Kakatiya University And 3 Others vs Jala Sri Lakshmi And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1536 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.416 of 2023

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard       Mr.     P.Bhanu        Prakash,       learned   Standing

Counsel for Kakatiya University for the appellants and

Mr. B.Ramulu, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

19.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing

W.P.No.37824 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 as the writ

petitioner.

3. Respondent No.1 had filed the related writ petition

taking exception to the action of the appellants in not

allowing her to prosecute her Ph.D programme under

category-I against 25% quota in faculty of Arts for the

academic year 2021-2022 for government college lecturers

and employees of Kakatiya University (University).

3.1. Respondent No.1 is a lecturer in English working

under Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational

Institutions Society for Women at Khammam. University

had issued notification dated 20.12.2021 inviting

applications from eligible candidates for admission into

Ph.D programme under category-I in faculty of Arts for the

academic year 2021-2022, which was subsequently revised

on 28.12.2021. It is stated that respondent No.1 applied

under the said category and was shortlisted.

Subsequently, she was provisionally selected vide

proceedings dated 01.06.2022. Thereafter, she was

advised to appear before appellant No.4 for certificate

verification and for finalisation of admission on or before

08.06.2022. When respondent No.1 appeared before

appellant No.4 on 08.06.2022 she was denied admission

on the ground that she is working in Telangana Social

Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society.

Aggrieved thereby, the related writ petition came to be filed.

3.2. University filed counter affidavit contending that

respondent No.1 was not a regular employee and she was

not a regular teacher of Government Degree and Post

Graduate College to get admission into Ph.D programme

under category-I. Therefore, she was found to be not

eligible to prosecute the Ph.D course.

3.3. Learned Single Judge vide the order dated

19.12.2022 rejected the contention of the University and

directed the University to permit respondent No.1 to

prosecute her Ph.D programme under category-I against

25% in faculty of Arts for the academic year 2021-2022 for

government college lecturers and employees in the

University.

4. Assailing the above order of the learned Single Judge,

learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention

of the Court to Regulation 19.1 of the Degree of Doctor of

Philosophy (Ph.D.) Rules & Regulations and submits that

the college in which respondent No.1 is serving does not

fulfil the criteria mentioned in Regulation 19.1. He has

also drawn the attention of the Court to memo dated

07.06.2022 of the Telangana Social Welfare Residential

Educational Institutions Society (briefly, "the Society"

hereinafter) and submits that the said memo cannot be

construed to be a no objection certificate granted by the

Society in favour of respondent No.1. That apart, the

memo contains lot of ifs and buts and is not a clear cut no

objection certificate.

5. We are not impressed by the submissions made by

learned counsel for the appellants.

6. The facts of the case as narrated above lie within a

very narrow compass. Learned Single Judge has dealt with

the issue in the following manner:

5. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) Perusal of the material including pleadings of the parties would reveal that the petitioner herein is working as Degree College Lecturer in English with Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution

Society. She was appointed as such vide proceedings dated 02.03.2019 and she was on probation initially. Her probation was declared and at present she is regular Degree College Lecturer. In proof of the same, the petitioner herein has filed copies of the certificate issued by the Principal of the said College, salary certificate, proceedings dated 05.02.2022 of the Secretary of the Society. Perusal of the same would reveal that she is a regular Degree College Lecturer in English. Presently, she is working in Khammam College. Therefore, the contention of respondent No.3 that the petitioner herein is not a regular employee and, therefore, she is not entitled to prosecute Ph.D., Programme under Category-I is untenable.

ii) It is relevant to note that the respondent University had issued a Notification dated 20.12.2021 calling for applications from the candidates for admission into Ph.D., programme under Category-I. As per the said Notification, candidates who are awarded National Level Research fellowships, such as UGC- JRF/RGNF/SRF/QIP/FIP/ NFST or M.Phil., awarded in regular mode are admitted into Ph.D., Programme. The respondent University has also issued a revised notification dated 28.12.2021. In the said Notification, eligibility criteria are also specifically mentioned. It says that all the Faculties (Arts, Commerce & Business Management, Education, Engineering & Technology, Law, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sciences and Social Sciences), a candidate is eligible for admission into

Ph.D., programme in the respective subject, on certain conditions. Admission process for Category-I is also specifically mentioned. According to the petitioner, she is having requisite eligibility criterion in terms of the aforesaid Notification and, therefore, considering the same only and also on the recommendation of the Admission Committee, respondent No.4 has selected the petitioner and five (05) others provisionally for admission into Ph.D., Programme under Category-I in the Department of English for the academic year 2021- 2022 for the faculty of Arts. She was requested to submit originals on or before 08.06.2022. According to the petitioner, she has submitted all the certificates.

iii) Vide proceedings dated 18.05.2022, respondent No.3 informed about the approval of modifications as recommended in the Deans Committee for implementation for the academic year 2021-22. The existing eligibility criteria and modified eligibility criteria to Clause 3(A) sub-clause 3.6 is specifically mentioned in a tabular form and the same is extracted below:

               Existing                          Modified as

       The candidates admitted            The       Candidates
       under this Category-I for          admitted under this
       Ph.D.    program    must           Category I must be
       work only as Full-time             on full time basis
       Research scholars. The             however, the regular
       Part Time research is not          teachers   of   Govt.
       allowed     under    this          Degree/PG Colleges/
       category      in      any          University who get
       circumstances                      seat in this category





                                      may be allowed on
                                      part-time up to 25%
                                      of seats based on
                                      merit,   subject   to
                                      production   of   No
                                      Objection Certificate
                                      from the Employer
                                      concerned.

iv)      Thus, as per the said modification, the candidates

admitted under Category-I must be on full time basis, however, regular teachers of Government Degree/P.G. College/University, who gets seat in this category may be allowed on part-time up to 25% of seats based on merit, subject to production of No Objection Certificate from the Employer concerned. The petitioner herein had submitted No Objection Certificate dated 07.06.2022 from the Secretary of the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad, to pursue Ph.D., Course on part time basis without disturbance of her regular duties. The said no objection was on certain conditions. The petitioner herein is a regular Degree College Lecturer in English and it is a Government Degree College. She has also submitted No Objection Certificate from the Employer. Considering the same only, respondent No.3 has selected the petitioner herein provisionally for admission into Ph.D., Programme under Category-I.

v) Referring to Clause - 18 (v) of the Rules and Regulations of Ph.D., Programme prepared by the Deans of Faculties, Mr. P. Bhanu Prakash, learned Standing

Counsel, would submit that a Teacher / In-service Research Scholar registered as a part-time Scholar in the Faculty of Science, working outside Warangal, shall be required to put in at least one year of attendance in the Research Laboratory of the University Department concerned. A certificate from the employer relieving him/her with leave sanctioned for the entire period shall be submitted by the Research Scholar to the Dean concerned through the Supervisor and the Head of the Department. The said guideline is applicable after admission into Ph.D., Programme by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the University cannot apply the same. Learned Standing counsel would also contend that the respondent University has already completed admissions in respect of Category-I and one seat is kept vacant.

vi) As stated above, the petitioner is a Regular Employee working as Degree College Lecturer in English and she is eligible for admission into Ph.D., Programme under Category-I in 25% quota. Having satisfied with the same, the respondents cannot deny admission to the petitioner into Ph.D., Programme on the aforesaid two grounds. The said grounds raised by the respondent University are untenable.

6. CONCLUSION:

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondent University,

more particularly, respondent Nos.4 and 5 to permit the petitioner to prosecute Ph.D., Programme under Category-I against 25% quota in faculty of Arts for the Academic Year 2021-22 for Government College Lecturers and Employees in respondent University. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

7. Insofar Regulation 19.1 is concerned, we find that the

said regulation deals with recognition of affiliated

Government Degree and Post Graduate Colleges (AC) as

Research Centres. It says that the affiliated Government

Degree and Post Graduate Colleges (AC) having five years of

existence within the territorial jurisdiction of the Kakatiya

University shall be considered for recognizing them as

Research Centres for carrying out research programme

leading to award of Ph.D degree in the discipline concerned

as per the norms prescribed in the UGC-Regulations-2016

and Ph.D Guidelines of Kakatiya University.

8. Therefore, the aforesaid provision deals with

recognition of a college to be considered as research centre

to carryout research programmes of Ph.D degree under the

Kakatiya University. This cannot be read or construed to

mean that the college in which respondent No.1 is serving

does not fulfil the aforesaid criteria and therefore she is not

eligible to pursue Ph.D programme under the University.

This submission, in our opinion, is thoroughly misplaced

and requires rejection.

9. Insofar memo dated 07.06.2022 is concerned, we find

that though the same is in the form of a memo, it is

basically a no objection certificate or permission granted to

respondent No.1 to pursue Ph.D course on part-time basis

without hampering her regular duties, without any

financial commitment from the Society and subject to

certain terms and conditions.

10. On a query by the Court as to whether there is any

prescribed format of no objection certificate, learned

counsel for the appellants submits that there is no such

prescribed format. If that be the position, no objection

certificates issued by different colleges would be different in

their composition and structure. Because certain

conditions are mentioned in the memo dated 07.06.2022,

no inference can be drawn that respondent No.1 has been

denied permission by the Society to pursue Ph.D course.

11. Since respondent No.1 is a serving lecturer, naturally

she cannot be a full-time Ph.D scholar under the Ph.D

programme of the University. Accordingly, learned Single

Judge has directed the University to permit respondent

No.1 to prosecute her Ph.D programme under category-I

against 25% quota in faculty of Arts for the academic year

2021-2022 for government college lecturers and employees

in the University.

12. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view

taken by the learned Single Judge to warrant interference.

13. Writ appeal is misconceived and is accordingly

dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 06.04.2023 vs