Bombay High Court
Kafil Ahmed Vakil Ahmed Farooqui vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 wp 1367.21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1367 OF 2021
Kafil Ahmed Vakil Ahmed Farooqui .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Devang
R. Deshmukh and Shri Amol R. Joshi, Advocates, for the
Petitioner.
Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR ORDER ON : 11.08.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 18.08.2022
FINAL ORDER (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :-
. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the
respondent No. 2/university in not selecting him for Ph. D.
programme for the subject Urdu under the faculty of Humanities
for the year 2017-2018. The petitioner has sought following
prayers :
A] This Civil Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.
B] Record of the Ph. D. selection round held by the R. 2
University for the subject Urdu in the year 2017/2018
may kindly be called for.
2 wp 1367.21
C] By issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ
of like nature :-
i] The letter dated 31.07.2019 [EXHIBIT-I]
issued by the Deputy Registrar, R.2 University
thereby refusing to allot Research Guide to the
Petitioner
And
ii] the result of the Ph. D. dated 15.01.2019
declared by the R. 2 for the subject of Urdu in
so far as it is based on the so called
assessment by the R.A.C. may kindly be
quashed and set aside and instead the R. 2
may kindly be directed to declare the Petitioner
as selected for the Ph. D. course in Urdu
subject, with retrospective effect, on the basis
of his performance and marks secured at the
PET Written Examination.
D] By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other writ of
like nature the R.2 University may kindly be directed
to modify the IV Ph. D. Entrance Test (PET) certificate
No. B2017_2403 [ EXHIBIT-K ] issued to the
petitioner and instead to issue a revised Ph. D.
certificate to the Petitioner which is valid for two
consecutive Ph. D. Programs, in accordance with Rule
B (b) 1 (i) of the U. G. C. Regulation, 2016
[ EXHIBIT-I ].
2. In support of his petition, the petitioner has raised only
following four grounds :
A] The University ought not to have scheduled the
Interaction before the R.A.C. when the whole
performance could be assessed by solely relying on
the marks secured at the Written Examination. As
per the 2016 UGC Regulation, the power of the
Research Approval Committee was restricted to only
recommending suitable modifications in the proposed
research works presented before it. It had not right
3 wp 1367.21
to re-calibrate the comparative merit of the
candidates, based on the performance at Viva voce.
The Petitioner has excelled the Written Examination
and therefore his performance was up to the mark
which could solely be recokned with for purpose of
declaring him successful. The D.R.C./R.A.C./R.R.C.
could not have superseded candidates' performance
at the Written Examination. It had no business to
weigh the oral performance of the candidates.
B] The exercise of conduct of RRC was in violation of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Students
Federation of India and ors Vs. Union of India and ors
W.P. (C) 3032/2017, C. M. APPL 13252/2017 dated
01.10.2018.
C] The S.37 (2) (b) [I] casts a limited power on the
Research and Recognition Committee to - Approve
the topic of thesis or dissertation in the subject.
There is no adjudicatory power vested in the R.R.C. to
decide the merits of a candidate.
D] In the case of ABL International Ltd. and another
Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of
India Ltd. and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553, the
Supreme Court held as under :-
"It is clear that when an instrumentality of the State
acts contrary to public good and public interest,
unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual,
constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts
contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in
Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, once the
State or an instrumentality of the State is a party, it
has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and
reasonably to a contract which is the requirement of
Article 14 of the Constitution."?
3. So far as prayer clause C-(ii) is concerned, the petitioner
has questioned the result of the Ph. D. programme dated
15.01.2019. By the said result eight candidates from open
4 wp 1367.21
category (to which the petitioner belongs) came to be selected in
the Ph. D. admission process. However none of the eight
candidates, whose selection is questioned in the present petition
are impleaded as parties to the present petition. This is the first
impediment that we find in entertaining prayer Clause C-(ii) of
the petition.
4. The university has filed affidavit in reply producing the
merit list as well as the marks obtained by the petitioner in the
selection process. It is inter alia contended by the university in
its affidavit in reply that the last candidate who is admitted for
Ph. D. course in open category has secured 67.4 marks, whereas
the petitioner could secure only 48.8 marks. It is, therefore,
contended by the university that the petitioner could not be
included in the select list in respect of eight vacancies on account
of securing lessor marks in the selection process.
5. Perusal of the scheme of marking produced by the
university in respect of the petitioner at Exhibit R - 3 to the
affidavit in reply shows that the selection process consisted of 50
marks which were converted to 100 by multiplying by factor of
two. The marking scheme consisted of marks for various
attributes such as marks obtained in graduation and post
graduation, research papers, experience, etc. For oral
presentation only 10 out of 50 marks (20%) were allotted. The
petitioner secured 24.4 marks and after multiplying same by
factor of two, the petitioner is shown to have scored 48.8 marks
in the selection process. The selection committee consisted of
5 wp 1367.21
four members headed by the Pro-Vice Chancellor. The petitioner
has not made any allegations of mala fides against the members
of the selection committee, nor has impleaded them as party in
the present petition. We, therefore, cannot go into the issue of
correctness of marks allotted to the petitioner by the selection
committee. Consequently, we cannot interfere with the select
list prepared by the university. The non selection of the
petitioner in the selection process, cannot be faulted. Therefore,
prayer Clause C-(ii) seeking setting aside of the result of Ph. D.
programme is required to be rejected.
6. So far as prayer clause C-(i) is concerned, the petitioner
has challenged letter dated 31.07.2019 by which the university
has refused to allot research guide to the petitioner. Perusal of
the letter dated 31.07.2019 shows that the request of the
petitioner for allotment of research guide is rejected on the
ground that the his name was not included in the select merit
list. Thus, prayer Clause C-(i) is consequential to prayer Clause
C-(ii). Since we have arrived at the conclusion that prayer clause
C-(ii) cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner, there is no
question of grant of prayer clause C-(i). Therefore, prayer clause
C-(i) also deserves to be rejected.
7. Now we come to prayer Clause D by which the petitioner is
seeking modification of PET certificate No. B2017_2403 (Exhibit
- K) and for issuance of revised certificate valid for two
consecutive Ph. D. programmes. Said prayer is sought for by the
petitioner by relying upon the provisions of Rule B (b) 1 (i) of the
6 wp 1367.21
U. G. C. Regulation, 2016. True it is that the said provision
specifies that the PET certificate will be valid for two consecutive
Ph. D. programmes. However, the rule further provides that the
candidate should apply for Ph. D. registration, failing which, it
shall be inoperative. The impugned PET certificate (Exhibit - K)
was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.2017 stating that the same
was valid for academic year 2017-2018 only. Though the
certificate does not appear to be in consonance with Rule B (b) 1
(i) of the U. G. C. Regulation, 2016, we find that prayer Clause D
in the petition has now become academic. Nothing is brought on
record by the petitioner to show that the petitioner made an
attempt to participate in the next consecutive Ph. D. programme
or that he was not allowed to participate on account of validity of
PET certificate being restricted to academic year 2017-2018 only.
8. In fact Mr. Thombre, learned advocate appearing for the
university submitted before us that after the Ph. D. programme
2017-2018, the university has conducted multiple Ph. D.
programmes. In absence of any proof by the petitioner to the
effect that he attempted to participate in the subsequent Ph. D.
programme, no purpose would be served by considering or
granting prayer Clause D. This is because Rule B (b) 1 (i) of the
U. G. C. Regulation, 2016 clearly provides that failure to apply
for Ph. D. registration makes the certificate inoperative.
Therefore, even if the certificate dated 13.10.2017 is deemed to
be valid for two consecutive Ph. D. programmes, on account of
failure of the petitioner to apply for next Ph. D. programme, the
certificate even otherwise has become inoperative.
7 wp 1367.21
9. Thus none of the prayers sought for by the petitioner can
be granted.
10. We do not find any merit in the petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Aug. 22
