appeared in the written test held in terms of the Revised Regulations for Ph.D Registration and Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 2010. He was called for an interview which was held on 1.2.2011. Though several other persons were granted registration, the registration was not granted to the petitioner. That made the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him registration. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 4 and 7 it is stated thus:- Paragraph 4: The petitioner was one of the six candidates, who applied for the Ph.D registration in law in the school of Indian Legal Thought, a Statutory Department of the University. He was called for an interview before the Foctoral Committee at 10 a.m. on 1.2.2011, on assessing the WPC.No.10489/2011 : 2 : synopsis submitted by the petitioner and his performance in the interview the committee decided not to select him for admission of the following grounds:- 1. The performance of the candidates in the interview was very poor. 2. The candidate could not explain properly his topic of research. Paragraph 7: The petitioner was not able to explain what he intended to pursue during his research project as evidenced by the minutes of the doctoral committee meeting. It showed petitioner's poor grasp and poor preparedness. A unanimous decision was taken in this respect. Therefore, it is obvious that registration was declined to the petitioner only on account of the fact that according to the respondents, the petitioner's performance at the interview held on 1.2.2011 was unsatisfactory. The regulations referred above, provide the mode of admission for Ph.D programmes. Clause 5 of the regulations states that admission to Ph.D programmes shall be made on the basis of a. qualifying degree marks b. written aptitude test and c. an interview. It is further provided that the relative weight for the aforesaid 3 components for admission shall be in the ratio of 40:40:20. WPC.No.10489/2011 : 3 : 4. Therefore, when candidates are considered for admission, marks awarded to the aforesaid 3 components should be totalled and on that basis ranking should be done and relative superiority of each of the candidates should be assessed on that basis. Otherwise, relative inferior performance in one component alone can result in the rejection of a candidate. From the counter affidavit, what is seen is that the petitioner has been eliminated only on the ground that his performance at the interview was unsatisfactory and the counter affidavit does not say that all candidates were ranked duly reckoning all the three components and that the petitioner lost because of his relatively inferior performance and ranking. Therefore, I am inclined to think that refusal to grant registration to the petitioner cannot be justified in the light of the provisions contained in the regulation referred above. In that view of the matter I direct that respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner for registration of Ph.D afresh in the light of the provisions contained in the revised regulation 2010 and in the light of the observations hereinabove. This, the first respondent shall do and a decision in the matter shall be taken as expeditiously as WPC.No.10489/2011 : 4 : possible and at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to JUDGE