JUDGMENT Honble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Radhey Shyam Yadav-the petitioner, in person. Shri A.K. Goyal appears for the University of Allahabad. Shri Suneet Kumar appears for respondent No. 5. Notices were issued to all the private respondents on 23rd July, 2007. The postal envelopes did not return back after service on respondent Nos. 6 to 11. Under the rules of the Court, they will be deemed to be served. 2. Shri P.S. Baghel, Advocate has also entered appearance for the University and has filed affidavit of Shri Rajendra Govind Harshe, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Allahabad. 3. At the admission stage the Court required the University to file affidavit and to produce records. On 31.8.2007 the Court passed following orders : “It is admitted to the University that admission to Research Course is regulated by Statutory Ordinances in the name of ‘Ordinances for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy’ and the procedure for consideration of the application has been provided by the ‘Rule for D. Phil Research’ as approved by Executive Committee (Annexure-SCA-3 to the affidavit of Head of the Department). Ordinance Nos. 2, 3 as well as Rules 2, 3 and 4 relevant for our purposes are being quoted below : “Ord.2. The candidate shall apply for admission in the University stating his qualifications and the subject he proposes to investigate and enclosing a statement of any work he may have done in the subject. Ord.3. The application shall be placed before the Research Degree Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of Faculty and the Head or Heads of Departments concerned; they shall have the power to co-opt two other members. This Committee shall satisfy itself that the subject offered is one which can profitably be pursued under the superintendence of the University and that the candidate possesses the requisite qualifications and equipment. If the Committee is satisfied on these points, it shall grant the application for admission and appoint a member of the teaching staff or in a special case a distinguished scholar or a retired teacher of the University residing within the territorial limit of the University and working in the laboratories of Allahabad recognised by the aforesaid Committee, to guide the work of the candidate. The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported to the Faculty Board at its next meeting. Rule 2. The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported to the Faculty Board at its next meeting. Rule 2. Each Department will form a Doctoral Programme Committee (DPC) constituted by the Departmental Committee, or where the Departmental Committee cannot be constituted, by the Head of the Department, consisting upto 5 senior faculty members representing the broad areas of research and specialization. The DPC will perform the following functions : (e) recommend students on merit on the basis of their research and academic aptitude who can be admitted to the D. Phil. programme. A candidate must have obtained a post graduate degree in the subject or a cognate subject from a recognized University. (f) monitor the progress of all research scholars. (g) recommend/approve the names of supervisors for each candidate based on the area of interest, availability of seats, supervisor’s consent, etc. and recommend names of students whose progress is unsatisfactory to the R.D.C. For striking off their names from the rolls. (h) prescribe such course work or training necessary for each student. (i) organize special lectures, classes, seminars, and workshops so as to provide training in various research areas and methodology of research. (j) take appropriate steps for enhancing the quality of research programme and specifically ensure authenticity of information. Rule 3. All students who are recommended for admission must have consistently good academic record as defined by the UGC and aptitude for research and teaching. Students who can peruse research on a full time basis only shall be enrolled. Students perusing any other courses of study in this or any other University will not be admitted or will be liable to be struck off the rolls unless the University has permitted his/her in the interest of his own research. Rule 4. Only in exceptional circumstances Doctoral Programme Committee may consider to admit student with a third division either at the Intermediate or High School levels provided the candidate has other qualification such as publications which demonstrates that he/she will be able to do good quality research in the University and the candidate has secured a minimum of 54% average marks in all examinations. A candidate with a 3rd division at the graduate or postgraduate levels will not be eligible for admission.” It may further be recorded that according to the counsel for the University a teacher is entitled for enrollment of Research Scholars to the following extent : ‘2 in a year and 6 at the maximum at any point of time.’ An advertisement was published on the notice board of the University of Allahabad dated 11.7.2007 inviting applications for enrollment for D. Phil in the Education Department of the University of Allahabad. From the original records it is established that 12 persons applied in response thereto. The Doctoral Programme Committee in its meeting held on 8th February, 2007 resolved that the procedure to be adopted for deciding the academic aptitude of the candidate would be by merit to be prepared by adding percentage of marks obtained by candidates in following examination : (i) Graduation i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. (ii) M.A. in Education or M. Ed. (whichever in greater). The original records, which have been produced by counsel for the University before this Court, do not contain any merit list of all the 12 candidates. On record is a merit list of only 7 candidates, signed by the three members of the Doctoral Programme Committee. The first two names of the said list are Rama Gupta and Prem Lata Gautam, whose marks have not been disclosed and only JRF and NET respectively has been mentioned against their names. On 12th February, 2007 the Doctoral Programme Committee is alleged to have forwarded the application forms of these 7 candidates to the Dean Faculty of Arts, University of Allahabad for enrollment in D. Phil. On the application of Rama Gupta, the name of the supervisor has been mentioned as Prof. P.K. Sahoo and has been signed by him on 8th February, 2007. On the application of Rama Gupta, the name of the supervisor has been mentioned as Prof. P.K. Sahoo and has been signed by him on 8th February, 2007. It is worthwhile to refer to the first page of the original document, which bear the signature of the Head of the Education Department dated 7th February, 2007, which records the number of vacancies for enrollment to D. Phil against the name of the teachers mentioned in the said list : Name Number of admitted Number of vacancies students as on date (1) P.K. Sahoo 5 1 (2) V. Agrawal 3 2 (3) U. Misra 2 1 (4) P. Upadhyay 5 1 (5) S. Raghuvansh 2 1 (6) U.R. Sharma 5 1 (7) D. Yadav 4 0 This document establishes that in terms of the stand of the University noticed above there were at least following more vacancies available against the following teachers in addition to those recorded above : U. Misra 1 S. Raghuvansh 1 D. Yadav 2 The statement of vacancy recorded against the name of Prof. P.K. Sahoo is also apparently incorrect, inasmuch as on record is a letter of the Prof. P.K. Sahoo wherein he has himself admitted that one Ms. Ritu Agarwal, who was earlier enrolled with him as Research Scholar, by means of her letter dated 14th March, 2007 has informed her inability to pursue D. Phil. work and therefore up to 8th February, 2007 there was no vacancy with Prof. P.K. Sahoo for enrollment of a student under the D. Phil. course. The letters of Prof. P.K. Sahoo addressed to the Registrar of the University dated 6th March, 2007, 12th March, 2007 and 24th March, 2007, reiterate the facts noticed above, are also on record. As a matter of fact there is an endorsement of the Dean, Faculty of Arts, University of Allahabad on the letter of Prof. P.K. Sahoo dated 6th March, 2007, wherein he has recorded that a registered letter be sent to Ms. Ritu Agrawal and if she does not respond, her name may be struck off from the roll. There is absolutely no record which could depict that on 8th February, 2007 now many Research Scholar were enrolled with the respective teachers in the relevant academic year. Ritu Agrawal and if she does not respond, her name may be struck off from the roll. There is absolutely no record which could depict that on 8th February, 2007 now many Research Scholar were enrolled with the respective teachers in the relevant academic year. The application of the petitioner for being enrolled for research has been rejected by the Doctoral Programme Committee on the ground as stated in paragraph 8, 9 and 11 of the supplementary counter affidavit of the Head of the Education Department, Faculty of Arts, Allahabad University dated 18th May, 2007, which read as follows : “8.That the number of admission in D. Phil. in each academic session is never static and depends upon various factors viz. Availability and consent of the research supervisors for enrollment of a student for research under them. There were 12 including 4 NET qualified candidates who have submitted their applications for enrollment in D. Phil. in Education Department in the present session as against 7 candidates who could be enrolled subject to approval of their academic, research aptitude and consent of their research supervisors. In order to decide academic aptitude, one of the criteria for admission to D. Phil., the DPC comprising of Dr. K.S. Misra, Head, Department of Education and the two senior most professors of the department namely—Prof. P.K. Sahoo and Prof. V. Agarwal in order to avoid any injustice amongst the applicants having M.A.(Edu.) and M. Ed. Resolved to prepare merit of the candidates (other than those who have already qualified national level JRF/NET conducted by UGC) on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by such applicants in academic graduation and post graduate qualification. As B. Ed. is a one year training qualification and it was not possessed by all the applicants, it was resolved to prepare merit by adding percentage of marks obtained by the applicants in graduation i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and M.A.(Edu.) or M. Ed. Whichever is greater. The academic aptitude of 11 candidates who reported on 8.2.2007 including the petitioner was adjudged strictly in accordance with the decision of doctoral programme committee after verification of original marksheets brought by the candidates and a merit list on the basis of academic qualification was drawn. and M.A.(Edu.) or M. Ed. Whichever is greater. The academic aptitude of 11 candidates who reported on 8.2.2007 including the petitioner was adjudged strictly in accordance with the decision of doctoral programme committee after verification of original marksheets brought by the candidates and a merit list on the basis of academic qualification was drawn. For convenient perusal of this Hon’ble Court, a Chart of academic qualification of the 12 candidates who applied and the merit list of the candidates who were interviewed on 8.2.2007 for enrollment in D. Phil. in Education are being filed herewith and marked as Annexures SCA-4 & SCA-4A respectively to this affidavit. 9.That in order to judge research aptitude of the applicants (on the basis of respective research papers/proposals) submitted by the respective candidates (along with application forms) who reported on the schedule date i.e. 8.2.2007 the DPC interviewed the candidates wherein the DPC assessed research aptitude including suitability of research topic of the candidates for enrollment. The two candidates were recommended without any amendment of their research papers whereas the four candidates were recommended with modified research topic for enrollment in D. Phil. The research papers submitted by the petitioner were not found up to the mark by DPC and for the said reason he was not recommended for enrollment. 11.That as only 7 enrollments could be made in D. Phil. in the Department of Education in the present session as such out of the 11 applicants the merit list based on academic aptitude eligible for enrollment was drawn. The RDC approved the enrollments of the aforesaid 7 students recommended by DPC. It is only after the sanction/approval of admission by Research Degree Committee the Deputy Registrar of the University communicated the same to the candidates to take admission by depositing fee. All the 7 selected candidates have deposited their fee and are pursuing their respective research work. For bravity, true copies of some of such letters issued to the candidates after sanction of admission by Research Degree Committee are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-6 to this affidavit.” The stand taken on behalf of the University in its counter affidavit in paragraphs 5, 7 and 9 is as follows : “5. For bravity, true copies of some of such letters issued to the candidates after sanction of admission by Research Degree Committee are collectively being filed herewith and marked as Annexure SCA-6 to this affidavit.” The stand taken on behalf of the University in its counter affidavit in paragraphs 5, 7 and 9 is as follows : “5. That it is significant to mention here that first preference is given to a candidate who has passed JRF subject to other conditions, such as, capacity to do the research etc. The second preference is given to a candidate, who has cleared the NET examination conducted by the UGC and for other candidates other JRF and NET. The merit list was prepared as per decision taken by DPC in its Meeting dated 8.2.2007. 7. That even in case the merit list would have been prepared on the basis of only B.Ed. and M.Ed. Even then the petitioner would not have been in the merit list. If the merit list is drawn on the basis of B.Ed. and M.Ed. Marks, the following would be the position of the candidates : NAME MERIT ON THE BASIS OF B.Ed. & M.Ed (i) Chetna Pandey* 132.3 III (ii) Kuldeep Sahu 125.6 VI (iii) Puja Srivastava 132.9 II (iv) Radheyshyam Yadav 126.4 V (v) Shikha Dhar* 128.9 IV (vi) Sugandha Mitra* 133.2 I If the petitioner’s case is accepted even then he would not have been selected as Puja Srivastava has higher merit than the petitioner and she would have been selected. 9. That the contents of para 2 of the writ petition are incorrect hence denied. Before the enrolment of a candidate, the RDC does not approve the research papers. The research Professors cannot be selected by a candidate. The research candidate, along with his application form, submits the research papers/proposed papers. On the basis of the said papers, the Committee takes the decision regarding the capability of a research candidate.” As already noticed above, the resolution of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007, which is on record, nowhere provides any preference being conferred upon JRF or NET candidates, it only requires for preparation of a merit list by adding percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. and M.A. (Education) or M.Ed. and M.A. (Education) or M.Ed. The documents filed on behalf of the University depicts that the petitioner has secured 7th position on the basis of the merit so prepared. However, in order to bye-pass the claim of the petitioner, in the list, which has been prepared for names being forwarded to the Doctoral Programme Committee, names of Rama Gupta and Prem Lata Gautam have been placed in the top of the list after recording JRF and NET against their names, without disclosing the merit secured by them in terms of the resolution of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007, referred to above. However, on calculation of the marks, as are disclosed from the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Head of the Department, it is apparent that the marks, which would be obtained by Prem Lata Gautam in terms of resolution dated 8th February, 2007, would be much below than the total marks which the petitioner will obtain. It is thus apparent from the records that the merit list, as per the resolution of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007 has not been prepared in respect of all the candidates. Preference has been conferred upon JRF and NET candidates without any resolution in that regard having been passed by the Doctoral Programme Committee and without there being any statutory provision for conferring such a benefit upon the candidates concerned. The matter was adjourned by this Court on 9th August, 2007 on the statement made by the counsel for the University that the Research Degree Committee shall examine the case of the petitioner. By means of the supplementary affidavit filed today the decision of the Research Degree Committee has been brought on record. It is worthwhile to reproduce the decision taken by the Research Degree Committee, which reads as follows : “The following decision has been taken in the meeting of Research Degree Committee held on Monday 27th August, 2007 in the direction of Hon’ble High Court in the writ petition No. 21175 of 2007 of Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav : 1. Relative merit of the non NET/JRF candidates who have applied for admission to D. Phil programme in Education was determined on the basis of percentage of marks obtained at Graduation (i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.) and M.Ed. or M.A. in Education (whichever is greater). 2. Relative merit of the non NET/JRF candidates who have applied for admission to D. Phil programme in Education was determined on the basis of percentage of marks obtained at Graduation (i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com.) and M.Ed. or M.A. in Education (whichever is greater). 2. On this basis of the marks obtained by the candidates who have appeared at the interview were tabulated and the merit list was prepared accordingly. 3. From this merit lists the first seven candidates were recommended for admission in view of the fact that the department had only seven vacancies and therefore could accommodate only seven candidates. 4. Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav’s plea that the academic merit be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in B.Ed. and M.Ed. (not in B.A. and M.A. Education/M.Ed.) is not tenable because the Research Degree Committee feels that D. Phil. being an academic degree; marks obtained by candidates in B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. which is also academic degree, be preferred for determination of the relative merit of candidates. 5. Even if Sri Yadav’s contention for considering marks obtained in B. Ed. and M.Ed. For determining merit be accepted, he cannot be considered for admission because Mrs. Pooja Srivastava stands better chance for admission because she will be placed above Mr. Yadav in the merit list.” The decision of the Research Degree Committee records that relative merit of non NET and JRF candidates was prepared, which on the fact of it contrary to the resolution of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007 wherein merit of all the candidates, who had applied, was to be determined. Name of one of the candidate, who is below the petitioner in the merit list was approved for admission only after recording the word JRF, without disclosing the merit after addition of marks secured at the graduation and post graduation. Under which provision this preference has been conferred could not be disclosed. Before this Court counsel for the University with specific reference to the affidavit of the Head of the Department (Specifically Para 8) had vehemently argued that the petitioner was refused admission to the Ph. D. Course only because the topic submitted by him having not found favour with Doctoral Programme Committee and that the merit list prepared on 8.2.2007 was not the only basis for refusing admission to the Ph. D. Course. D. Course only because the topic submitted by him having not found favour with Doctoral Programme Committee and that the merit list prepared on 8.2.2007 was not the only basis for refusing admission to the Ph. D. Course. The Research Degree Committee has further recorded that since there are only 7 vacancies therefore only 7 candidates could be admitted. Petitioner, being lower in merit in the said list, was not entitled to such admission, it has rejected the representation made by the petitioner after recording that the marks of B. Ed. are not liable to be added. The statement of fact made in the order of the Doctoral Programme Committee is prima facie false for following reasons : (a) The number of total vacancy available has wrongly been calculated as demonstrated above. There were 7+4 in all 11 vacancies available with the University teachers. (b) Under the First Statute, as are applicable till date, there is no concept of number of vacancies vis-a-vis the number of students who can be admitted to D.Phil. Course. The quota available with University teacher is of no relevance so far as the statutes are concerned, inasmuch as an Expert (not being a teacher in the University) residing within the area of the Allahabad University can be made a guide for the thesis. Petitioner in fact had stated the name of Prof. Ram Sakal Pandey a retired Head of the Education Department of the University of Allahabad in his representation dated 5.4.2007 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition). (c) There was no vacancy with Prof. P.K. Sahoo on the relevant date i.e. 8th February, 2007 as recorded above and therefore the number of vacancies as per the statement of the University, for being enrolled with University teacher, was 6 only. (d) The resolution of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007 did not provide for any preference to the candidates who were JRF or NET nor any such preference is contemplated by the First Statutes. Therefore, enrollment of candidate lower in merit than petitioner is contrary to decision of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007. (e) The number of students enrolled in Ph. D. with the teacher in the academic year has not been disclosed. (f) There has been complete non-consideration of the First Statutes which regulate the admission to Ph. D. Course. Therefore, enrollment of candidate lower in merit than petitioner is contrary to decision of the Doctoral Programme Committee dated 8th February, 2007. (e) The number of students enrolled in Ph. D. with the teacher in the academic year has not been disclosed. (f) There has been complete non-consideration of the First Statutes which regulate the admission to Ph. D. Course. The Doctoral Programme Committee is only required to process the application and to forward all the applications with its recommendation to the Research Degree Committee, which alone is to decide on the admission to be granted. The Doctoral Programme Committee could not have withheld the application of the petitioner and other such candidates and to have forwarded the application of only 7 candidates to Research Degree Committee for admission to the Ph. D. Course. (g) No meeting of the Research Degree Committee is stated to have taken place as required under the First Statutes before admitting the students to the course and only applications have been signed by the Vice Chancellor and the Dean. (h) Head of Department, who is the Chairman of Doctoral Programme Committee, had stated on oath before this Court that the petitioner was not admitted to Ph. D. Course as his topic did not find favour with the Doctoral Programme Committee and that the merit secured was not the only criteria for rejection of his application. The same Head of the Department is also one of the member of the Research Degree Committee which has recorded an opposite finding. This Court may also record that in respect of the guidelines published by the University of Allahabad itself qua Combined Research Entrance Test -2007 it has specifically been provided that the candidates, who have qualified NET alone are exempted from appearing in the first level of the entrance, they will be required to undergo second and third level examination i.e. written examination and interview. No relaxation qua JRF candidates has been provided. It is necessary that the aforesaid facts must be explained by means of an affidavit to be filed by the Vice Chancellor of the University himself by the next date fixed. List on 14th September, 2007.” 4. The matter has been nominated to me by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 5.12.2008. 5. Dr. It is necessary that the aforesaid facts must be explained by means of an affidavit to be filed by the Vice Chancellor of the University himself by the next date fixed. List on 14th September, 2007.” 4. The matter has been nominated to me by Hon’ble the Chief Justice on 5.12.2008. 5. Dr. R.G. Harshe, Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad has explained and clarified the doubts raised by the Court in affidavit dated 5.11.2007 as follows : “(1) That the deponent is the Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad, Allahabad and as such is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case deposed to below. (2) That the University has already filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit. The supplementary counter affidavit has been sworn by Professor and Head of Department of Education, Faculty of Arts, University of Allahabad. (3) That the applications were invited for enrollment of D.Phil. in Education Department of the University. The Doctoral Programme Committee received 12 applications. There were only seven vacancies in January-June period 2007. It prepared a merit list based on the academic aptitude. The Doctoral Programme Committee interviewed the candidates to assess their research aptitude and considered their topics and proposals for research. Out of 12 applicants, only 11 candidates turned up for the interview. (4) That out of 11 candidates, the research topic of 7 candidates were approved by the Doctoral Programme Committee and their supervisors were recommended. (5) That the Doctoral Programme Committee sent the entire records of seven selected candidates through Research Degree Committee. The Research Degree Committee has approved all seven names of the candidates, who were recommended by the Doctoral Programme Committee. (6) That the Head of the Department has prepared a chart, the deponent has gone through the chart and he has no reason to disbelieve it. From the perusal of the chart, it is clear that the vacancies are available in two phases. The first phase is July to December and 2nd phase January to June. In the earlier affidavits, the Head of Department has given the vacancy available from January to June phase. There is only one vacancy under Professor P.K. Sahoo, two vacancies under Prof. V. Agarwal and one each vacancy under Dr. U. Mishra, Dr. P. Upadhyay, Dr. S. Raghuvansh and Dr. U.R. Sharma, which is evident from the chart. In the earlier affidavits, the Head of Department has given the vacancy available from January to June phase. There is only one vacancy under Professor P.K. Sahoo, two vacancies under Prof. V. Agarwal and one each vacancy under Dr. U. Mishra, Dr. P. Upadhyay, Dr. S. Raghuvansh and Dr. U.R. Sharma, which is evident from the chart. A copy of the chart is enclosed and marked as Annexure 1 to this affidavit. (7) That as regards, the quota available with the University teachers, it is submitted that the Academic Council of the University in its meeting dated 13.3.2001 had constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. P.N. Mehrotra with regard to D.Phil admission Rules. The recommendation of the said committee was accepted by the Academic Council in its meeting dated 27.6.2001 and the matter was recommended to the Executive Council. The Executive Council on 7.7.2001 accepted the recommendation of Academic Council. (8) That it is submitted that there was one vacancy under Prof. P.K. Sahoo on the relevant date i.e. 8.2.2007, the reason for not considering Miss. Ritu Agarwal as student is that she did not deposit her University fees as is evident from the notes of accounts office on the letter of Prof. P.K. Sahoo dated 12.3.2007. She never got herself enrolled in the department. On the relevant date, five candidates were already enrolled under Prof. P.K. Sahoo, which is evident from the chart annexed herein above. (9) That the Doctoral Programme Committee has given preference to Ms. Rama Gupta JRF and Prem Lata Gautam NET. Their research topics were found worth pursuing research at doctoral level. They have also cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission. (10) That Doctoral Programme Committee has considered the research aptitude of these candidates. The Doctoral Programme Committee only forwards the applications of those candidates whose research topics are approved by it. (11) That the affidavit filed by the Head of the Department is correct. The Doctoral Programme Committee has considered the research aptitude of Shri Radhey Shyam. It did not approve the topic proposed by the petitioner for research of doctoral level. Even if his merit is calculated, Pooja Srivastava is higher than even otherwise his merit was low. (12) That no one NET/JRF candidate has been considered who has lower merit than the petitioner. It is further submitted that Prof. It did not approve the topic proposed by the petitioner for research of doctoral level. Even if his merit is calculated, Pooja Srivastava is higher than even otherwise his merit was low. (12) That no one NET/JRF candidate has been considered who has lower merit than the petitioner. It is further submitted that Prof. Ram Shakal Pandey who has retired, has not given any written consent to the University that he is willing to supervise the research work of any candidate.” 6. The petitioner appearing in person submits that the number of total available vacancies were wrongly calculated. There were in all 11 vacancies available qua the University teachers but that the quota available with university teachers is not of much relevance as the first statutes of the University, applicable till date provides that the expert not being a teacher in the university, residing within the area of Allahabad University can also be made a guide for the thesis. He would submit that good academic record and research papers were required to be considered for research work. The Doctoral Programme Committee is only required to process the application and forward all the applications along with its recommendations to the Research Degree Committee, which alone is to decide on the admissions. The Doctoral Programme Committee could not have withheld the application of the petitioner and forwarded only seven candidates to the Research Degree Committee for admission to the D.Phil. Course. The meeting of the Research Degree Committee was not held. The Head of the Department is the Chairman of the Doctoral Programme Committee. The Head of the Department has stated in his affidavit that the merit secured was not the only criteria for rejection of petitioner’s application. His topic did not find favour with the Doctoral Programme Committee, whereas the Research Degree Committee has recorded contradictory findings. 7. The petitioner submits that his research paper was not considered by the Doctoral Programme Committee. The Committee did not send the papers of the petitioner to the Research Degree Committee and that the Research Degree Committee did not have an opportunity to comment on the petitioner’s research work. The petitioner would further submit that if merit was considered, he was to be placed at Sl.No. 4. The Committee did not send the papers of the petitioner to the Research Degree Committee and that the Research Degree Committee did not have an opportunity to comment on the petitioner’s research work. The petitioner would further submit that if merit was considered, he was to be placed at Sl.No. 4. Relying upon affidavit of Shri Govind Prasad filed on behalf of the University he submits that the Doctoral Programme Committee took a decision in its meeting dated 8.2.2007, with regard to the procedure adopted for deciding the academic aptitude of the candidates. It is stated in para 3 of his affidavit that it was unanimously resolved to prepare merit by adding percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the examinations; (i) Graduation i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and (ii) MA Education, or M.Ed. (whichever is greater). The Doctoral Programme Committee did not consider the marks of the petitioner for B.Ed. examination and counted his marks in B.A. and thereafter in M.Ed. to reject his candidature. He would lastly submit that there was no preference or weightage to be given for NET or JRF candidates. The two candidates taken on the ground that they had cleared NET/JRF have discriminated the petitioner. There is no provision in the statute or ordinance or a decision taken by the Executive Council of the University to give any preference to NET and JRF qualified candidates. Lastly the petitioner submits that Prof. Sahu had intimated in March 2007 that Ritu Jain did not want to do research under her, and thus there was a clear vacancy for conducting research under Prof. Sahu. 8. Shri A.K. Goel appearing for the University submits that there were only 7 seats available for D.Phil. programme. The Doctoral Programme Committee in its meeting dated February 8th, 2007 under Chairmanship of Prof. K.S. Misra, Prof. P.K. Sahu and Prof. V. Agrawal decided that only 7 candidates can be enrolled. As per D.Phil. Rules recommendations for enrollment of D.Phil. programme are to be made on the basis of number of Professors available, research and academic aptitude of the candidates. The Committee considered the procedure to be adopted for deciding the academic aptitude of the candidates. It was unanimously resolved to consider merit by adding percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the examinations as follows; (i) Graduation i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and (ii) M.A. in Education or M.Ed. (whichever is greater). The Committee considered the procedure to be adopted for deciding the academic aptitude of the candidates. It was unanimously resolved to consider merit by adding percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the examinations as follows; (i) Graduation i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and (ii) M.A. in Education or M.Ed. (whichever is greater). Out of 11 eligible candidates research topics of 7 candidates were approved by the Doctoral Programme Committee and their Supervisors were recommended, after which the entire records of 7 selected candidates were sent to Research Degree Committee. The Research Degree Committee approved 7 names, which was recommended by Doctoral Programme Committee. The quota of the teachers was fixed in the Executive Council meeting dated 7.7.2001, which had accepted the report of the Committee constituted under Chairmanship of Prof. P.N. Mehrotra with regard to D.Phil. admission rules. The academic council had accepted it on 27.6.2001. Five candidates were already enrolled under Prof. P.K. Sahu as Ms. Ritu Agrawal did not deposit her university fees. 9. Shri A.K. Goel submits that Doctoral Programme Committee had given preference to Ms. Rama Gupta, JRF and Prem Lata Gautam, NET. Their research topics were found worth pursuing for research at doctoral level. The University did not commit any mistake in finding that the petitioner could not be accommodated and allotted for D.Phil. course both on the ground that there was no seat available in the relevant period for which advertisement was carried out, and that the petitioner did not secure sufficient number of marks in competition with other candidates. In addition the petitioners research topic was also not found suitable by the Doctoral Programme Committee. 10. Shri Suneet Kumar appearing for Smt. Rama Gupta would submit that she has passed B.Sc. with 63.6% marks; B.Ed. with 60%; M.Ed. with 61.43% marks from the Allahabad University. She cleared NET examination in the year 2006 with 23rd position in India, and then applied for enrollment for D.Phil. degree with the Education Department of the Allahabad University on 31.1.2007. Her synopsis/research proposal was considered and was recommended by the Doctoral Programme Committee after holding interviews. with 60%; M.Ed. with 61.43% marks from the Allahabad University. She cleared NET examination in the year 2006 with 23rd position in India, and then applied for enrollment for D.Phil. degree with the Education Department of the Allahabad University on 31.1.2007. Her synopsis/research proposal was considered and was recommended by the Doctoral Programme Committee after holding interviews. He has referred to the guidelines made by the University Grant Commission and has referred to guideline No. 4.3.2 for NET and guideline No. 5.5.2 for Research Fellowship providing that the students, who have passed these examinations provided the justification and accepted merit of the students to pursue research in varied disciplines in the Universities, of their choice. He would submit that the Doctoral Programme Committee was justified in accepting the candidature of NET/JRF qualified candidates for research. 11. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Allahabad University Dr. K.S. Misra, Professor and Head, Education Department, Faculty of Arts, University of Allahabad has stated that education is not a separate faculty in Allahabad University. It is department belonging to faculty of arts. There exists an Ordinance for degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the faculty of arts, science and commerce. In order to frame rules for admission with regard to D.Phil. and award of D.Lit./D.Sc. degree Academic Council of the University vide Resolution No.13 dated 13.3.2001 constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. P.N. Mehrotra, Head of Economic Department. The Committee submitted its report before the Academic Council. Vide Resolution No. 29 dated 27.6.2001 the Academic Council resolved to accept the recommendation of Dr. P.N. Mehrotra Committee. The Executive Council vide Resolution No.115 dated 7.7.2001 approved the said proposals of the Academic Council. These recommendations become effective and were duly implemented. The Rules provided that each department will form a Doctoral Programme Committee (DPC) consisting upto five senior faculty members representing broad area of research and specialization to recommend students on merits on the basis of their research and academic aptitude. It also provided that a candidate must have obtained a Post Graduate degree in the subject or cognate subject from the recognized university. One of the functions of the DPC is to recommend/approve the names of supervisors for each candidate based on the area of interest, availability of seats, supervisor’s consent etc. It also provided that a candidate must have obtained a Post Graduate degree in the subject or cognate subject from the recognized university. One of the functions of the DPC is to recommend/approve the names of supervisors for each candidate based on the area of interest, availability of seats, supervisor’s consent etc. and recommend names of those students, whose progress is unsatisfactory to the Research Degree Committee to strike of their names from the rolls. 12. Dr. K.S. Misra further states in his affidavit that Rule 3 further provides that students, who are recommended for admission must have consistently good academic record as defined by UGC and aptitude for research and teaching. The power of relaxation find place in Rule 4 provided the candidate has other qualification such as publication, which demonstrates that he/she will be able to do good quality research in the university and the candidate has secured minimum of 54% average marks in all examination. A student under Rule 6 has to apply to RDC through DPC for modifying/permitting his research topic after six months before submission of his thesis after which such changes are not to be permitted. Rule 10 provided that Research Supervisor at any time will not have more than six research scholars under his supervision and in any session not more than two students will be enrolled with him. Rule 8 provides that a student is required to complete thesis within a maximum of 7 years. 13. Dr. K.S. Misra further states in para 8 that the number of admissions in D.Phil. in each academic year is never static and depends upon various factors like availability and consent of Research Supervisor for enrollment of students for research under them. In the relevant year there were 12 including 4 NET qualified candidates as against 7 candidates, who could be enrolled subject to approval of their academic/research aptitude and consent of their research supervisors. In order to avoid injustice the Committee headed by him along with Prof. P.K. Sahu and Prof. B. Agrawal resolved to prepare merit of the candidates (other than those, who have already qualified national level JRF, NET conducted by UGC) on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by such applicants in academic graduation and post graduate qualification. Since B.Ed. In order to avoid injustice the Committee headed by him along with Prof. P.K. Sahu and Prof. B. Agrawal resolved to prepare merit of the candidates (other than those, who have already qualified national level JRF, NET conducted by UGC) on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by such applicants in academic graduation and post graduate qualification. Since B.Ed. is one year training qualification and was not possessed by all the applicants, it was resolved to prepare merit by adding percentage of marks obtained by the applicants in Graduation i.e. B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and M.A. Education or M.Ed., whichever is greater. The academic aptitude of 11 candidates, who reported on 8.2.2007, was prepared strictly in accordance with the decision of the Doctoral Programme Committee after verification of original mark-sheets and accordingly merit list was drawn on the basis of academic qualification. The DPC interviewed the candidates on 8.2.2007 to asses their research aptitude including suitability of research topic of the candidates for enrollment. The two candidates were recommended without any amendment of their research papers, whereas four candidates were recommended with modified research topic for enrollment in D.Phil. programme. He then states in para 9, “research papers submitted by the petitioner were not found upto mark by DPC, and for the said reason he was not recommended for enrollment. 14. Shri K.S. Misra further states in para 10 of his affidavit that NET and JRF conducted by UGC determined eligibility for lecturership in Indian universities and colleges. The candidates, who qualified, awarded JRF are eligible to be considered for research work in the subject of their post graduation or in a related subject and are also eligible for lecturership. The university/institutions may selected JRF awardees for whole time research work in accordance with the procedure prescribed by them. The award of JRF depends upon performance of the candidates in NET. They are eligible for lecturership. Only seven enrollment could be made in D.Phil. in the Department of Education in the subject session and as such out of 11 applicants merit list based on academic aptitude eligible for enrollment was drawn. The RDC approved enrollment of 7 students recommended by DPC and only after the sanction/approval of admission by Research Degree Committee the Deputy Registrar of the University communicated the same to the candidates to take admission by depositing the fees. The RDC approved enrollment of 7 students recommended by DPC and only after the sanction/approval of admission by Research Degree Committee the Deputy Registrar of the University communicated the same to the candidates to take admission by depositing the fees. All the seven candidates have deposited their fees and are pursuing their studies. 15. The statutes and ordinances of the university and the recommendations made by the Committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. P.N. Mehrotra with regard to D.Phil. admission rules and award of D.Lit., D.Sc. degree accepted by the academic council vide its Resolution No.13 dated 13.3.2001 and the Executive Council vide its Resolution No.29 dated 27th June, 2001 have provided sufficient guidelines to the Doctoral Programme Committee for selecting students for recommendation for admission to the D.Phil. programme. It is stated that University has been strictly following these recommendations. The rules do not permit DPC to formulate any further guidelines to give a chance to student for making a complaint of discrimination. The recommendations have to be made on the basis of their research and academic aptitude with the condition that candidate must have obtained a post graduate degree in the subject or cognate subject from the recognized university. The DPC has to recommend/approve the names of supervisors for each candidate based on the area of interest, availability of seats, supervisor’s consent etc. and recommend names of students, whose progress is unsatisfactory to the RDC. DPC has not been given the authority to change the rules for admission for D.Phil. research or to prepare a guideline, which may suit some students. 16. The rules for selecting candidates for D.Phil. programme are not exhaustive and have left sufficient discretion with the DPC to recommend students for admission. The discretion, however, should be exercised reasonably and to find out the merit of the applicants on the basis of their research and academic aptitude. The recommendations have to be based on the area of interest, availability of seats and supervisors’ consent. The rules do not provide for confining the recommendations to only those candidates, who have been selected with an aptitude for research and teaching. If DPC is allowed to forward the names of only those candidates, which have been shortlisted by it, the final authority of the RDC for enrollment would get truncated and their discretion will be based only on the recommendations of DPC. If DPC is allowed to forward the names of only those candidates, which have been shortlisted by it, the final authority of the RDC for enrollment would get truncated and their discretion will be based only on the recommendations of DPC. In such case the RDC will have no chance to examine the comparative merit of the applicants on the basis of their research and academic aptitude. 17. In the first counter affidavit of Shri Govind Prasad, Office Asstt., Allahabad University dated 11.5.2007 he has stated in para 5 as follows : “5. That it is significant to mention here that first preference is given to a candidate who has passed JRF subject to other conditions, such as, capacity to do the research etc. The second preference is given to a candidate, who has cleared the NET examination conducted by the UGC and for other candidates other JRF and NET. The merit list was prepared as per decision taken by DPC in its meeting dated 8.2.2007." 18. In the supplementary counter affidavit of Dr. K.S. Misra, Prof. and Head, Education Department (Faculty of Art) Allahabad University dated 18.5.2007 it is stated in para 10 that UGC conducts NET for determining the eligibility of Indian nationals for awarding a Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and eligibility for lecturership in Indian Universities and colleges. The candidates, who qualify for the award of JRF are eligible to pursue research in the subject of their post graduation or any related subject and are also eligible for lecturership. The Universities, institutions may select JRF awardees for research work in accordance with the procedure prescribed by them. The award of JRF depends upon the performance of the candidate in NET. The candidates, who have secured at least 55% marks (for SC/ST 50% marks) without grace or rounding off in Master degree are eligible for NET. 19. The Vice Chancellor in his affidavit has not stated that NET and JRF qualifications are to be given preference for research work. In their meeting dated 27.8.2007 to consider the matter of petitioner Shri Radhey Shyam Yadav, the Committee consisting of Vice Chancellor proceeded on the basis that the relevant merit of non NET/ JRF candidate, who has applied for admission to D.Phil Programme was determined on the basis of percentage of marks on the graduation and M.Ed. or M.A. Education, whichever is greater. 20. or M.A. Education, whichever is greater. 20. The guidelines of Junior Research Fellowship of the University Grants Commission annexed to the affidavit of Smt. Rama Gupta and the scope of NET or SLET provides that the candidates, who qualifies for JRF selection of UGC/CSIR and NET are also eligible for the post of lecturership. In addition they are also eligible to receive the fellowship under various schemes subject to the candidates finding their placements. The validity of the offer is for two years with effect from the date the issue of JRF awarded letter. 21. The NET and JRF qualifications are thus considered as qualifications for eligibility and that a candidate with NET/JRF may be considered for research. There is no preference provided to be given to NET/JRF qualified candidates in selection for research work. The guidelines prepared by University also do not give NET and JRF qualification any preference, nor did DPC in its meeting the minutes of which are annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the affidavit of Shri Govind Prasad filed on behalf of the University, give them any preference. The selection of NET/JRF candidates by giving them preference in comparison of their merit with the other candidates has discriminated the petitioner. The preparation of the merit list based on B.Ed. and M.Ed. Detailed in para 7 of the counter affidavit of Shri Govind Prasad lists the petitioner at Sl.No. 4. It was prepared excluding NET/JRF qualified candidates by considering them to be selected on the basis of their qualifications, and not of comparative merits of their competence and aptitude for research. 22. Ordinarily the Court would not interfere in the discretion exercised by the Doctoral Programme Committee in selecting students for admission to D.Phil. course on the basis of their merit worked out and on their aptitude for research and academics. In this case, however, the Court find that the Doctoral Programme Committee has accepted NET and JRF qualifications to be sufficient, with no further scrutiny of the aptitude of the students for research and academics. The Doctoral Programme Committee appears to have given preference to Ms. Rama Gupta, JRF and Prem Lata Gautam, NET, only on the basis of their qualification and not on their competence and aptitude for research. 23. The Doctoral Programme Committee appears to have given preference to Ms. Rama Gupta, JRF and Prem Lata Gautam, NET, only on the basis of their qualification and not on their competence and aptitude for research. 23. The search of merit on the criteria of competence, and aptitude for research may have some relevance to the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examinations. The dependence, however, only on the marks and the award of marks, to shortlist them takes away the right of a meritorious candidates with academic aptitude for research work to be admitted to D.Phil. programme. The Rules for D.Phil. research followed by the University does not provide for selection of the candidates on the basis of the marks obtained by them in qualifying examination. A caveat is, however, added that students, who are recommended for admission must have consistently good academic record as defined by UGC. The fact that the rules provide that in exceptional circumstances Doctoral Programme Committee may consider to admit students with third division either at the Intermediate or High School level provided the candidates has other qualification such as publications, which may demonstrate that he/she will be able to do good quality research in the university would show that the applicant may have secured minimum of 54% average marks in all examination but that a candidate with third division at the graduate or post graduate level will not be eligible for admission. This exception to the rule clearly suggests that rules do not provide for eliminating the candidates for research work only on the basis of the marks. 24. A University is established, not only for conducting graduate and post graduate courses but also for the research work carried out by the research scholars and the teachers. A person may not be a good student as compared to other students, who have applied for research, but he may have an aptitude for research and academics. The primary purpose for selection by the Doctoral Programme Committee constituted by the Departmental Committee is to find out the aptitude and not to calculate marks and eliminate those, who may have better aptitude for research and academics than those, who have secured higher marks in qualifying examination. If it was not so, the rules for D.Phil. Research should have simply provided for determining merit only on the basis of academic qualification for admission. If it was not so, the rules for D.Phil. Research should have simply provided for determining merit only on the basis of academic qualification for admission. The rules provide to search for candidates with aptitude for research and not a method of elimination. The primary object is to select on the basis of merit and not elimination on the basis of academic performance in the qualifying examinations. 25. In this case if the university had confined its discretion based on the assessment made by the Doctoral Programme Committee on the research work of the petitioner, the Court had no occasion to find any error in the exercise of such discretion, as the Court ordinarily leaves such matters to the experts. The Doctoral Programme Committee in this case, however, adopted a completely different arbitrary and discriminatory method than it is provided in the rules. Firstly it selected NET and JRF qualified candidates treating them to be a separate class and thereafter based their decision on the number of seats available. The DPC then adopted a process of elimination by firstly eliminating those, who had secured lesser marks and thereafter judging their merit of their research and academics. The Doctoral Programme Committee thus erred and failed to do its job to find out the merit on the basis of research and academic aptitude. A simpler method with a clerical approach was adopted, which has resulted into discrimination. 26. The University has under the Allahabad University Act, 2005 w.e.f. 14th July, 2005 has been conferred the status of the “Institution of National importance” to become a front ranking university with adequate teaching and research facility and infrastructure conducive to a situation, and environment for nurturing international competitive research. The University has with the object of renovating and redirecting itself to prepare more effectively, the human resource required to face emerging challenges in concerns such as the environment, globalisation, sustainable development and the ‘knowledge society’ with a focus on the continuing revolution in the Sciences and phenomenal advances in technologies decided to prepare guidelines to conduct a Combined Research Entrance Test (CRET-2008) for admission/registration to the Doctor of Philosophy Programme of the University in the session 2008-09. The CRET-2008 provides to conduct Level 2, (Written Subject Test) centrally by the University and Level 3 (Interview), by the Doctoral Programme Committee of the concerned Department/Centre/Institute. The CRET-2008 provides to conduct Level 2, (Written Subject Test) centrally by the University and Level 3 (Interview), by the Doctoral Programme Committee of the concerned Department/Centre/Institute. The recipients of fellowship/scholarship from national funding bodies (JRFs) are exempt from Level 2 (Written Subject Test) of CRET-2008. JRFs are made eligible to appear in Level-3 (interview) of CRET 2008 only, when they fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down by the University of Allahabad for admission to D.Phil. programme in Clause 3.1-3.4. For those, who have qualified NET. Clause 1.4 provides that the candidates, who are employed in projects shall have to appear at Level-2 and Level-3 of CRET-2008 and all the candidates including JRF must fulfil the criteria of the Rules of registration. 27. After defining the subject for CRET-2008 and giving their codes in Clause 2.2 the eligibility criteria in Clause-3 provides for minimum marks or equivalent grade, or points for general/OBC candidates at 55% and equivalent grade/point for SC/ST/PH/VH candidates at the post graduate examination. In Clause 3.1 a minimum average of 54% marks and 49% for these categories respectively in Clause 3.2. Third divisioners have been excluded. The CRET-2008 for admission/registration to the Doctor of Philosophy Programme translates the vision and priorities of the university for which it was made a Central University on 14th July, 2005. The Court can without permitting violation of the guidelines framed earlier, can look into CRET-2008 by backward integration of the goals of the University, for admission to 2007 as well. The status of the Central University after 14th July, 2005 and its vision will equally be applicable to admissions to D.Phil. Programme of the year 2007 from which it can be easily found without there being any change in UGC guidelines that NET qualified candidates are not exempt from either written test or interviews and that JRF qualified candidates were only exempt from written subject test. The recipients of these fellowships and qualifications are required to fulfil all other eligibility criteria including minimum marks obtained by the candidates for appearing in the written test, with the ultimate object of finding their suitability for research and academics. 28. The recipients of these fellowships and qualifications are required to fulfil all other eligibility criteria including minimum marks obtained by the candidates for appearing in the written test, with the ultimate object of finding their suitability for research and academics. 28. The Court finds that not only the petitioner has been discriminated in the procedure for selections for conducting Doctoral Programme for research work, the procedure adopted by the Doctoral Programme Committee (DPC) was violative of the rules made by University for selections of the candidates for D.Phil. programme. The DPC adopted a mechanical approach by firstly selecting those, who had NET/JRT qualifications treating them to have preference over all others without examining their aptitude for research work and thereafter compared the merits amongst the remaining candidates by preparing the total of the percentage of marks secured by them in graduation and post graduation for selections. The DPC adopted an easier method of selections denying the chances of selection of those candidates, who had lesser marks as compared to others. The DPC lost sight of the guidelines framed by the rules made for selecting candidates for D.Phil research, which in exceptional case also provides to admit a student with a third division, if he has other qualifications, which demonstrate that he/she will be able to do good quality research in the university. 29. The aptitude for research work may not be judged only by a good academic record, which is a safer criteria for selecting candidates for admission to graduate or post graduate course. 30. If the percentage of marks obtained by the candidate in graduation and post graduate is to be criteria for admission to D. Phil programme, there was no need to have a Doctoral Programme Committee of five senior faculty members. Such work is ordinarily left to clerks. 31. The Court further finds that under the rules of admission approved by Executive Council vide Resolution No.115 dated 7.7.2001 the Research Doctoral Committee (RDC) is the final authority for enrolment of the applicants to D.Phil programme of which the Doctoral Programme Committee (DPC) is the recommendatory body. The DPC as such while making recommendations should have forward the records of all the applicants to be considered by RDC, for further consideration or change of opinion. The DPC as such while making recommendations should have forward the records of all the applicants to be considered by RDC, for further consideration or change of opinion. In this case the DPC in making recommendations considered and forwarded the names of only those candidates, who were recommended by it for admission to research work. The papers submitted by the petitioner were not forwarded to DPC, for taking a final decision in the matter. Under the rules for admission to D.Phil. programme the applicants apply to RDC and not to DPC and thus if DPC withholds and does not forward all the documents submitted by the students the RDC will not get a chance to form a final opinion. 32. It will not be appropriate to cancel the admissions of Ms. Rama Gupta JRF and Ms. Prem Lata Gautam NET-party respondents at this stage after two years. There was, however, a vacancy under Prof. P.K. Sahoo on the relevant date i.e. 8.2.2007 as Ms. Ritu Agarwal did not deposit her university fees and if it was necessary the petitioner could be asked to obtain written consent of Prof. Ram Sakal Pandey, who had retired for his willingness to supervise petitioner’s research work. 33. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the Allahabad University to consider the petitioner for admitting him to D.Phil. course of the year 2007 (January-June period) on the consideration of his academic records, aptitude for research work and the research papers prepared by him. The required consideration shall be made as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month of production of certified copy of this order in the office of the Registrar of the University. ————