Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar vs Ajk Mass Communication Research ... on 21 February, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st February, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1081/2011
% SURENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Viraj Kadam with Mr. Pinaki
Addy & Mr. Suhas Kadam,
Advocates
Versus
AJK MASS COMMUNICATION
RESEARCH CENTRE AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner claiming to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste, by
this petition impugns the decision dated 3rd December, 2010 of the
respondent No.1 Institute (of the respondent No.2 Jamia Millia Islamia
University) rejecting the petitioner‟s application / proposal for admission
to the Ph.D. programme. The petitioner avers that the said decision is
arbitrary, biased, without application of mind and without just and proper
reasons.
2. The petitioner had first applied for admission to the Ph.D.
programme of the respondents in August, 2009 when his application was
rejected for the reason of his then not having minimum 55% eligibility
marks for admission to the said programme. It is the case of the petitioner
that though the respondents were not following the UGC guidelines of
relaxation of 5% marks for the Scheduled Castes candidates but the
petitioner nevertheless enrolled himself for another post graduation course
in Mass Communication and by the dint of his hard work secured 65%
marks therein and in January, 2010 again applied for admission to the
Ph.D. programme with the project topic / research proposal of "Portrayal
of Dalit in Hindi Art Cinema". The petitioner claims that the respondents
on 8th March, 2010 rejected his candidature on the ground that his proposal
has no scholarly importance. The petitioner claims to have in October,
2010 again applied, with the project / topic of research being „Construction
of Dalit Image in Hindi Art Cinema - Reality or Prejudice; A Comparative
Study of Hindi Offbeat and Blockbuster Cinemas during 1970-2009".
3. The candidature of the petitioner this time has been rejected vide
decision dated 3rd December, 2010 for the following reasons:
"The candidate has mentioned in the title of the proposal
that he will study a period of 39 years which he was not
able to justify contextually during the interview. The
candidate was not clear about the method and the
process for conducting the research. He was unable to
justify the criteria of choosing Dalit character from
Blockbuster cinema. Due to inadequate review of
literature, the candidate has no idea of the theoretical
underpinnings of his research. While answering about
the significance of the study, the candidate spoke in a
conceptual vacuum. Cannot be considered. The
candidate had submitted the similar proposal last year
and it was rejected by the experts. This time he has just
made some cosmetic changes in the proposal and
submitted it again without making required changes."
Aggrieved therefrom the present petition has been filed.
4. The counsel for the respondent University appears on advance
notice.
5. The petitioner has contended the aforesaid decision to be arbitrary
for the reason that while the project report submitted earlier was of 10
pages, this time around, it was of 25 pages and thus the reasoning given of
the petitioner having merely made cosmetic changes in his earlier project
report is erroneous. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the changes
from 10 to 25 pages cannot be cosmetic.
6. He has further argued that the respondents have a bias against
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and have not been
admitting any Scheduled Castes candidates in the Ph.D. programme,
thereby depriving them of the benefits of higher education.
7. However, this Court in the present petition is not examining the
conduct of the respondents in general and is concerned only with the case
of the petitioner. Moreover, the challenge now is to the decision on the
last attempt and not to the rejection for the earlier years. The rejection in
the earlier years can only be seen in the said context.
8. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner, of the reasoning of
merely cosmetic changes having been made in the earlier project report
being erroneous or arbitrary, merely because of the increase in volume
thereof from 10 to 15 pages cannot be accepted. The proposed project is to
be examined for its substance and not by the volume. It has not otherwise
been shown as to how the project report submitted this time was different.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has handed over in the Court a
worksheet of respondents of consideration of the proposal submitted by
one Ms. Summera Khan stated to a famed TV Anchor for Star News. It is
contended therefrom that though the respondents allowed the said Ms.
Summera Khan to submit the project report after revision, no such
opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is contended that even if any
deficiency was found in the project of the petitioner, the petitioner also
ought to have been given a chance to revise the same and which has been
denied. The said Ms. Summera Khan, as it appears from the document
handed over in the Court, had submitted a project report on "Sachar
Committee‟s findings and recommendations and the coverage given to
them in the print media - a comparative study of leading English, Hindi
and Urdu Newspapers". The finding of the Expert Committee of the
respondents with respect to her project report and interview were as under:
"She was articulate. But she talks less about
previous literature on the topic. She needs to study
more on sampling techniques. However, her topic
is relevant and she had fair knowledge about the
issue."
10. In view of the aforesaid material, different in the comments of the
Expert Committee qua project report of said Ms. Summera Khan, it cannot
be said that the case of the petitioner was the same as that of the said Ms.
Summera Khan.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has next argued that the petitioner in
the interview this time round was told on his face that he cannot expect to
be accepted merely by applying the third time. It is contended that this
being the attitude of the respondents towards Scheduled Castes / Scheduled
Tribes, the petitioner could not expect an objective assessment.
12. It is undisputed that the project reports / proposals submitted are
examined by an Expert Committee constituted for the said purpose.
13. I have enquired form the counsel for the petitioners as to how many
persons constitute the Committee which interviewed the petitioner; he
replies that the said Committee constitute of six persons. Without any
allegations of bias against the members of the Expert Committee, I am
unable to find that the petitioner has made out any case of bias. Be that as
it may, it has been enquired from the counsel for the respondents appearing
on advance notice as to whether there is any provision in the Calendar of
the respondents for reconsideration of the project report. The counsel
states that there is none. He however contends that Mass Communication
programme of the respondents is considered one of the best not only in the
country but in the entire Asian region and the Committee comprises of
experts in the field and it would be an insult to the said experts to direct the
said proposal to be reviewed.
14. I also find that the experts, in the decision impugned, have given
cogent reasons. There is nothing to show that there is any error in their
assessment of the petitioner and his project. This Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot substitute its own opinion as to who
should be admitted and who should not be, to such highly specialized field
to which the petitioner has sought admission.
15. The counsel for the respondents has also stated that the petitioner, if
keen for Doctorate, has an opportunity to resubmit the project, applications
whereof are invited every five to six months.
16. The counsel for the respondents also assures that the petitioner, if
desirous of pursuing the Doctorate can approach either any of the faculty
members of the Institute of Mass Communication of the respondents and /
or the counsel who will guide the petitioner in this regard.
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 21, 2011
'gsr'
