Salman Saleem Vs Union of India & Ors.

¶1

$~89

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 13.04.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶5

SALMAN SALEEM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kaif Hasan, Mr. Mohammad Waseem, Mr. Vaibhav Pachauri, Mr. Firdouse, Advs.

¶6

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan, Mr. Syed Abdur Rahman, Advs. for UOI Ms. Aishwarya Srivastava, Adv. for R-5/NTA Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, SC for JMI

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶9

: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )

¶10

CM.APPL. 24062/2026

¶11

This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking early hearing of the main petition.

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, the present application is allowed, and the main petition shall be taken up for hearing today.

¶13

The present application has been disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶14

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶15

In view of the above, the matter has been taken up for hearing today.

¶16

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶17

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶18

Page 1 of 13

¶19

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶20

India seeking the following prayers: -

¶21

“A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the illegal and arbitrary action/decision of the respondent university denying admission to the petitioner to the Ph.D. Programme (Academic) 2025–26 in Anwar Jamal Kidwai–Mass Communication Research Centre (AJK-MCRC) under the Exempted Category, after having provisionally selected him and declared him successful in the final selection list dated 19.12.2025.

¶22

B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the date of issuance of Ph.D. Admission Notification dated 16.10.2025 as the relevant date for determining the validity of UGC-NET Certificate/Scorecard, in absence of any prescribed cut-off date under the Ph.D. Ordinance or UGC Regulations., And/or

¶23

C. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the Selected Admission List dated 19.12.2025 and further issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue/prepare a fresh list of admission following the reservation policy as per the Ordinance 6 (VI) and the revised Ph.D. Ordinance dated 17.10.2025 , And/or

¶24

D. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 20.12.2025 (ANNEXURE-A2) issue by the Controller of Examinations calling

¶25

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶26

Page 2 of 13

¶27

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶28

provisionally selected candidates for verification and admission, and further issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to issue/prepare a fresh list of admission and notification for admission following the reservation policy as per the Ordinance 6 (VI) and the revised Ph.D. Ordinance dated 17.10.2025, And/or

¶29

E. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to specify the seats in the admission to the course of Ph.D. program of AJK-MCRC (Session 2025-26) under different categories of reservation as per the Ordinance 6 (VI) , And/or

¶30

F. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to strictly and religiously follow the reservation policy as per the Ordinance 6 (VI) in all its future admissions in all its future admissions, And/or

¶31

G. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to deny or withdraw admission from the petitioner on grounds arising solely out of administrative delay attributable to the respondent university, after having verified the petitioner at multiple stages and offered admission, And/or…”

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner qualified UGC-NET (June-2024), which made the petitioner eligible for Assistant Professor and Admission to Ph.D. vide result dated 17.10.2024. The respondent No. 5 i.e., National Testing Agency (“ NTA” ) issued

¶33

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶34

Page 3 of 13

¶35

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶36

Certificate of Eligibility (“ Certificate of Eligibility ”) to the petitioner, as per which Validity of the admission certificate to Ph.D. was one year from date of result i.e., one year from 17.10.2024.

¶37

Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 issued the notification for Ph.D. Admission 2025-26 vide notification dated 16.10.2025.The petitioner submitted Application form for Ph.D. in AJK Mass Communications & Research Centre under Exemption Category with exemption qualification of UGC-NET II & Muslim Reservation category.

¶38

The petitioner was issued Admit Card by respondent No.3 for Ph.D. Entrance Test (2025-26) under “Exempted Category”. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 issued a List of Selected Candidates called for Interview vide notice dated 26.11.2025 and the petitioner was also in the said list at serial No. 20 under Exempted Category.

¶39

Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 issued Schedule for Interview vide notice dated 09.12.2025, which has petitioner’s name at Serial No. 21 under “Exempted Category”. The result of interview was declared on 19.12.2025 and the petitioner qualified the interview and was selected for admission.

¶40

However, later the petitioner was denied admission. Hence, the present petition.

¶41

In the present case, certain documents are relevant and the same need to be seen and reproduced.

¶42

First, is Certificate of Eligibility issued by respondent No. 5/NTA, which is extracted below: -

¶43

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶44

Page 4 of 13

¶45

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶46

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶47

Page 5 of 13

¶48

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶49

Second, is the Ph.D. Admission Notification dated 16.10.2025, which is reproduced as under:-

¶50

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶51

Page 6 of 13

¶52

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶53

The Revised Ph.D. Ordinance–9 (IX) titled “Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) (Academic)” dated 17.10.2025 issued by the respondent university contains the eligibility criteria, which reads as under:-

¶54

“3. Admission Procedure

¶55

xxxxxxxx

¶56

c. The notification/advertisement shall be issued in advance. The admission schedule and other relevant information shall also be notified. Provided that the following categories of candidates shall be exempted from taking entrance test for Ph.D. programme:

¶57

(i) Candidates who have qualified for fellowship/scholarship in UGC-NET I, II & III/UGC-CSIR NET/GATE*/CEED and similar National level tests.

¶58

(ii) ICCR- Sponsored candidates or any other equivalent fellowship holder.

¶59

*(Qualified under general category)

¶60

Provided that all the above candidates who have been granted entrance-test exemption will have to follow the rest of the admission process as per the schedule and fulfill all other requirements as per the Ordinances and the Ph.D. regulations.”

¶61

Lastly, the application form of the petitioner, which reads as under: -

¶62

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶63

Page 7 of 13

¶64

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶65

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶66

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶67

Page 8 of 13

¶68

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶69

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶70

Page 9 of 13

¶71

Mr. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that in the present case, admittedly, the notification is dated 16.10.2025, on which date the petitioner was eligible under the exempted category as his UGCNET II certificate was valid. Hence, the denial of admission by the respondent No. 2 is contrary to its own policy.

¶72

He further also relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, (2012) 7 SCC 389 and the operative paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:-

¶73

“30. There is no doubt that 30th September is the cut-off date. The authorities cannot grant admission beyond the cut-off date which is specifically postulated. But where no fault is attributable to a candidate and she is denied admission for arbitrary reasons, should the cut-off date be permitted to operate as a bar to admission to such students particularly when it would result in complete ruining of the professional career of a meritorious candidate, is the question we have to answer.

¶74

31. Having recorded that the appellant is not at fault and she pursued her rights and remedies as expeditiously as possible, we are of the considered view that the cut-off date cannot be used as a technical instrument or tool to deny admission to meritorious students. The rule of merit stands completely defeated in the facts of the present case. The appellant was a candidate placed higher in the merit list. It cannot be disputed that candidates having merit much lower

¶75

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶76

Page 10 of 13

¶77

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶78

to her have already been given admission in the MBBS course. The appellant had attained 832 marks while the students who had attained 821, 792, 752, 740 and 731 marks have already been given admission in the ESM category in the MBBS course. It is not only unfortunate but apparently unfair that the appellant be denied admission. 32. Though there can be the rarest of rare cases or exceptional circumstances where the courts may have to mould the relief and make exception to the cut-off date of 30th September, but in those cases, the Court must first return a finding that no fault is attributable to the candidate, the candidate has pursued her rights and legal remedies expeditiously without any delay and that there is fault on the part of the authorities and apparent breach of some rules, regulations and principles in the process of selection and grant of admission. Where denial of admission violates the right to equality and equal treatment of the candidate, it would be completely unjust and unfair to deny such exceptional relief to the candidate. (Refer Arti Sapru v. State of J&K [(1981) 2 SCC 484 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 398] , Chhavi Mehrotra v. DG, Health Services [(1994) 2 SCC 370] and Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. [(2001) 8 SCC 355] )”

¶79

I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 19. In the present case, the exempted category is only in case a person has a valid UGC-NET Scorecard on the date of application. As per the

¶80

W.P.(C) 1325/2026

¶81

Page 11 of 13

¶82

Digitally Signed By:MAYANK Signing Date:17.04.2026 10:51:13

¶83

Certificate of Eligibility , the validity of the certificate is for a period of 1 year from the date of declaration of result, which as per pointer (IX) of Certificate of Eligibility is 17.10.2024 (reproduced above). Hence, the petitioner’s Certificate of Eligibility was valid from 17.10.2024 till 16.10.2025.

¶84

As per the Ph.D. Admission Notification dated 16.10.2025 (reproduced above) the respondent only started online forms for application on 20.10.2025 and till 08.11.2025 and the application form was submitted by the petitioner only on 27.10.2025 at 21:10:36. Hence, on the said date i.e., 27.10.2025, when the petitioner applied for admission, the petitioner did not have a valid UGC-NET Scorecard.

¶85

Additionally, the judgment of Asha (supra ) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable here as the same is differentiable on facts. In Asha (supra ), the controversy was around appellant’s absence during counseling. The appellant was fully qualified on the date of counseling and meritorious but was denied admission by the medical college which was challenged. In the present case, I have already returned the finding that on the date of application, the petitioner was not qualified under the Exempted category as his Certificate of Eligibility expired its one year term.

¶86