Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Present writ petition has been filed against quashing of Ph.D admission process for the year 2016-17 in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of respondent No. 1, i.e. National Institute of Technology (for short NIT), Hamirpur and seeking direction to make admissions to Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering full time course on the basis of the said admission process initiated in the year 2016 by issuing Information Brochure (Annexure P-4). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record placed on record as well as produced by respondents, as directed. 3. Undisputedly, respondent No. 1 NIT invited applications for Ph.D (full time/part time/of campus) programes for June/July, 2016 in various departments including Mechanical Engineering Department by issuing Information Brochure (Annexure P-4) in June, 2016, wherein two stages of selection process for admission to Ph.D programe were provided. In Stage-I, all the shortlisted candidates found eligible were required to qualify a written examination in the relevant discipline conducted by the NIT on 20.7.2016. The candidates who qualified in written test were only eligible for Stage-II and such candidates were to appear for interview and presentation on 25/26.7.2016 before the duly constituted Departmental Selection Committee (in short DSC). 4. On recommendation of DSC, the list of candidates recommended for admission was to be sent for approval of Chairman, Senate through Chairman, Senate Post Graduate Committee (in short SPGC) and Dean Academic and in case of need, the Chairman Senate was empowered to constitute a Special Committee under the Chairmanship of Dean (Academics) to recommend the candidates based upon lists received from the department/centre and on approval by Chairman Senate, the Head of Department/Centre had to issue admission letters to selected candidates. 5. It is also undisputed fact that petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate, being eligible for Ph.D. full time course in Mechanical Engineering, had applied for admission in the said Ph.D. Programme and after qualifying Stage-I, had appeared for interview and presentation before DSC and his name was included in the SDC recommendation for Ph.D. admission session 2016-17 in Mechanical Engineering Department at serial No. 2 of his category. It is also not disputed that SDC consisting of five members had completed Stage-II and DSC recommendation enlisting candidates was prepared on 27th July, 2016 and after preparation the said recommendations were signed by all the members present during the course of Stage-II, however one committee member, Dr.Sunand Kumar, who was Senate nominee, before signing the recommendations recorded following observations:- “I do not agree with the above recommendations which is totally biased with preoccupied minds of some members of Committee which is not fair. I recommended for the cancellation of the admissions of Ph.D. in larger interest of the institution. Earlier also Ph.D. admissions have been cancelled.” These recommendations were also signed by Head and Chairman of DSC on the same date i.e. 27th July, 2016, who also recommended for according approval to the select list with following observations: “The decision is not biased as stated by Dr.Sunand Kumar as merit was prepared strictly as per the marks secured by the candidates, evaluated during the presentation/interviews held on 25 & 26th July, 2016. However, Dr. Sunand Kumar was pressing hard for selection of Mr.Gurpreet Singh (candidate at Sr. No. 5 against MHRD scholarship) for which other members did not agreed upon. The evaluation of candidates was carried out by all the members of DSC, including Dr. Sunand Kumar, Senate nominee as per his directions. Thus, the recommendation for admission is based on the total marks given by all the members (including Dr. Sunand Kumar) in serial order of marks obtained in all categories. In view of above facts and the opinion of all members present during evaluation (except that of Dr.Sunand Kumar), it is requested to please accord the approval to the select list which is prepared as per Dean (Academic) office order No. NIT/HMR/Mcad-38/2016 5045 58 dt. 25.7.16 in the interest of the department and the Institute.” 6. DSC recommendations were placed before Dean (Academics) on 29th July, 2016, who referred it to Chairman SPGC to examine the cases and submit his recommendations. 7. Chairman SPGC on the same date, submitted that one of the DSC member (Senate Chairman Nominee) had raised the concern about biasness during presentation/interview and one of the candidate (internal candidate) had also represented that DSC member Dr. 7. Chairman SPGC on the same date, submitted that one of the DSC member (Senate Chairman Nominee) had raised the concern about biasness during presentation/interview and one of the candidate (internal candidate) had also represented that DSC member Dr. P.K. Sood was playing politics to spoil his career and thus it appeared that there was no general consensus among DSC Members and therefore, it was not possible to go ahead with Ph.D admission in Mechanical Engineering Department for the session 2016-17 and thus he recommended to quash the Ph.D admission for Mechanical Engineering for the sessions 2016-17. These recommendations were forwarded by Dean (Academics) for approval of the competent authority i.e. Director, who approved quashing of Ph.D admissions as proposed on the same date i.e. 29th July, 2016. 8. Perusal of record also reveals that one internal candidate Amarjeet Singh had submitted a representation to Director NIT Hamirpur alleging that Dr.P.K. Sood, Member of DSC, had been playing politics to spoil his career and tarnish his image in the past and he apprehended that his presence could influence decision of DSC against him and thus he prayed for exclusion of the said member. 9. On discontinuation of process for admission in Ph.D Mechanical Engineering Department, on 16.8.2016 all Members of DSC, except Dr. Sunand Kumar, who had proposed cancellation of admission in Ph.D submitted a representation to the Director NIT, stating therein that two reasons assigned for cancellation of Ph.D admissions were not plausible and observation of Senate Chairman Nominee with regard to biasness of DSC Members was without basis and evaluation of candidates were carried out by all the Members including the Senate Chairman Nominee on 25.7.2016 and 26.7.2016 and the recommendation for admissions were based upon total marks given by all the members including Chairman Senate Nominee, Dr. Sunand Kumar, in order of merit. It was also stated that internal candidate was not eligible for selection for not having completed his M.Tech (at least final viva/defence) by the date of presentation, as required under the guideline of Chairman SPGC, as the M.Tech viva of the said candidate had not been held before the date of presentation/interview and it was not, only the candidate complaining, considered ineligible, but all the candidates like him were treated equally who reported for Ph.D presentation/interview in Stage-II. It was also submitted that from the merit list, it was apparent that Dr.P.K. Sood had awarded highest marks to the said internal candidate in comparison to other DSC members. DSC members had requested to relook into the matter in the interest of administration/Institute, whereupon Director had constituted a three Members Committee to review the case. Dean (Academics) was also one of members. The aforesaid three members Committee, on 18.8.2016, took the decision as under:- “After going through the record, the committee reviewed the Ph.D. Admission Process-2016 of Mechanical Engineering Department. The following decision was taken:- 1. The committee reviewed and deliberated in detail the Ph.D. admission case in respect of list of recommended candidates of Mechanical Engineering Department. In view of the comments given by nominee of Chairman, Senate/HOD Mechanical Engineering Department, the committee finds that the quashing of the Ph.D. admission process-2016 in Mechanical Engineering Department is justified.” 10. Consequent to decision of three members Committee, on 19.8.2016, Dean (Academics) informed the Head of Mechanical Engineering Department that competent authority had found the quashing of Ph.D. admission process in Mechanical Engineering justified. Accordingly quashing of Ph.D admission process for the year 2016-17 was notified vide notice dated 25.8.2016 (Annexure P-8) and in January, 2017 notice (Annexure P-9) inviting fresh applications for Ph.D. including the Mechanical Engineering Department of respondent No. 1 NIT was issued and Information Brochure (Annexure P-10) was published. After receiving information under RTI, present petition has been preferred. 11. Accordingly quashing of Ph.D admission process for the year 2016-17 was notified vide notice dated 25.8.2016 (Annexure P-8) and in January, 2017 notice (Annexure P-9) inviting fresh applications for Ph.D. including the Mechanical Engineering Department of respondent No. 1 NIT was issued and Information Brochure (Annexure P-10) was published. After receiving information under RTI, present petition has been preferred. 11. Petitioner has assailed the quashing of admission process of Ph.D Programme, whereas the respondents have defended the same on the ground that impugned decision was taken on recommendation of Chairman, SPGC, so as to ensure transparency and fairness in selection of the candidates to Ph.D. course in future and it is contended that petitioner had failed to make out his position at stage-II, along with other securing candidates and final result of secured candidates for Stage-II has not yet been declared which would be declared with permission of Court and the entire selection process was quashed in the light of conflict of opinion amongst the Members of DSC and because of dissenting opinion of Members of DSC, the recommendations were not clear cut recommendations and process of quashing of Ph.D. Programme in Mechanical Engineering Department for the session July-August, 2016 was later on ratified by Review Committee, duly constituted, to ensure the correctness of decision of quashing the selection process and in the light of counter allegations of Members of DSC, respondent No. 1 had accepted the report of Review Committee. 12. For the reasons enumerated hereinafter we are of the opinion that decision of respondents is irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary. 13. Out of five members of DSC, one Dr.Sunand Kumar had alleged biasness with preoccupied minds of some members of the Committee, but he was not specific with regard to biasness and about the Members who made recommendations with preoccupied and bias minds and with regard to whom. On the contrary other members through Head and Chairman of DSC had clearly stated that Dr.Sunand Kumar had participated in the entire process on 25th and 26th July, 2016 and awarded marks to the candidates and the merit was prepared strictly as per marks secured by candidates awarded by members of DSC including Dr.Sunand Kumar, however Dr.Sunand Kumar was pressing hard for selection of one candidate (Mr.Gurpreet Singh) against MHRD scholarship for which other Members did not agree and for that reason Dr.Sunand Kumar had endorsed his dissenting note. 14. 14. The allegations of objecting member were vague. No instance of biasness was quoted by Dr.Sunand Kumar whereas other members have quoted specific instance which was reason for Dr.Sunand Kumar to endorse his dissent. Therefore, quashing of Ph.D admission process on a vague dissent note of a member was not justified, particularly against whom specific allegations for seeking favour of a candidate is there. 15. There were five members in the DSC. The dissenting note of one of member was without assigning any instance or explanation, whereas other four members have specifically pointed out the conduct of dissenting member and there was no material on record to substantiate the claim of dissenting Member, whereas, sufficient material was available to justify the comments of rest of the Members. In such a situation instead of creating deadlock, resulting into quashing of admissions to Ph.D programme, duly explained, majority view of the Committee which appears to be justified, should have been accepted. 16. Another reason for proposing quashing of admission process assigned by Dean (Academics) was a representation/complaint received from an internal candidate Amarjeet Singh. He had alleged biasness against Dr. P.K. Sood a Member of DSC. His allegations were successfully rebutted by the members of DSC in their representation dated 16.8.2016, whereby they had clarified that the said internal candidate was not eligible for not having mandatory eligibility as required according to guidelines of Chairman SGPC and it was also clarified from the record that Dr.P.K. Sood had awarded the said candidate highest marks than all other Members including Dr. Sunand Kumar. There is no material on record to substantiate basis for quashing Ph.D admissions programme 2016-17. 17. Further, Dean (Academics) was also one of the Members of Review Committee constituted by Director NIT, Hamirpur. It is noticeable that Dean (Academics) was the same person who had recommended for approval for quashing of Ph.D. programe on 29th July, 2016 on the basis of comments of Chairman SPGC ignoring comments of Head of Mechanical Engineering Department and Chairman DSC. Dr.Sunand Kumar is none, but the Nominee of Chairman Senate through Chairman SPGC. Therefore, one Member of the Review Committed was the same, who had already recommended for quashing of admissions to Ph.D. programme. Dr.Sunand Kumar is none, but the Nominee of Chairman Senate through Chairman SPGC. Therefore, one Member of the Review Committed was the same, who had already recommended for quashing of admissions to Ph.D. programme. Thus, fairness of Review Committee is also under cloud, more particularly, when the Committee has not discussed the reasons justifying recommendation of quashing of admissions to Ph.D. programe 2016-17 and also grounds for rejecting clarification submitted by Members DSC to the Director, whereupon the said Review Committee was constituted. 18. Findings of the Committee are not only uninformed, non-speaking and without assigning reason, but also contrary to the material on record. The Committee has justified quashing of admission process by giving passing reference of comments given by Nominee of Chairman Senate/HOD Mechanical Engineering Department. There is no discussion at all. What were the comments and how the Committee decided in favour of either side, has not born out from decision or even from record placed before us. Uniformed dissent note cannot be made basis to hold that there was conflict of opinion amongst members of DSC so as insisting quashing of Ph.D Admission Process. 19. Therefore, in view of above discussion, petition is allowed, decision for quashing admission for Ph.D programme for Mechanical Engineering Department initiated by inviting applications by publishing Information Brochure (Annexure P-4), is quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to complete the process for Ph.D Mechanical Engineering Full Time Course by making admissions in pursuance to the process initiated in 2016, as per recommendations made by DSC dated 27th July, 2016 within one month. Process shall be continued from the stage it was quashed by respondents, after informing all persons, who are in the recommendations of DSC by issuing public as well as individual notice about the continuation of admission to Ph.D programe, 2016-17 in question and to admit the recommended candidates to the Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering as per prescribed procedure, in accordance with Information Boucher (Annexure P-4). The notice shall also be published at least in two daily newspapers. 20. Petition is disposed of in above terms. No orders to costs.