Dismissed

Kaushalya Devi v. Hpu and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC10 Jun 2024CWP/271/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged direct Ph.D admissions at H.P. University, alleging a general category seat was wrongly given to a reserved category candidate. The Court held the selection was valid based on higher post-graduate marks held by the reserved category candidate. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

Kaushalya Devi Vs Hpu and Others — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 271/2024 Decided on: 10.06.2024

¶3

Kaushalya Devi …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

H.P. University & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram

¶6

Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisht, Advocate.

¶8

For the respondents: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate

¶9

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶10

Petitioner’s endeavour for getting direct admission to Ph.D programme (without entrance test) for the session 2023-2024 in Department of Political Science in the respondent-university has not been successful, hence, this writ petition.

¶11

2. Facts

¶12

2(i) Respondent/university issued an admission notice on 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) inviting online applications for direct admission to Ph.D Programme (without entrance test). At serial No.24

¶13

of the admission notice, Nine (9) Ph.D seats were advertised in

¶14

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶15

¶16

Department of Political Science, out of which seven (7) were meant for General category and one (1) each for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled Caste categories.

¶17

2(ii) ‘Note’ beneath the admission notice laid down certain conditions including the preferences to be made in direct admission. Note No.4 being relevant is extracted hereinafter:-

¶18

“4. Preferences in the Direct Admission shall be as under:-

¶19

a) The first preference shall be given to UGC NET (JRF) and other equivalent fellowship holder candidate through National Level Test Agency and the merit shall be drawn on the basis of Merit of P.G. Examinations.

¶20

b) For remaining seats, if available after 4(a), the admission in Ph.D Programme shall be made among other fellowship holders like NFSC, NFST, Maulana etc. on the basis of merit of the P.G. examination.”

¶21

In terms of above ‘Note’, the first preference was to be given to UGC NET Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and other equivalent fellowship holder candidates through National Level Test agency. Further, merit of eligible candidates was to be drawn strictly on the basis of merit of marks obtained by them in post-graduation examinations.

¶22

2(iii) Petitioner as well as respondents No.3 to 5 had qualified UGC NET (JRF), therefore, being eligible in terms of notice dated 10.11.2023, they applied for direct admission to Ph.D Programme in

¶23

¶24

the Department of Political Science. The petitioner applied as a General category candidate and respondent No.3 (Prakash Chand) against whom, learned counsel for the petitioner, during hearing of the case, has confined the reliefs prayed in the writ petition, had applied as a Scheduled Caste category candidate.

¶25

2(iv) The result was declared by the respondent-University on 07.12.2023. The petitioner did not make it to the list of successful candidates. Respondent No.3 with 70.93% marks in M.A. Political Science, figured at Serial No.4 in the list of successful General category candidates.

¶26

2(v) Feeling aggrieved on remaining unsuccessful, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive prayers:-

¶27

“i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the admission notice dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure P-3 to the extent whereby the respondents No.3-5 have been selected against the seat meant for general category for admission to Ph.D program (without Entrance Test) in Deptt. of political Science in HP University.

¶28

ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents directing respondents No.1 & 2 to redraw the merit of admission to PhD program (Direct without entrance test) in the department of Political Science, H.P. University in light of Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5 dated 01.07.1998 & 12.12.2011 issued by Govt. of India and Govt. of H.P. respectively and consider the candidature of the petitioner for selection against the seat meant for general

¶29

¶30

category to PhD program (without Entrance Test) in the deptt. of political science HP University.”

¶31

As noted above, learned counsel for the writ petitioner during hearing of the case confined the writ petition & prayers made therein only against respondent No.3.

¶32

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.3 had qualified UGC NET (JRF) after availing concessions available to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, therefore, he could not have been selected by the respondent-University as a General category candidate for admission to Ph.D programme in Department of Political Science. Reliance in support of this contention was placed upon Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana Vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission and Others² .

¶33

Learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that respondent No.3 had secured 70.93% marks in M.A. Political Science, higher than 63.68% marks secured by the petitioner in M.A. Political Science. Therefore, in view of Note No.4 of the admission notice and in light of the law laid down in the aforecited judgment, he was selected against the seat meant for General category candidates. In support of this submission, reliance was also placed upon a decision rendered by this Court on 11.01.2024 in CWP

¶34

2AIR 2019 SC 3149

¶35

¶36

No.8254/2022 (Sunil Kumar vs. Himachal Pradesh University &

¶37

Ors.)

¶38

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

4(i) The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 had applied

¶40

for the direct admission to Ph.D programme (without entrance test) in the Department of Political Science. The participating candidates as well as respondent-University are governed by the terms and conditions laid down in admission notice dated 10.11.2023. Note 4(a) of the admission notice mandated for giving first preference to UGC NET (JRF) and other equivalent fellowship holder candidates. Their inter-se merit was to be determined on the basis of their marks in post graduate examination. Meaning thereby that possession of Junior Research Fellowship was to be qualifying preference condition for seeking direct admission to Ph.D programme (without undertaking entrance test). Note was also very categoric that merit for direct admission to Ph.D programme shall be drawn on the basis of merit of post-graduate examinations.

¶41

4(ii) It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 was more meritorious than the petitioner in view of his higher percentage of marks in post-graduate examinations. Respondent No.3 had secured 70.93% marks in M.A. Political Science as against 63.68% marks obtained by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 had more marks in the

¶42

¶43

post graduation examination than scored by last candidate belonging to general category.

¶44

4(iii) In view of Note 4(a) of the admission notice dated 10.11.2023, the factum of respondent No.3 allegedly availing concessions available to reserve category candidates for qualifying Junior Research Fellowship, is irrelevant for the purpose of direct admission to Ph.D in Political Science. As per this note, the merit of eligible candidates was to be drawn only on the basis of the marks secured by them in their post graduation examinations. Passing of UGC NET (JRF) was only a qualifying condition. In case, the petitioner had any grievance to the mechanism and the mode laid down by the respondent-university for preparing the merit of the candidates, it was for her to challenge the said condition/mode and that too at the appropriate stage i.e. before participating under the admission notice. Though it is another matter that there is no challenge to Note 4(a) even in this writ petition and rightly so. Having participated under the admission notice, wherein merit for admission to Ph.D programme was to be prepared only on the basis of marks in the post-graduate examination, the petitioner would have been otherwise estopped from challenging the same.

¶45

4(iv) In Saurav Yadav and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others³ , Hon’ble Apex Court explaining the concept of

¶46

3 (2021) 4 SCC 542

¶47

¶48

vertical and horizontal reservation, held that quota provided for social groups are characterized as vertical reservation, whereas reservation in favour of women, handicapped, ex servicemen etc. are horizontal reservation. Vertical reservation is sanctioned explicitly by Article 16(4) of the Constitution while horizontal reservation has evolved through process of permissible classification under Articles 14, 16(1) and 15(3). The contention raised there that after vertical reservations are provided for, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, reserved category candidates can only be adjusted against their categories and not against open or general category, was rejected. It was held that while making adjustment for horizontal reservation in open or general category seats, selection of less meritorious candidates was impermissible. Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the well settled legal position that the candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in ‘Open or General category’. Adoption of same principle by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat while dealing with horizontal reservation (termed as ‘first view’ in paras 26-27 of the judgment) was approved in para 40 of the judgment. Following paras from the judgment summarize the issue:-

¶49

“65. In view of these clear decisions, it is too late in the day for the respondent State to contend that women candidates who are entitled to benefit of social category reservations, cannot fill open

¶50

¶51

category vacancies. The said view is starkly exposed as misconceived, because it would result in such women candidates with less merit (in the open category) being selected, and those with more merit than such selected candidates, (in the social/vertical reservation category) being left out of selection. 66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.”

¶52

Reiterating the law laid down in Saurav Yadav’s case,

¶53

supra, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another Versus Sandeep Choudhary and others⁴ held as under;-

¶54

“24. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in another recent decision of this Court in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati. By the said decision, it is reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories. It is further observed that held that even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. It is further observed that the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so.”

¶55

4( 2022) 11 SCC 779

¶56

¶57

Significantly in CWP No.8254 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh University and Others) an issue arose as to whether the respondent-university was justified in adjusting two candidates belonging to schedule caste category against the seats reserved for schedule caste category, who admittedly had secured more marks than the candidates selected from the general category?

¶58

The said case pertained to selection to Ph.D programme 2021-2022 in the respondent-university. The eligible candidates had to appear in an Entrance test of 80 marks. The criteria of preparing the merit was duly laid down.

¶59

Following the law laid down in Niravkumar’s case^2, the Court held that a candidate belonging to scheduled caste category, who had secured more marks than the last candidate belonging to the general category, has to be offered admission against the seat meant for general category. And further that passing of UGCNET/GATE was independent of admission to Ph.D programme. Relevant paras from the decision rendered on 11.01.2024 in Sunil Kumar’s case are as under:-

¶60

“17. Applying this principle on the facts involved in the present case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the act of the respondentUniversity in offering admission to private respondents No. 6 and 7 against Scheduled Caste category seats is totally illegal, as these two candidates were entitled for admission against General category seats being at Sr. No. 1 and 2, respectively and on the basis of merit, they had to be adjusted against the seats

¶61

¶62

meant for General category and the seats of S.C. category had to be offered on merit to S.C. category students, who had secured less marks than the last selected candidate in General category. In terms of the Admission Notice, the eligibility criteria for being eligible to participate in the process was Master’s degree in the concerned subject with 55% marks. The eligible candidates were to appear in the entrance test of 80 marks. The UGC-NET/GATE qualified students were entitled for 20% of the marks secured in the entrance test and this entitlement was not limited to those only who belonged to SC and ST categories, but this weightage was available to all across the board, who had cleared the said examination with a valid score. Not only this, the passing of UGCNET/GATE was otherwise independent of the admission to the Ph.D. Programme and it was only incidental thereto and not per se the eligibility criteria. All these aspects of the matter were ignored by the University, including the settled law that a Scheduled Caste candidate who secures more marks than a General category candidate has to be adjusted against a General category seat.”

¶63

Respondents No.1 and 2 were justified in selecting respondent No.3 against the seat meant for general category candidates as he had emerged more meritorious than the last successful candidate in the general category. Further in view of Note 4(a) to the admission note dated 10.11.2023, respondent No3 having scored more marks in post graduation examination than the petitioner was rightly placed above the latter in the merit list.

¶64

¶65

5. In view of above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶66

disposed of.

¶67

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶68

June 10, 2024(rohit)

Kaushalya Devi v. Hpu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Devi v. Hpu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum Anju Dhiman Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Paras Ram and Others Vs Hrtc and Another

Roshan Lal and Anr. Vs NHAI and Ors.

Kunal Chatterji Vs State of Hp

Kavi Raj Raghav Vs State of Hp and Others

Sarwan Ram Vs State of Hp and Others