Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 13 (HP)

MARYADA v. H. P. UNIVERSITY

2002-01-09

KAMLESH SHARMA, M.R.VERMA

body2002
JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, ACJ.—In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, inter alia, the following reliefs:— 1.That the respondent University may be directed to grant admission to the petitioner on the basis of her merit as determined amongst the eligible candidates on 17.10.2001/22.10.2001 ignoring the decision of the selection committee to declare the petitioner ineligible. 2. That the process from the stage when the petitioner was declared ineligible by the selection committee on 22.10.2001 may be re-done and consequently the petitioner may be admitted in M.Phil (Botany) course in the respondent University on the basis of her merit. 2. The petitioner has passed M.Sc. degree from CSKVV, Palampur, District Kangra in the subject of Plant Physiology In response to the M.Phil and LLM admission notice for 2001-2002 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner submitted her application for admission to the M.Phil course in the subject of Botany. As per the list displayed on the notice board on 17.10.2001, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the list of candidates declared eligible. Consequently she appeared before the Selection Committee on 22.10,2001 when it was pointed out to her that despite the fact that she was at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list of eligible candidates, she could not be admitted in M.Phil in the subject of Botany as she had not studied the said subject at M.Sc. level and her M.Sc. was in Plant Physiology, which is one of the branches of Botany. The petitioner pleaded that no such indication was given in the advertisement or in the Hand Book of Information and, therefore, she could not be declared ineligible but with no result and her name was not included in the list of selected candidates. 3. The petitioner personally met the Dean of Studies, H.P. University and also submitted a written representation to him pointing out that the action of the University was contrary to Clause 9.8 of the Hand Book of Information. When no decision was conveyed to her she has filed the present writ petition. Alleging discrimination in the writ petition she has given an instance of Ms. Surbhi Kaul who had also done M.Sc. course in Plant Physiology from CSKVV, Palampur and was admitted to Pre-Ph.D course in Botany where after she was permitted to do Ph.D in Botany from the respondent-University. Alleging discrimination in the writ petition she has given an instance of Ms. Surbhi Kaul who had also done M.Sc. course in Plant Physiology from CSKVV, Palampur and was admitted to Pre-Ph.D course in Botany where after she was permitted to do Ph.D in Botany from the respondent-University. It is also pointed out that earlier, before doing Ph.D a candidate was to do Pre-Ph.D and there was no M.Phil, but now there is no Pre-Ph.D and the candidate is required to do M.Phil before doing Ph.D. 4. In the reply-affidavit the respondent University has admitted that petitioner had secured 75% marks in M.Sc. in the subject of Plant Physiology but it is of no help to the petitioner as the qualifying examination for admission to M.Phil course is M.Sc. in Botany and M.Sc. Plant Physiology is one of the subject for M.Sc. Botany and M.Sc. Plant Physiology cannot be equated with M.Sc. Botany. Explaining the case of Ms. Surbhi Kaul it is pointed out that Pre-Ph.D course and M.Phil course are entirely two different streams and there is no discrimination in declaring the petitioner ineligible for admission to M.Phil course in Botany, Pre-Ph.D course is of six months duration, whereas, M.Phil course is of one year duration. 5. Referring to the various provisions of the H.P. University Act (hereinafter referred to as the act). Statutes and Ordinances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the decision of the Departmental Council that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to M.Phil course in Botany as she has done M.Sc. in Plant Physiology is against Clauses 9.2 and 9.8 of the Prospectus which are incorporated in the Prospectus from the Ordinances formulated by the expert bodies/authorities of the University, such as, concerned Department of Studies, Board of Studies, Faculty and Academic Council. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the eligibility criteria for M.Phil, course in Botany, as per the Prospectus is only M.Sc. with Botany as one of the subjects as in the case of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand of the respondent-University as taken in the reply affidavit. According to the learned Counsel, the qualifying examination for admission to M.Phil course in Botany is M.Sc. in Botany and Plant Physiology being one of the branches of Botany cannot be equated with M.Sc. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has reiterated the stand of the respondent-University as taken in the reply affidavit. According to the learned Counsel, the qualifying examination for admission to M.Phil course in Botany is M.Sc. in Botany and Plant Physiology being one of the branches of Botany cannot be equated with M.Sc. Botany and the interpretation of the relevant Clauses of the Prospectus as well as the Ordinances by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not correct. 7. Before we consider the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties we will refer to the relevant provisions of the Prospectus. 8. In the Prospectus under Heading Scheme for M.Phil Programme, the relevant Clauses are 9.1, 9.2 and 9.8. These are: "9.1 General : A person desirous of pursuing the course of study for M.Phil degree shall apply on the prescribed form, complete in all respects, alongwith the application fee for Rs. 200/- to the Chairman of the Department concerned in which admission is being sought. The Bank Draft/Postal Order should be made payable to the Finance Officer of the University. The applications will be examined by the departmental council or admission committee constituted by the Chairman which will approve the final list of admission and the Chairman of the department will display the list of candidates to be admitted. M.Phil shall be a full time regular course of study pursued by regular attendance in classes and seminars. 9.2 Eligibility : A candidate seeking admission to the M.Phil course must have at least 55% marks (50% in case of SC/ST) in the subject concerned at Master level. 9.8 Number of Admission in each Department The number of seats in each department shall vary between 5 and 10, as decided by the departmental council. 75 percent of seats in each subject shall be first filled by the students who passed their qualifying examination (Masters degree) from H.P. University or from H.P. Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya or from Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry. The remaining 25 percent of the seats shall be open to all. Admissions for SC/ST candidates 15 percent and 7.5 percent respectively for each category shall be governed according to the roster approved by the University” 9. These Clauses are incorporated from Chapter 15 of Examinations of Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) of the First Ordinances of H.P. University (Volume-1). 10. The remaining 25 percent of the seats shall be open to all. Admissions for SC/ST candidates 15 percent and 7.5 percent respectively for each category shall be governed according to the roster approved by the University” 9. These Clauses are incorporated from Chapter 15 of Examinations of Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) of the First Ordinances of H.P. University (Volume-1). 10. Referring to Clause 9.8 learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the qualifying examination is Masters degree either from H.P. University or from H.P.K.V.V. or from Dr. Y.S. Parmar University and it is not necessary that it could be in the exact subject in which the candidate seeks admission to M.Phil course. According to learned Counsel, jt can be in the related subject as it is in the present case. Since the petitioner has done M.Sc. in Plant Physiology which is admittedly one of the branches of Botany she is eligible for admission to M.Phil course in Botany. 11. We do not find any force in this submission. If it is accepted that qualifying examination is Masters degree irrespective of the subject, then a person holding M.Sc. degree in one subject can do M.Phil in any one of other subjects having no relations with the subject in M.Sc. The perusal of Clause 9.2 also makes it clear that qualifying examination is M.Sc. in the subject concerned and not only Master level examination. This is further clear from the Ordinance 9.37 under Chapter 9 of the Ordinances where under the subjects of Master Science are given. 9.37 is:— "A candidate may take any of the following as his subject of study for the Master of Science degree:— 1. Physics 2. Chemistry 3. Botany 4. Zoology 5. Mathematics 6. Statistics 7. Deleted 8. Geology 9. Geography" 12. Therefore, the qualifying examination is Master of Science degree in one of the subjects as given under Clause 9.37, may be from H.P. University, from H.P K.V.V. or from Dr. Y.S. Parmar University. Accordingly, in the case in hand Master of Science degree in Botany is qualifying examination for admission to M.Phil in Botany. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the interpretation of the Departmental Council of the relevant Clauses of the Prospectus which are incorporated from the relevant provisions of the Ordinances. The petitioner having passed her M.Sc. in Plant Physiology, is not eligible for admission to M.Phil in Botany. 13. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the interpretation of the Departmental Council of the relevant Clauses of the Prospectus which are incorporated from the relevant provisions of the Ordinances. The petitioner having passed her M.Sc. in Plant Physiology, is not eligible for admission to M.Phil in Botany. 13. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is rejected, No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.