Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 580 (ORI)

Sonali Mahanta v. Union of India

2017-05-15

K.R.MOHAPATRA, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. 1. The petitioner desirous of pursuing her Ph.D. Programme 2017 (Summer Session) under National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar (NISER) has filed this writ petition assailing certain conditions of the advertisement (Annexure-2) published for the said purpose, contending that the same are not in conformity with the Rules and guidelines applicable to NISER. 2. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner has completed her Master degree in English from Utkal University and is pursuing her M.Phil./Ph.D. in Linguistics under Jawaharal Nehru University (JNU). She also belongs to ‘Kudmi’ by caste, which was a backward community. She has also qualified the UGC-NET in Linguistics, which is an equivalent subject in English. As such, she is eligible to pursue a Ph.D. course under any leading University/Institution of the country. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement, i.e., Advt. No.NISER/ACAD/Ph.D/2017-18(1) published by NISER (Annexure-2), the petitioner is intending to apply for the Ph.D. Programme-2017. Due to some unreasonable conditions incorporated in the advertisement under Annexure-2, she has been deprived of submitting her application and thus is constrained to file his writ petition. 4. The petitioner essentially assails the following conditions of the advertisement: Eligbility 1. Age: Not more than 28 years on 1st April, 2017 (Born on/after 2nd April, 1989) xx xx xx 2. Candidates should have qualified the CSIRUGCNET/GATE/GPAT/JEST/INSPIRE (Doctoral fellowship under AORC Scheme/JGEEBILS or any other equivalent national level examination, valid for the current year in the relevant area of research. xx xx xx Selection Procedure xx xx xx The short-listed candidates will be called for an interview, supplemented by a written test, if necessary, for the admission.” The petitioner further contends that there is no reservation of seats for backward classes as applicable to the leading educational institutions of the country. Thus, the advertisement under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, she prays for setting aside the aforesaid conditions of the advertisement and also seeks for a direction to make provisions for reservation of seats for the backward classes as per the norms applicable to the educational institutions. 5. NISER through its Registrar (opp. party No.4) filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is contended inter alia that fixing upper age limit in the impugned advertisement is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable nor irrational. 5. NISER through its Registrar (opp. party No.4) filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition. It is contended inter alia that fixing upper age limit in the impugned advertisement is neither discriminatory nor unreasonable nor irrational. NISER has not violated any provisions of law or UGC guidelines in fixing the upper age limit of 28 years for admission into Ph.D. Programme. Such a policy decision has been taken by the authorities of NISER giving utmost consideration to the future prospects of the students pursuing Ph.D. Programmes. It is contended that on an average, a student takes five to seven years for successful completion of Ph. D. Programme and all the national Level Universities and Institutes mandate at least two to five years of post Ph.D experience for recruitment at the entry level, such as, Assistant Professor or equivalent. Thus, keeping in view the future career prospects of a student pursuing Ph.D. Course, the upper age limit has been fixed at 28 years for enrollment into Ph.D. Programme. Further, NISER is governed by the prescribed norms and procedures for different academic programmes/courses under Homi Bhabha National Institute. Thus, the provision of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act 2006 which deals with reservation policy in educational institutions could not be made applicable to NISER as per Clause 4 (b) of the Act. Accordingly, reservation in admission on the basis of caste, is not applicable to NISER. However, it is conceded by NISER in its counter affidavit that the qualification of UGC-NET cannot be confined to current year as mentioned in the advertisement as the said qualification remains valid for the upcoming years also. As such, the candidates awarded with CSIR-UGC NET-LS are eligible to apply for the Ph.D Programme and NISER honours all such applications. So far as the selection procedure is concerned, the NISER in its counter affidavit referring to Clause 5.1 of University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degrees) Regulations, 2016 (for short ‘the Regulations’) contended that all the University/Institution deemed to be a University may decide separate terms and conditions for Ph.D. Entrance Test for those students who qualify UGC-NET etc. Thus, short-listing of candidates on the basis of the marks secured in UGC-NET followed by interview and supplemented by a written test, if necessary, for admission into Ph.D. Programme cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. Thus, short-listing of candidates on the basis of the marks secured in UGC-NET followed by interview and supplemented by a written test, if necessary, for admission into Ph.D. Programme cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. Hence, the NISER prays for dismissal of the writ petition being devoid of merit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner although raised several issues at the threshold, but taking into consideration the averments made in the counter affidavit confines his argument to the issue of fixing upper age limit at 28 years for admission into Ph.D. Programme as well as short-listing of candidates without conducting any written examination for the same. It is argued that University, like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University and Hyderabad University etc. do not have any ceiling of age for admission into Ph.D. Programme/Course. Stipulation of upper age limit by NISER does not have any reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved, i.e., admission into Ph.D. Programme. Acquiring Ph.D. Degree in any discipline is not meant for getting an employment only. On the other hand, it provides intellectual satisfaction and promotes academic excellence, which is a contribution to the society itself. Thus, stipulation of upper age limit in the impugned advertisement for admission into Ph.D. Programme is irrational and discriminatory. Referring to Clause 5.1 of the Regulations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the Universities and Institutions deemed to be Universities have to conduct entrance examination at the individual University/Institution level for intake of students in Ph.D/M.Phil. Programme in different disciplines. Thus, short-listing of candidates without conducting any entrance test is arbitrary, unreasonable and de hors the Regulations. Hence, he prays for striking out the aforesaid two Clauses (quoted supra) from the impugned advertisement. 7. Mr. A.K. Bose, learned Assistant Solicitor General, referring to the contention raised in the counter affidavit, submits that fixation of upper age limit for admission into Ph.D. Programme is justified and cannot be faulted with. He further submits that there is no prohibition in the Regulations or any other Rules for fixation of upper age limit for admission into a particular course. As the students primarily undertake Ph.D. Course for the purpose of employment, it would be helpful for them to build up their career, if they undertake such programme at an early age. He further submits that there is no prohibition in the Regulations or any other Rules for fixation of upper age limit for admission into a particular course. As the students primarily undertake Ph.D. Course for the purpose of employment, it would be helpful for them to build up their career, if they undertake such programme at an early age. As such, the policy decision of NISER, which is applicable to all the intending candidates desirous of undertaking Ph.D course, cannot be said to be discriminatory or irrational. Further, referring to Clause 5.1 of the Regulations, Mr. Bose submits that short-listing of candidates is undertaken taking into consideration the marks secured in CSIRUGC- NET/GATE/GPAT/JEST/INSPIRE etc. which is the basic requirement for undertaking Ph.D. course. The aforesaid examinations are national level written examinations, conducted in various disciplines by nationally acclaimed academic bodies, such as, CSIR, UGC, IIT, TIFR etc. This being the minimum eligibility criteria for applying for the Ph.D. Programme under NISER, there is no illegality or irregularity in short-listing the candidates basing on the marks/scores secured in such qualifying examination. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case record. The Ph.D. course involves research work which requires perseverance, creativity, depth of knowledge as well as experience with academic excellence. A ‘research’ comprises a creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge of human culture and society, and the use of the said stock of knowledge to devise new applications. Students undertake Ph. D. Programme not only for getting a better job offer, but also to build up distinguished academic career and provide new vision and knowledge to the world at large. Had the research work been limited to a particular age, the world could not have seen the great scientists like Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo and Thomas A. Edison etc. Thus, there cannot be any reasonable nexus of fixing an upper age limit to a research work to be undertaken by a student. Further, contention of the petitioner to the effect that leading Universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University or other leading Universities of the country have not fixed upper age limit for admission into Ph.D. Courses goes uncontroverted and there is no reply to the same in the counter affidavit. The contention of Mr. Further, contention of the petitioner to the effect that leading Universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi University or other leading Universities of the country have not fixed upper age limit for admission into Ph.D. Courses goes uncontroverted and there is no reply to the same in the counter affidavit. The contention of Mr. Bose to the effect that there is no prohibition under the Regulations or any statute to fix an upper age limit, does not hold good, for the simple reason that when the Regulations does not provide for any upper age limit for admission into Ph.D. Programme, fixing such a ceiling to the detriment of the intending students, is nothing but arbitrary and unreasonable. When there is no restriction of age for admission into the Ph.D. courses under the Regulations, which governs the field for admission into Ph.D Course, NISER cannot create a restriction by fixing a ceiling to the age for admission into the Ph.D. Programmes. Thus, fixation of upper age limit of 28 years is arbitrary and unreasonable. 9. The selection procedure for admission into Ph.D. Programmes of NISER is governed by Clause 5.1 of the Regulations, which reads as follows: “5. Procedure for admission: 5.1 All Universities and Institutions Deemed to be Universities shall admit M.Phil/Ph.D. students through an Entrance Test conducted at the level of Individual University/Institution Deemed to be a University. The University/Institution Deemed to be a University may decide separate terms and conditions for Ph.D. Entrance Test for those students who qualify UGC-NET (including JRF)/UGC-CSIR NET (including JRF)/SLET/GATE/teacher fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil Programme. Similar approach may be adopted in respect of Entrance Test for M.Phil programme.” It provides that an entrance test has to be conducted by the respective Institute governed under the Regulations for admission into Ph.D. Course. It further provides that such institution may decide separate terms and conditions for Ph.D. entrance test for the students, who are qualified in UGC-NET etc. In the instant case, NISER has undertaken the mode of short-listing candidates by taking into consideration the marks/scores secured by the candidates in the examination of CSIR-UGC-NET/GATE/GPAT/JEST/INSPIRE etc., which is the basic requirement for admission into Ph.D. course. The same is followed by interview and supplemented by written test. The petitioner takes exception to the process of short-listing the candidates without any entrance examination. The same is followed by interview and supplemented by written test. The petitioner takes exception to the process of short-listing the candidates without any entrance examination. However, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that after short-listing of the candidates, a written examination would be held for admission into Ph.D. Programme. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In our considered opinion, short-listing of candidates on the basis of marks/scores of the UGC-NET, is in conformity with the Clause-5.1 of the Regulations. 10. In that view of the matter, we set aside Clause-1 of the advertisement, i.e., ‘Eligibility’ criteria which relates to the upper age limit of the candidates and hold that there cannot be any upper age limit for admission into Ph.D. Programme under NISER. Accordingly, we direct that the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered by the NISER, if she is otherwise eligible for admission into Ph.D. Course pursuant to the advertisement. 11. This writ petition is allowed to the extent stated above.