Bombay High Court
Ku. Apoorva D/O Ramesh Pali And ... vs Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 31 August, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
1 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4735/2016
Mrs. Mrudula w/o Pravin Kulkarni,
aged 39 years, Junior College Teacher,
J. N. TATA Parsi Girls High School &
Junior College, Near Gandhisagar,
Nagpur, r/o 10, Janta Society Layout,
Dindayal Nagar, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur, through
its Registrar.
2. Hon'ble Vice Chancellor,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur
(Deleted Vide order
dated 22.08.2016)
3. Controller of Examination,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. C. S. Dhabe and V. A. Dhabe, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4432/2016
1. Kum Apoorva d/o Ramesh Pali,
aged about 25 years, r/o Narendra Nagar,
Nagpur.
2. Kum. Gauri d/o Abhay Kallawar,
aged about 32 years, r/o c/o C.N.Goregaonkar,
"Yashree", Plot No. 44-C, Gokulpeth,
Nagpur-440010.
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2016 00:03:33 :::
2 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
3. M. Naushad Alam,
aged about 43 years,
r/o Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur.
4. Sayyad Aamir Hussasin,
aged about 33 years,
R/o Jaffar Nagar,
New Ahbab Colony, Nagpur.
5. Pramod N. Wadaskar,
aged 43 years, r/o Reshimbagh,
Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur, through
its Registrar, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4986/2016
Saikat Manoj Dutta
aged 28 years, Occ. Service,
r/o 37, Popular Society,
Near Naka No.10, Wadi,
Amravati Road, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur, through
its Registrar, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. B. G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.
DATED :-
AUGUST 31, 2016
3 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent
of the parties.
2. The petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the
petitioners having passed their entrance examination for registration
of the Ph.D. course as per the Direction No.29/2012, they cannot be
denied the same merely on the ground that the notification has been
issued on 09.06.2016 prescribing different method of examination.
3. Mr. Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners having passed their PET during the
existence of the Direction No. 29 of 2012 i.e. Eligibility Criteria and
Procedure For Registration Of Candidates, Allotment Of
Supervisors/Guides And Research Topics, Submission of Thesis And
Its Evaluation For The Award Of Decree Of Doctor Of Philosophy
Direction, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "2012 Directions"), the
validity of their PET result would continue for a period of 60 months.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the Notification Regarding Entrance Test (PET) For Admission
4 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
To Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Hereinafter referred to as the
"2016 Notification") cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the
petitioners who had already cleared their PET examination prior to
the coming into force of the 2016 Notification.
Mr. Parchure further submitted that though the
petitioners were willing to get themselves registered for the Ph.D., on
account of non availability of the guides, supervisors, etc. the
University has refused to register the petitioners. It is submitted that
the petitioners cannot be faulted for the lapse on the part of the
University of not registering them.
4. Mr. Patil, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
respondent-University, submitted that the 2016 Notification has been
issued in pursuance of the directions issued by the University Grants
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "UGC"). The learned
counsel further submits that the notification issued by the UGC is
binding on the University. In any case, it is submitted that the 2016
Notification is not made retrospectively applicable. He submitted
that all the candidates who got their registration in pursuance to the
2012 Directions, are protected. It is, however, submitted that the
petitioners have not registered themselves prior to the date on which
5 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
the 2016 Notification has come into force and as such they are not
entitled to protection of their PET.
5. We have considered the material placed on record. We
find that in view of the legal position, it will not be necessary for us
to go into the dispute as to whether the University is at fault or not in
not registering the petitioners.
6.
The respondent-University had issued Direction No.29/12
on 12.10.2012. It will be relevant to refer to the direction no.7 of the
said directions, which reads thus:
"7) Validity of Result of PET
The candidate who has been declared to be
successful in the Ph.D. Entrance Test of the University shall
be eligible to submit his application for registration for
Ph.D. within a period of 60 months from the date of result
of his Ph.D. Entrance Test."
It could be thus seen from Clause (7) that the candidates
who have been declared successful in the PET shall be eligible to
submit their applications for registration for Ph. D. within a period of
60 months from the date of result of his entrance test. Clause (10) of
the said 2012 Directions deals with the tenure of registration. The
registration of a candidate shall be valid and shall remain in force for
6 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
a period of 5 years from the date of registration and shall stand
cancelled automatically on expiry of the said period of 5 years.
7. The University has now issued another notification ie. The
2016 Notification. The preamble of the said notification states that
the said notification is issued in supersession of the existing rules.
The said notification has come into effect from 09.06.2016.
8.
It will be relevant to refer to Clause (7) of the Eligibility
Criteria, which reads thus:
"7) Validity of Result of PET
The candidate who has been declared to be
successful in the Ph.D. Entrance Test of the university shall
be eligible to submit his application for registration for
Ph.D. within a period of 36 months from the date of result
of his Ph.D. Entrance Text (PET)"
It can thus be seen that vide the said 2016 Notification,
validity of the result of the entrance test has been reduced to 36
months from the date of the result of the Ph. D. Entrance test.
9. It can be clearly seen that the 2012 Directions have been
issued by the University on the basis of the notification issued by the
UGC on 01.06.2009. It can be seen from the said notification issued
7 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
by the UGC that no outer time limit is provided in the said
notification regarding validity of the result of the PET. On the basis
of the said notification, the 2012 Directions have been issued, which
provided for validity of 60 months from the date of declaration of the
result. The petitioners having appeared for the said examination on
the basis of the old rules cannot be denied the benefit of the said
rules. Indisputably, all the six petitioners have passed PET test in
2013, 2014 and 2015. As such, the validity of their result would
continue till the completion of 60 months i.e. 2018, 2019 and 2020,
respectively.
10. The UGC has now issued another notification on
05.05.2016. Under the said notification, vide clause 4, it is provided
that the Ph. D. programme shall be for a minimum duration of three
years including course work and a maximum of six years. We find
that the 2016 Notification issued by the University is in tune with the
notification issued by the UGC. The 2016 Notification, vide Rule (7)
provides for three years validity of the PET and 3 years for purpose of
completion of the work after registration. However, the said
notification cannot apply retrospectively.
8 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
11. In view of above, we find that the act of the University in
denying the benefits of the 2012 Directions to the petitioners is not
sustainable in law.
12. The petition is, therefore, allowed. It is held and declared
that the petitioners would be entitled to validity of the result of the
PET Examination for a period of 60 months from the date on which
the result of their PET has been declared.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. R. Gavai, J.)
kahale
9 wp4735.4432.4986.16.odt
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale. Uploaded On:06.09.2016
