J.Vijendar vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 1555 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

 WRIT PETITION Nos.34543 OF 2022, 4251, 5665 AND 9384 OF 2023

COMMON ORDER:


      The lis involved in these writ petitions is one and the same.

Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this

common order.

      2. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel,

representing Ms.A.V.S.Laxmi, and Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for

Osmania University, Ms. Megharani Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the University Grants Commission and learned

Asst.Govt.Pleader for Higher Education. Perused the record.

      3. These writ petitions are filed to declare the action of Osmania

University in issuing impugned Notification for Ph.D. Entrance Test-

2022 under Category-II in various subjects of different Faculties dated

01.08.2022 and consequent notifications issued by respondent Nos.5 to

8, in respect of Category-I Notification No.472/DSS/Ph.D/JRF/OU/

2022, dated 01.08.2022 in respect of the Faculty of Social Sciences;

Notification No.280/DA/2022-23/JRF/Ph.D./2022 dated 01.08.2022 in

respect of Faculty of Arts; Notification bearing No.173/DEAN/FOE/

OU/2022 dated 01.08.2022 in respect of Faculty of Education;

Notification No.1258/DFSc/OU/ 2022 dated 01.08.2022 in respect of

Faculty of Science as illegal and set aside the same and to direct fresh

notification.

4-a. In W.P.No.34543 of 2022 there are six petitioners, all of

them have completed Post Graduation in different subjects. 1st and 3rd

petitioners are Post-Graduates in Telugu, 2nd petitioner is in Journalism,

4th petitioner in Chemistry, 5th petitioner in Physical Education and 6th

petitioner in Archaeology.

4-b. In W.P.No.4251 of 2023, there are 8 petitioners, all of them

have completed Post-Graduation in various subjects. 1st petitioner in

Sociology, 2nd petitioner in Physical Education, 3rd petitioner in

Communication and Journalism, 4th petitioner in Sanskrit, 5th petitioner

in Zoology, 6th petitioner in Archeology, 7th petitioner in linguistics and

8th petitioner in Chemistry.

4-c. In W.P.No.5665 of 2023, there are 4 petitioners and all of

them have completed Post-Graduation in Telugu subject.

4-d. In W.P.No.9384 of 2023, the petitioner has completed Post-

Graduation in Telugu language with M.A.(L) from Faculty of Oriental

Languages. He is intending to take admission in Ph.D.Course in Oriental

Languages.

5. The petitioners in all the writ petitions are intending to take

admission in Ph.D. Course. The petitioners are aggrieved by the

aforesaid notifications dated 01.08.2022 issued by the Osmania

University.

6. Dr.P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing

Ms.A.V.S.Laxmi, and Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the

petitioners challenges the aforesaid notifications mainly on the

following three grounds:-

i. Inviting the applications separately and categorization is

illegal and in violation of University Grants Commission

(Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of

M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2016 (for short, the

Regulations, 2016')

ii. The Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) is only to give

financial assistance to students to secure employment,

whereas, the Ph.D. Programme is for the students who will

be doing full time Ph.D. courses and they are not eligible

for employment by virtue of their Ph.D. Course. Even

then, respondents have devised a separate methodology of

categorization of perspective students as Category-I, II

and III.

iii. Deans of the Faculty of respondent University has issued

notification in respect of Category-I, whereas Director of

Admissions of Osmania University issued Notification

dated 01.08.2022 under Category-II and the same are in

violation of the Regulations, 2016. The respondent

University framed syllabus for entrance examination of the

Ph.D. course in different subjects contrary to the

Regulations, 2016. The Research methodology has no

place in the syllabus framed. Thus, the admission process

is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2016.

7. Whereas, respondent University contended that it has power to

decide separate terms and conditions for Ph.D. entrance test for those

students who qualify UGC-NET (Including JRF)/UGC-CSIR NET

(Including JRF)/SLET/GATE/teacher fellowship holder or have passed

M.Phil. Programme. Therefore, the University had issued Ph.D. Rules

and Regulations w.e.f. the year 2022 in accordance with the aforesaid

UGC Regulations, 2016 and the same were notified.

8. As per the said Rules, University has decided the

Admission/Registration into Ph.D. Programme in three broad categories

i.e. Category-I, Category-II and Category-III. In order to maintain

uniformity in entrance examination, the university has decided

excluding Research Methodology, in the interest of students and there is

no irregularity in it. The petitioners in W.P.No.5665 and 4251 of 2023

have participated in the selection process and having participated in the

selection process, they cannot challenge the notifications. The entire

selection process is over and the petitioners herein have not made the

selected candidates as parties to the present writ petitions.

9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that

the UGC has issued the University Grants Commission (Minimum

Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degrees)

Regulations, 2016 ( for short, Regulations, 2016) vide notification dated

05.05.2016 for admissions to M.Phil and Ph.D.Programmes, in exercise

of powers conferred on it under Section 26(1) (f) and (g) of the

University Grants Commission Act, 1956. In supersession of the said

Regulations, the UGC vide notification F.No.1-3/2021(QIP), dated

07.11.2022 had issued UGC Regulations,2022. Perusal of both the old

and new Regulations would reveal that there are certain changes in the

new Regulations i.e. Regulations, 2022. The impugned notification is

dated 01.08.2022 and therefore, the Regulations, 2016 are applicable.

However, both the Regulations deals with the procedure for admissions.

Regulation No.5 Regulations, 2016 is relevant for the purpose of the

present case and the same is extracted below:-

5. Procedure for Admission:-

All Universities and Institutions Deemed to be Universities shall admit M.Phil/Ph.D students through an Entrance Test conducted at the level of Individual University/Institution Deemed to be a University. The University/Institution Deemed to be a University may decide separate terms and condition for Ph.D. Entrance Test for those students who qualify UGC- NET (including JRF)/UGC-CSIR NET (Including JRF)/SLET/GATE/ Teacher Fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil Programme. Similar approach may be adopted in respect of Entrance Test for M.Phil programme.

5.2. Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) referred to in sub-clause 1.2 above and Colleges under them which are allowed to conduct M.Phil and/or Ph.D. programmes, shall;

5.2.1. decide on an annual basis through their academic bodies a pre- determined and manageable number of M.Phil and/or Ph.D. scholars to be admitted depending on the number of available Research Supervisors and other academic and physical facilities available, keeping in mind the norms regarding the scholar-teacher ratio (as indicated in Para 6.5), laboratory, library and such other facilities;

5.2.2. notify well in advance in the institutional website and through advertisement in at least two (2) national newspapers, of which at least one (1) shall be in the regional language, the number of seats for admission, subject/discipline-wise distribution of available seats, criteria for admission, procedure for admission, examination centre(s) where entrance test(s) shall be conducted and all other relevant information for the benefit of the candidates;

5.2.3. adhere to the National/State-level reservation policy, as applicable.

5.3. The admission shall be based on the criteria notified by the Institution, keeping in view the guidelines/norms in this regard issued by me UGC and other statutory bodies concerned, and taking into account the reservation policy of the Central/State Government from time to time.

5.4. HEIs as mentioned in Clause 1.2 shall admit candidates by a two stage process through:

5.4.1: An Entrance Test shall be qualifying with qualifying marks as 50%, the syllabus of the Entrance Test shall consist of 50% of research methodology and 50% shall be subject specific. The Entrance Test shall be conducted at the Centre((s) notified in advance (changes of Centres, if any, also to be notified well in advance) at the level of the individual HEI as mentioned in clause 1.2.; and

5.4.2: An interview/viva-voce to be organized by the HEI as mentioned in clause 1.2 when the candidates are required to discuss their research interest/area through a presentation before a duly constituted Department Research Committee.

5.5. The interview/viva voce shall also consider the following aspects, viz; whether :-

5.5.1: the candidate possesses the competence to the proposed research,

5.5.2: the research work can be suitably undertaken as the Institution/College;

5.5.3: the proposed area of research can contribute to new/additional knowledge.

5.6: The University shall maintain the list of all the M.Phil/Ph.D. registered students on its website on year-wise basis. The list shall include the name of the registered candidate, topic of his/her research, name of his/her supervisor/co-supervisor, date of enrolment/registration.

Thus, the respondent University is having power to decide separate

terms and conditions for Ph.D. entrance test for those candidates who

qualify UGC-NET (including JRF)/UGC-CSIR NET (Including JRF)/

SLET/GATE/Teacher Fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil

Programme. Similar approach may be adopted in respect of Entrance

Test for M.Phil programme. By invoking the said provisions, the

respondent University had issued Ph.D. Rules and Regulations w.e.f. the

year 2022.

10. Regulation No.4 of the said Regulations, 2022 deals with the

Ph.D. admissions and the same is extracted below:-

4.1: The Deans of the faculties shall invite the applications for Ph.D.Programme from eligible candidates and shall provisionally admit the candidates based on merit-cum-statutory reservations against the notified vacancies of which 50% is demarcated for Category-I and 50% for Category-Ii, Category-III is on supernumerary basis. In case of a tie, the order of merit will be decided based on the age of the candidate (senior in age will be getting higher priority).

4.2: The admission/registration into Ph.D. Program is made in three load categories as follows:

4.2.1: Category-1 (Research Fellowship Holders).

These candidates are admitted directly into the Ph.D. Program by following the procedure mentioned as under:

a) The Dean of the concerned Faculty shall issue a notification twice in an academic year by calling applications for Ph.D. admission from Junior Research Fellowship holders (UGC/CSIR/ICAR/ICMR/DBT or DST. INSPIRE or FIP/QIP Teacher Fellowships) as Category-I.

b) The research fellowship holder shall submit a filled in application form to the Dean of the Faculty concerned with necessary required documents

c) The Ph.D. Admission Committee/Departmental Research Committee interviews (Annexure-I) these candidates and the candidate explains the research interests after which the committee allots him/her a research supervisor in the area of interest of the candidate and generally based on the specialization of the research supervisor and availability of the vacancies.

d) Dean of the Faculty informs the research supervisor regarding the allotment of candidate for the research guidance and the research

supervisor must give his/her written consent to supervise the candidate's Ph.D. work.

e) The candidates with research fellowships admitted into the Ph.D. Program must work only as Full-time Research Scholars.

(See Rule-7 for the rules governing full time and part-time research scholars)

4.2.2. Category-Il Candidates

a. The category-Il candidates are those candidates who are admitted by the Directorate of Admissions O.U. through the Ph.D. Entrance Test conducted by Osmania University in the concerned subject or allied subjects as approved by the University.

b. After the declaration of the results of the Ph.D. Entrance Test, the Directorate of Admissions, Q.U., will prepare a merit list of the eligible candidates based on the number of vacancies notified by the Dean of the Faculty concerned.

c. The list of provisionally admitted candidates shall be sent to the Dean of the concerned Faculty for finalizing the admissions by the Ph.D. Admission Committee / Departmental Research Committee for the purpose of allotment of Supervisor and finalization of research area/topic through an interview with the provisionally selected candidates

d. in case recognized Bupervisors are not availastite in the concerned department, the Dean may include recognized supervisors from an allied subject or external subject experts who are recognized supervisors of Osmania University

e. The selection of candidates is done by giving a weightage of 70% to the entrance test and 30% to the academic performance and interview (Annexure-II)

4.2.3 Category-III Candidates

The Category-Ill candidates include:

a. Foreign Scholars: One eligible foreign scholar shall be allotted to each supervisor (or a maximum of two) on supernumerary basis, on receipt of a requisition application received from the University Foreign Relations Office (UFRO), and on the recommendation of the Departmental Research Committee concerned.

b. Corporate/ Industry/ Professional Candidates etc. To forge collaboration between the Govt/Corporate/Industry and the University. one eligible candidate among the following categories shall be allotted to each supervisor on supernumerary basis as under:-

i. Civil Servants working in the Government not below the cadre of Joint Secretary.

ii. Scientists / Researchers working in National/International level scientific organizations not less than the rank of Scientist-D. iii. International/National/State level top public sector organizations working in the rank not less than the General Manager. iv. Defense personnel in service with not below the rank of Wing Commander / Captain (Navy) / Colonel.

v. Working personnel in Private Organizations with annual turnover not less than Rs.100crores and with the position not less than Vice-President.

vi. Serving or retired Judges with not less than the rank of Judges of High Court of the State

The fee payable by these categories of the candidates shall be as per the University Rules issued from time to time.

The applicants in the Category-Ill shall approach the Dean of the concerned Faculty along with the necessary proposal and documents, and the admission shall be given as per the Rules applicable on the recommendation of the Departmental Research Committee concerned.

The candidates falling under the category-III shall be exempted from the Ph.D. Entrance Test.

11. As per Regulation 5.2.1 of Regulations, number of M.Phil

and/or Ph.D. scholars to be admitted depending on the number of

available Research Supervisors and other academic and physical

facilities available, keeping in mind the norms regarding the scholar-

teacher ratio.

12. In view of the same, according to the respondent University,

the Planning Committee of the Academic Senate of respondent

University in its meeting held on 29.07.2022, passed resolution i.e. the

available vacancies in the respective departments shall be made allotted

in the ratio of 50:50 for Category-I and Category-II. Therefore,

according to the respondent University, they have framed the Rules as

per the UGC Regulations, 2016 and they have issued the aforesaid

notifications Category-wise and there is no error in it.

13. As rightly contended by Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for Osmania University, the respondent

University is having power to decide separate terms and conditions for

Ph.D. Entrance Test and accordingly they have issued the aforesaid

Regulations for the year 2022. There is no challenge to the said

Regulations by the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions. But

according to the petitioners, the categorization is illegal. According to

them, as per Regulation No.5 of the Regulations 2016, only one test is

required to be conducted for admissions into Ph.D., the Categorization

of candidates as Category-I, II and III is inadmissible and it is not

available under Regulations, 2016. In the UGC Regulations 2022, it

came into force a little later to the notifications issued by the 2nd

respondent. There is no mention about any such categorization.

14. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the JRF and

other Fellowships are only for extending financial assistance to the

students to secure employment, whereas, the Ph.D.Programme is for the

students who will be doing full time Ph.D. course and they are not

eligible for employment by virtue of their Ph.D.Course. The JRF

awarded is valid for a maximum period of two years and if they fail to

secure admission into Ph.D. within two years, their fellowship will be

cancelled. Thus, it is very clear that JRF candidates are not a separate

and distinct category and they have to take the mainstream Ph.D.

entrance examination. However, respondent University for the reasons

best known has devised a separate methodology categorizing the

perspective students as Category-I, II and III. The said categorization is

illegal and contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2016.

15. It is the specific contention of the respondent University that

the HEIs are under decentralization of power and were made these

admissions under category-II, III and I and the University is continuing

the system already existed in terms of Regulation No.5 of the

Regulations 2016. The admissions shall be based on the criteria notified

by the Institution, keeping in view the guidelines/norms in this regard

issued by the UGC and other statutory bodies concerned and taking into

account the reservation policy of the Central/State Government from

time to time. Thus, the respondent University had issued notification for

admissions in all three categories. The notifications are strictly in

accordance with Regulation No.5 of the Regulations, 2016 and 2022.

16. The eligibility conditions under Clause 1 of Regulation 5 of

Regulations 2016 are that those who are awarded JRF in a National

Level Test namely (UGC/CSIR/ICMR/ICR/DBT/INSPIRE Fellowships are

exempted from appearing in Ph.D. Entrance Test. The JRF candidates

already subjected to National Level Test (NLT) were treated separately

under Category-I.

17. Thus, as discussed supra, as per 5.1 of UGC, 2016, the

respondent University is having power to decide separate terms and

conditions for Ph.D. entrance test for those students who qualify UGC-

NET (Including JRF)/UGC-CSIR NET (Including JRF)/SLET/GATE/

teacher fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil. Programme. As per

Regulation 5.3 of Regulations, 2016, the admission shall be based on

the criteria notified by the Institution, keeping in view the

guidelines/norms in this regard issued by the UGC and other statutory

bodies concerned, and taking into account, the reservation policy of the

Central/State Government from time to time. In terms of Regulation 5.1

of the Regulations,2016, the respondent University has issued

Ph.D.Rules and Regulations w.e.f. the year 2022 prescribing norms and

procedure for admission into Ph.D. courses.

18. As discussed supra, there is no challenge to the said Ph.D.

Rules and Regulations for the year 2022 issued by respondent

University in terms of Regulation 5.1 of Regulations, 2016. According

to this Court, there is no irregularity in issuing notification category-

wise.

19. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the Deans

are not having power to issue notifications, it is relevant to note that as

per Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 2022 which deals with Ph.D.

admissions, Deans of Faculties are having power to invite applications

for Ph.D. Programme from the eligible candidates. Therefore, there is

no irregularity in issuing notification by the Deans. Therefore, the

contentions of the petitioners that the Deans are not having powers to

issue notifications is untenable.

20. With regard to the syllabus and excluding the research

methodology in the syllabus for entrance test, it is the specific

contention of the respondent University that the syllabus for entrance

test was displayed on their website and candidates were asked to

download the syllabus of the concerned subjects from the University

website i.e. www.osmania.ac.in and www.ouadmissions.com. However,

Osmania University does not include research methodology as a subject

at Post Graduation Level. In order to maintain uniformity in the entrance

examination, the University has decided the syllabus excluding

Research methodology. However, the same is introduced in Ph.D.

course work. The Scholars taking admission into Ph.D. Programme in

Category-III has to be approved by the Departmental Research

Committee along with the recommendation of the Deans of the

Concerned Faculty. The Supervisors allotted under this category as

additional seat over and above which can be read with information

brochure of Ph.D.Entrance Test, 2022 released by office of the

University. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the same.

21. Thus, in view of the said specific contentions of the

respondent University and also considering the fact that the petitioners

in W.P.Nos.5665 and 4251 of 2023 having participated in the selection

process knowing very well of the syllabus, cannot now turn around and

challenge the notification dated 01.08.2022. Therefore, the said

contentions of the petitioners are unsustainable.

22. The petitioners in W.P.No.34543 of 2022 having raised the

aforesaid syllabus issue but they have challenged only with regard to

categorization.

23. It is the specific contention of the respondent University that

its Standing Committee of Academic Senate in its meeting held on

29.07.2022 has passed resolution that the the available vacancies in the

respective departments shall be allotted in the ratio of 50: 50 for

Category-I and admissions. Therefore, according to the respondent

University, they have framed the Rules as per the UGC Regulations,

2016 and they have issued the aforesaid notifications Category-wise.

24. There are 16 clear vacancies in Telugu Department where

7+1(Physically challenged person was admitted at later stage) in total 8,

Ph.D. admissions and were made under category-I and remaining

vacancies will be filled as per provisions. The University will regularly

notify its Academic Excellency including admissions for different

courses on their Institutional website i.e. www.osmania.ac.in in addition to

display of the hard copies on the notice boards of the concerned

Departments and Faculties. University has displayed 8 vacancies in

Telugu subject on its website. It was clearly mentioned in the

notification released in local and national newspapers asking the

candidates to visit the websites www.osmania.ac.in for updates. However,

582 applicants have applied and 416 candidates have appeared for

Telugu subject Entrance Test. As such, the University has given clear

notification.

25. It is relevant to note that Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior

Counsel would submit that the respondents having issued the aforesaid

notification in terms of UGC Regulations, 2016 which says that the

notification shall be published well in advance in the institutional

website and through advertisement in at least two national newspapers,

of which at least one shall be in the regional language, the number of

seats for admission, subject/discipline-wise distribution of available

seats, criteria for admission, procedure for admission, examination

centres where entrance test shall be conducted and all other relevant

information for the benefit of the candidates. However, respondents in

their counter specifically mentioned that they have issued notification in

the local and national newspapers asking the candidates to visit the

aforesaid websites. However, they have not mentioned about the details

of the newspapers. Learned counsel for the respondent University has

produced copies of newspapers. Perusal of the same would reveal that

the respondent University has issued the said notification in the Hindu

(English Daily), Namasthe Telangana (Telugu Daily) and Siasat (Urdu

Daily) on 03.08.2022. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior

Counsel that the respondent University has not published notification in

the newspapers is unsustainable. In the said notifications, there is

specific mention about the request made by the University to the

students to visit the website and know the details of the Entrance Test

etc., are specifically mentioned. Therefore according to this Court, there

is no irregularity in the same.

26. Sri Ch.Jagannatha Rao, learned standing counsel appearing

for Osmania university would submit that the petitioners in

W.P.No.5665 of 2023 and 4251 of 2023 having participated in the

selection process cannot challenge the notification. He has also placed

reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjan Kumar

Vs. State of Bihar1 and D.Sarojakumari Vs. R.Helen Thilakom2. In

Ranjan Kumar (supra), the Apex Court relying on the earlier judgments

in Indu Shekhar Singh Vs. State Of U.P.3 including judgment in Union of

India Vs. S.Vinod Kumar4 held that those candidates who have taken

part in the selection process knowing fully well to the procedure laid

(2014) 16 SCC 187

AIR 2017 SC 458.

(2006) 8SCC 129

(2007) 8 SCC 100

down were not entitled to question the same. Similar view was taken by

the Apex Court in D.Sarojakumari (supra).

27. As discussed supra, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5665 and 4251

of 2023 have participated in the selection process and therefore, they

cannot now turn around and challenge the notification itself.

28. Whereas, Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel

referring to principle laid down by the Apex Court in Dr.(Major) Meeta

Sahai Vs. State of Bihar5 and in Krishna Rai (dead) through L.Rs. Vs.

Banaras Hindu University through Registrar6, would submit that

estoppel does not operate against law.

29. In Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), an advertisement was

published by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter,

"Commission") in various local newspapers on 18.07.2014, inviting

applications from eligible candidates for filling up 2301 vacant posts of

General Medical Officer in Bihar. The advertisement issued by the

Commission to the extent it mandated that only work experience in

hospitals of Government of Bihar shall be considered for awarding

marks for 'work experience', the petitioner therein having participated

in the selection process, having failed in getting selected, challenged the

(2019) 20 SCC 17

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 553

very notification itself. The petitioner therein was having work

experience in Army hospital, which was not considered since as per the

said notification work experience in hospitals of Government of Bihar

only considered for awarding marks for work experience. The Apex

Court on considering construction of interpretation of statutes,

grammatical construction of objects etc., held that interpretation of

statute or rule is the exclusive domain of Courts, and given the scope of

judicial review in delineating such criteria, the appellant's challenge

cannot be turned down at the threshold. The appellant challenge to the

maintainability and estoppels is not applicable.

30. Whereas, in the present case, the facts are different. The

petitioners are challenging the notifications mainly on categorization

and syllabus etc. There is no violation of any procedure by the

respondent University with regard to the admissions into Ph.D. course.

Therefore, the principle laid down therein is not applicable to the facts

of the present case.

31. In Krishna Roy (supra), the Apex Court considered the

eligibility criteria prescribed in the statutory Service Rules for procedure

of promotion of Class-IV employees to Class III working in the Banaras

Hindu University. There was violation of procedure laid down in the

said statutory service rules. The Apex Court held that estoppel does not

operate against law. Whereas, in the present case, there is no violation of

any procedure by the respondents and therefore, the facts of the said

case are different to the facts of the present case.

32. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners failed to establish any

procedural irregularity in issuing impugned notifications dated

01.08.2022. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief

much less the relief sought in the present writ petitions. Therefore, these

writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

33. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently,

miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:10.04.2023

Note: Issue copy today.

b/o. vvr