IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 5816 of 2010. Decided on December 8, 2010. Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner Sh. Varun Thakur, Advocate. For respondent No. 1 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. For respondent No. 2 Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For respondent No. 3 Ms. Anita Dogra, Central Govt. Counsel. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioner and several other candidates, applied for registration/ enrolment for Ph. D. Degree, in Journalism and Mass Communication. Petitioner submitted application dated 29.12.2009, Annexure P-9. He was informed, through communication dated 11.5.2010, Annexure P-10, of the parameters, which were to be adopted, for selecting candidates Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - for enrolment/ registration, for the Ph. D. Degree. Parameters were as follows: a) Strength of research problem 30 marks b) Candidate’s understanding of research procedure 35 marks c) Candidate’s understanding of theoretical concepts 35 marks 2. In all, there were 26 candidates. A meeting of Departmental Council in Journalism and Mass Communication was held on 26.3.2010, which resolved to constitute a Screening Committee, for assessing the merit of the applicants, because the number of applicants was higher than the number of seats. Minutes of the meeting are Annexure R-3. It was in accordance with the decision, taken in this meeting, that Annexure P-10, aforesaid, was addressed to the petitioner. Screening Committee was also resolved to be set up, for assessing and evaluating the merit of applicants, in accordance with the aforesaid three parameters. That Committee evaluated the merit and prepared list Annexure R-4, per which, petitioner was placed at No. 24, in order of merit. Screening Committee submitted the aforesaid list, annexure R-4 to the Standing Committee, which, after considering the aforesaid list - 3 - and other material, pertaining to the merit of candidates, placed the petitioner at No. 21. First thirteen candidates were recommended for registration /enrolment, subject to approval by the Research Degree Committee and the Executive Council. Proceedings of the meeting were drawn up and their record is Annexure R-5. This meeting was held on 18.6.2010. 3. Petitioner filed the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the entire process of selection of candidates for enrolment/registration, alleging that on 15.6.2009, vide Annexure P-6, University Grants Commission had written to the Registrars of all the Universities, including respondent No. 2 University, to follow UGC Regulations in all matters, which impliedly, included enrolment/ registration for Ph. D. Degrees. Annexure P-5, copy of UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M. Phil. / Ph.D. Degree) Regulation, 2009, which was notified on 1st June, 2009 and came into force on 11.7.2009, the date of its publication in the Gazette of India, provides, vide clause No. 9, that entrance test shall be held for enrolment of candidates for Ph. D. and M.Phil. Degrees. - 4 - 4. Petitioner’s contention is that it was obligatory for respondent No. 2 to have conducted entrance test and that the procedure adopted by it, is alien, not only to the aforesaid Regulation, copy Annexure P-5, but also to the University’s own Ordinances and Statutes, particularly, Chapter 16 thereof, pertaining to Examination, Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). 5. Another contention, raised by the petitioner, is that in the case of Ph.D. in Journalism and Mass Communication, procedure of holding entrance test was not adopted, but in the case of enrolment of Ph.D. candidates, in other departments and subjects, such procedure is intended to be adopted, per advertisement, Annexure P-14. 6. Respondent No. 2, in its reply, has pleaded that communication, Annexure P-6, having been received after start of academic session 2009- 2010, could not be given effect to, by making necessary changes in its own Ordinances and Statutes and, therefore, admissions were decided to be made on the old pattern of evaluation of merit, in respect of all the departments and subjects. It has been denied that there had been any discrimination, in adopting the procedure for enrolment in the case - 5 - of Ph.D. Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication department/ subject and other departments/subjects. It is stated that advertisement, Annexure P-14, in respect of a few departments, is for the academic session 2010-2011 and it appeared in the newspaper on 2.9.2010. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Annexure P-7 is the copy of an Office Order, issued by the Registrar of respondent No. 2, which says that admission/ registration to Ph. D. for the session, 2009-2010, shall be made up to 26.12.2009, on existing pattern. The notification is not restricted to any department and, therefore, presumption is that it covers all the departments of the University. On 26.12.2009, another Office Order, copy Annexure P-8, was issued, by which the date for admission/registration, was extended up to 29.12.2009. Petitioner submitted his application, Annexure P-9 on 29.12.2009. 9. Admissions to Ph. D. are made twice in academic session, per notification dated 25.2.2009, Annexure R-1. Notification says that admission would be made at half yearly intervals, in the months of June and December. Petitioner, thus, applied for - 6 - admission to Ph. D. Degree in Journalism and Mass Communication, vide application dated 29.12.2009, Annexure P-9, in the second interval of academic session 2009-10. He participated in the selection process after respondent No. 2 intimated him vide letter, dated 11.5.2010, Annexure P-10 about the parameters of selection. It appears that, somehow or the other, when the petitioner came to know that his merit had been assessed much lower than many other candidates and he did not have any chance of admission, he filed the present petition. 10. Law is very clear, on the point, that when a candidate participates in the selection process, he cannot challenge that selection process, if he is not selected. Reference, in this behalf, may be made to K.A.Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and others (2009) 5 SCC 515, para 54, at page 527. 11. Otherwise also, simply on account of respondent No. 2, having not followed the procedure prescribed in Regulation, Annexure P-5 of U.G.C., selection process cannot be quashed. Regulation, Annexure P-5, has been issued by U.G.C., in exercise of power, under Section 26(1) (e) and (g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which reads as follows: - 7 - “26. Power to make regulations- (1) The Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations, consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder: (a) to (d) xxxxxxxxx (e) defining the qualifications that should ordinarily be required of any person to be appointed to the teaching staff of the University having regard to the branch of education in which he is expected to give instructions. (f) xxxxxxxxx (g), regulating the maintenance of standards and the co-ordination of work or facilities in Universities.” No doubt, communication, Annexure P-6, addressed by the U.G.C. to the Universities, says that adoption of its Regulations is mandatory, but that does not mean that if Regulations are not adopted or the procedure for admission of students or in respect of any other matters provided for in the Regulation, is not strictly followed, such admissions or action, taken in respect of other matters, will be illegal, or ultra vires and liable to be quashed by the Courts of law. Consequence, of failure to adopt or proceed according to the Regulations, made under Section 26(1) (e) and (g), is given in Section 14 of the U.G.C. Act, which is reproduced below: - 8 - “14. Consequences of failure of Universities to comply with recommendations of the Commission: If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to any college referred to in sub-section (5) of section 12A in contravention of the provision of that sub-section or fails within a reasonable time to comply with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13, or contravenes the provisions of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of sub section (2) of Section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission, after taking into consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University or such failure or contravention, may withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of the Commission.” From a bare reading of Section 14, as reproduced above, it is clear that where any Regulation, made under clauses (e) or (g) of Section 26 is contravened, U.G.C. may, after taking into consideration, the cause, if any, shown by the University, and the contravention of the Regulation, withhold from the University, the grants, proposed to - 9 - be made, out of the fund of the Commission. Contravention of such a Regulation, does not vitiate or render the action (taken in contravention) itself illegal. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that even the procedure, prescribed for admission to Ph.D. in the Ordinances and Statutes of respondent No. 2, has been departed from, while making selection. He has urged that Chapter 16 of the Ordinances and Statutes of the University, provides for evaluation of merit, by a Standing Committee and approval by Research Degree Committee and Executive Council, but in this case, a Screening Committee was constituted, which assessed and evaluated the merit. According to learned counsel, it amounts to departure from the prescribed procedure and hence entire selection process is illegal. 13. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. It is true that Chapter 16 of the Ordinances and Statutes, does not provide for constitution of a Screening Committee, but that does not mean that University cannot take administrative decisions, for providing assistance to the Standing Committee, for evaluating and assessing merit of the candidates, to be admitted to Ph.D. In the present - 10 - case, Screening Committee was appointed, when it was felt that the number of admission seekers was much more than the seats available. Committee was appointed, after Departmental Council in Journalism and Mass Communication, at its meeting, held on 26.3.2010, devised screening procedure and resolved to constitute a Committee. Minutes of the meeting of Departmental Council are Annexure R-3. 14. Screening Committee was to assist the Standing Committee. It prepared Chart of Merit, Annexure R-4 and submitted the same to the Standing Committee, for approval. Standing Committee held meeting on 18.6.2010, minutes of which are Annexure R-5. It noticed in the aforesaid minutes that screening test was conducted, under a special permission, sought from the University authorities and it considered the Chart Annexure R- 4, submitted by the Screening Committee and drew up a merit list of the selected candidates. Petitioner, who had been placed at No. 24 by the Screening Committee, was placed at No. 21, which fact suggests that the Standing Committee, did not just endorse the evaluation done by the Screening Committee, but re-assessed and re-evaluated the merit of candidates. - 11 - 15. In any case, it is not shown that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, on account of evaluation of merit by the Screening Committee. 16. Contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 has discriminated between candidates for admission to Ph.D. in Journalism and Mass Communication subject and other subjects, requires outright rejection. 17. Admission to Ph. D. Degree, in all the departments and subjects, for the session 2009- 2010, was made without entrance test, because communication, Annexure P-6, from UGC, directing adoption of UGC Regulations, in respect of all matters, including admissions etc., had been received in the midst of 2009-2010 academic session and so, it was not possible to make changes in the Ordinances and Statutes of the University and also, it was not easy to arrange for entrance test, at short notice. Entrance test was advertised to be held, vide advertisement, Annexure P-14, for the next academic session, i.e. 2010-2011. The advertisement pertains to 12 departments. There has not been any advertisement, in respect of Journalism and Mass Communication Department for - 12 - the session 2010-11, and so, advertisement is silent about this department and several other departments. 18. In view of the above stated position, writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No. 2 is free to proceed with enrolment/ registration to Ph. D. Degree, in the subject of Journalism and Mass Communication. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. December 8, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), Judge.