Allowed¶13

Amit Kumar Choubey v. Central University of Jharkhand through Registrar

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2026WPC/2871/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ph.D admission denial; vacant seat carry-forward and de-reservation to general category; OBC reservation; waiting list WL-01 candidate; Central University of Jharkhand; direction to admit within three weeks; Registrar summoned, unconditional apology; seat cannot be kept vacant — waste of national resources; DPSP Part IV; Ashok Kumar Thakur (2008) 6 SCC 1; P.V. Indiresan (2) (2011) 8 SCC 441; W.P.(C) No.2871 of 2024; Jharkhand High Court, 05.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to admit the petitioner to the Ph.D. programme within three weeks; personal appearance of the Registrar dispensed with; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶13

Amit Kumar Choubey Vs Central University of Jharkhand through Registrar — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondents directed to admit the petitioner to the Ph.D. programme within three weeks; personal appearance of the Registrar dispensed with; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was wrongly denied admission to the Ph.D. programme in International Relations (Session 2023-24) despite seats remaining vacant and the petitioner claiming to be eligible. +1 more

¶2(g)

Court's answer

The respondents made factually incorrect statements and wrongly denied the seat to the petitioner despite litigation and several granted opportunities; instead of correcting themselves they endeavoured to defeat his claim.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The vacant seat was carried forward, de-reserved and offered to a general category candidate in the next academic session, which the Court found prima facie wrong, prompting the summons to the Registrar.

¶9

Key takeaways

A seat cannot be kept vacant — doing so is waste of national resources; it has to be offered to the eligible candidate (settled principle of law).ratio¶12
Since the petitioner is eligible in all respects (an admitted position), the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to admit the petitioner within three weeks.ratio¶12
Education empowers; enhancing the quality of population is the duty of the State, mandated under Part IV of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy).obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ph.D. admission — denial of seat — writ allowed. The petitioner, provisionally qualified and interviewed for Ph.D. (Session 2023-24) in International Relations at Central University of Jharkhand, was excluded from the final result dated 26.12.2023 and placed on waiting list WL-01 despite an unreserved seat remaining unfilled. The University claimed three vacant OBC seats were carried forward and merged with the 2024-25 intake; its Registrar, summoned in person, tendered unconditional apology admitting the statement was factually incorrect. Holding that a seat cannot be kept vacant — it is waste of national resources — and must be offered to the eligible candidate, the Court found the denial contrary to the rule of law, declared the petitioner eligible in all respects, and directed his admission within three weeks. Reliance pressed on Ashok Kumar Thakur (2008) 6 SCC 1 and P.V. Indiresan (2) (2011) 8 SCC 441; observation that enhancing population quality is a State duty under Part IV (DPSP).

¶1

2026:JHHC:3131

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2871 of 2024

¶3

Amit kumar Choubey, aged 42 years, R/o Jagdamba Tower, 3rd Floor, Sahdeomahatomarg, Boring Road, P.O & P.S Phulwari, District-Patna, Bihar-800001

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central University of Jharkhand through Registrar, Nagri, P.O.-Manatu, P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835222.

¶7

The Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand, Nagri, P.O.-Manatu, P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835222.

¶8

The Vice Chancellor, Central University of Jharkhand, Nagri, P.O.-Manatu, P.S.-Kanke, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand-835222.

¶9

Chairman Admission Cell, Central University of Jharkhand, Nagri, P.O.-Manatu, P.S.-Kanke, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand-835222.

¶10

The Controller of Examinations, Central University of Jharkhand, Nagri, P.O.-Manatu, P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-835222.

¶11

The Dean of Schools, Central University of Jharkhand, Nagri, P.O.-Manatu, P.S.-Kanke, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand-835222. …... Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Afsar Raza, Advocate For the Resp.-C.U.J : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate ---------

¶14

28/Dated: 05th February, 2026

¶15

1. In compliance of order dated 04.02.2026, Mr. K. Kosala Rao, Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi is physically present before this Court.

¶16

2. From the arguments, pleadings and the factual matrix of the case, which have been brought to my notice are as under:-

¶17

(a) an advertisement being Ref No.CUJ/ Adm.Cell/ 2023/95 dated 24.07.2023 has been issued by the C.U.J calling upon the candidature for admission in Ph.D Program.

¶18

- 1 - W.P.C No.2871 of 2024

¶19

2026:JHHC:3131

¶20

(b) the petitioner has applied for admission in Political Science & Public Administration and International Relations in the light of the aforesaid advertisement through seat matrix Reference No.CUJ/Admn.cell/ 2023/ 189 dated 23.08.2023 and accordingly admit card has been issued.

¶21

(c) the petitioner had participated in the process and the result was published on 08.12.2023 and the petitioner has shown qualified for Ph.D programme in Political Science & Public Administration as well as in International Relations and was called for the interview.

¶22

(d) the interview was conducted for Ph.D Program in Political Science & Public Administration on 20.12.2023 and for Ph.D Program in International Relations on 21.12.2023.

¶23

(e) final result was declared on 26.12.2023 and the name of the petitioner has not been shown in the list of the qualified persons.

¶24

(f) as per the advertisement, 01 (one) seat was available for the unreserved category, 04 (four) seats for the other backward classes and 01 (one) seat for the scheduled caste under the course Ph.D in International Relations and this course/ category has been agitated in the present writ petition.

¶25

(g) the petitioner has gathered some information and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed, claiming that the seats are still vacant, but he has wrongly been denied admission.

¶26

3. The counter affidavit dated 08.07.2024 has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3 i.e. the Registrar and the Vice Chancellor of the Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Paras – 8 to 12 of the counter affidavit are relevant, which are quoted herein-below:-

¶27

“ 8. That the University published the Seat Matrix of Ph.D. programme for the academic Session 2023-24 vide reference No.CUJ/Adm.Cell/2023/189 dated 23.08.2023, in which the petitioner applied. Following

¶28

- 2 - W.P.C No.2871 of 2024

¶29

2026:JHHC:3131

¶30

is the seat matrix for the disciplines of (i) Political Science and Public Administration and (ii) International Relations:

¶31

Ph.D. Progarm	Total Intake	SC	ST	OBC	EWS	UR
Political Science and	2	0	0	0	0	2
Public Administration
International Relations	6	1	0	4	0	1

¶32

9. That, petitioner applied for Ph.D. admission in (i) Political Science and Public Administration and (ii) International Relations and was provisionally qualified for the Ph.D. interview for both the subject. The petitioner's Roll No. is at Serial No 78 and 135 in the list of provisionally qualified candidates respectively. The petitioner secured 52 marks in entrance exam for International Relations. Accordingly, his score for entrance exam was calculated as 36,4(70% of total secured marks). Likewise, in Political Science and Public Administration, he secured 55 marks, and his score was calculated as 38.5 (70% of total secured marks).

¶33

10. That, Ph.D. interview schedule for provisionally qualified candidates was published vide Reference No CUJ/Adm.Cell 2023/21/241 dated 11.12.2023. The Ph.D research areas for the academic year 2023-24 was also uploaded on the University's website.

¶34

11. That the petitioner appeared for interview in both the programs. He secured 88 marks in International Relations. Correspondingly by awarding 30% weightage for this score, the petitioner was given 26.4 marks for interview and in case of his interview in the discipline of Political Science and Public Administration, the petitioner was adjudicated as NOT FOUND SUITABLE (like several other candidates) by the duly constituted and approved expert committee for interview/viva-voce of the concerned subject. Hence, he was not given the offer of admission.

¶35

12. That with reference to Ph.D. admission of the petitioner in the discipline International Relations, it is submitted that he scored a total of 62.8 marks. The Petitioner was 3^rd in order of merit and hence the candidate who secured maximum marks and was 1^st in order of merit (Name: Nitesh Chandra Bhanu) although belonging OBC category was offered admission under UR Category. The candidates who was 2^nd in order of merit (Name: Siddharth Kumar Saha) belonging to OBC category, was offered admission under OBC category, Accordingly, the petitioner was placed in waiting list (WL-01).”

¶36

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India And Others ;

¶37

- 3 - W.P.C No.2871 of 2024

¶38

2026:JHHC:3131

¶39

reported in (2008) 6 SCC 1, especially sub para (3) of para 358, which reads as under :-

¶40

“358 (3). The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing cut-off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). By way of illustration it can be indicated that five grace marks can be extended to such candidates below the minimum eligibility marks fixed for general categories of students. This would ensure that quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories.”

¶41

5. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Indiresan (2) Vs. Union of India And Others ; reported in (2011) 8 SCC 441 , especially para – 54 (ii), which reads as under :-

¶42

“54(ii) If in any Central educational institution, the OBC reservation seats remain Vacant, such institutions shall fill the said seats with OBC students. Only if OBC candidates possessing the minimum eligibility/qualifying marks are not available in the OBC merit list, the OBC seats shall be converted into general category seats.”

¶43

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment dated 26.11.2025 , passed in W.P.(C) No.4870 of 2015 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶44

Referring to the aforesaid judgments, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that seat cannot be kept vacant or carried forward. There is academic sessions and there is no concept of carry forward of the vacant seat. Admittedly, one seat was available but none of the candidates was available, save and except the present petitioner and as such, the candidature of the petitioner should have been accepted, allowing him to take admission.

¶45

7. Subsequently, counter affidavit dated 22.08.2025 has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 3. Para – 3 of the same, is relevant, which is quoted herein-below:-

¶46

“3. That it is further submitted that the aforesaid three vacant OBC category seats were carried forward and merged with the intake of the academic session 2024-25, thereby making a total of nine seats in the said Department, against which admissions have already been completed.”

¶47

- 4 - W.P.C No.2871 of 2024

¶48

2026:JHHC:3131

¶49

8. Response dated 13.11.2025 has also been filed by the petitioner to the above counter affidavit. Para – 4 & 11 are relevant, which is quoted herein-below:-

¶50

“4. That with regards to the averments made in Para 2 of the supplementary counter affidavit under reply, it is denied and humbly stated that with regards to admission in Ph.D. in the Department of International Relations in the Central University, Jharkhand, Ranchi for the Academic Session 2023-24, the seat distribution matrix [Annex-1(Series) Writ Petition), as noted at Sl. No. 17 are as follows:

¶51

Ph.D in International Relations

¶52

INTAKE	SC	ST	OBC	EWS	UR
6	1	0	4	0	1

¶53

11. That with regards to the averments made in Para 4 of the the supplementary counter affidavit under reply, it is denied and humbly stated that the statement is malafide and false and contrary to law. There is no rule or UGC regulation or regulation governing Respondent University in accordance with which the vacant OBC category seats for the academic year 2023-24 could be carried forward and merged with the intake of the academic year 2024-25. The same would also be evident from the notice dated 03.03.2025 concerning the seat Matrix for Ph.D. programmes for the Academic year 2024-25 and there being only one seat in the OBC category.”

¶54

9. Thus, factually the seat has been carried forward and it has been de-reserved and offered to the general category candidate in the next academic sessions ,appears to be prima facie wrong. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.02.2026, the Registrar of the Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi has been called upon to explain and asked to appear in person.

¶55

In compliance of the said order, the Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi has appeared in person and he has tendered unconditional apology, stating that this statement is factually incorrect and this mistake has crept in, due to the wrong communication given by his office.

¶56

10. Thus, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has been denied seat by navigating in a manner, which is not acceptable to the rule of law. It is an admitted position that a seat cannot be kept vacant as it is nothing, but waste of the national resources. The education is empowering and infusing

¶57

- 5 - W.P.C No.2871 of 2024

¶58

2026:JHHC:3131

¶59

capacity in the Indians to make a better society. National assets is nothing but the quality of population. Enhancing the quality of population is the duty of the State and they have to take all the endeavour and it has also been mandated under the Constitution of India especially, in Part IV i.e. The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

¶60

11. In the present case, not only the factually incorrect statements have been made by the respondents, but a seat has also been wrongly denied to the petitioner in spite of litigation and several opportunities have been granted. Instead of correcting themselves, the endeavour has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner by navigating in a wrong manner.

¶61

12. In view of above discussions and settled principle of law, a seat cannot be kept vacant, rather it has to be offered to the eligible candidate. Since the petitioner is only eligible in all respect and this is an admitted position, the present writ petition is, hereby, allowed directing the respondents to admit the petitioner within three weeks from today.

¶62

13. With the above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands allowed.

¶63

14. Personal appearance of the Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi, is dispensed with.

¶64

15. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶65

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶66

05^th February, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/Uploaded on 06.02.2026

¶67

- 6 - W.P.C No.2871 of 2024

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final result of Ph.D. admissions (Session 2023-24) declared on 26.12.2023 excluded the petitioner from the list of qualified persons, resulting in denial of admission to Ph.D. in International Relations despite an unfilled unreserved seat.¶2(e)
Central University of Jharkhand (admission process) · 26.12.2023
Prior proceeding
Advertisement Ref No.CUJ/Adm.Cell/2023/95 dated 24.07.2023 issued by C.U.J. inviting candidature for Ph.D. programme.¶2(a)
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied under seat matrix Reference No.CUJ/Admn.cell/2023/189 dated 23.08.2023 for Political Science & Public Administration and International Relations; admit card issued.¶2(b)
Prior proceeding
Entrance result published 08.12.2023; petitioner shown qualified for both programmes and called for interview.¶2(c)
Prior proceeding
Interviews conducted on 20.12.2023 (Political Science & Public Administration) and 21.12.2023 (International Relations).¶2(d)
Prior proceeding
Per University counter affidavit, petitioner scored 62.8 total marks in International Relations, stood 3rd in order of merit; higher-ranked OBC candidates took the UR and OBC seats; petitioner placed on waiting list WL-01.¶3 (quoting counter affidavit para 12)
Prior proceeding
Counter affidavit dated 08.07.2024 filed by respondent Nos.1 & 3 (Registrar and Vice Chancellor, C.U.J.).¶3
Prior proceeding
Supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.08.2025 by respondent Nos.1 & 3 asserted three vacant OBC seats were carried forward and merged with 2024-25 intake (nine seats), admissions completed.¶7 (quoting supplementary counter affidavit para 3)
Prior proceeding
Response dated 13.11.2025 by petitioner disputing any rule/UGC regulation permitting carry-forward of the vacant OBC seats.¶8 (quoting reply para 11)
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 04.02.2026 the Court, finding the carry-forward/de-reservation prima facie wrong, called upon the Registrar to explain and appear in person.¶9
Prior proceeding
Registrar (Mr. K. Kosala Rao) appeared in person on 05.02.2026 and tendered unconditional apology, stating the statement was factually incorrect due to wrong communication from his office.¶9 (contd.)

Amit Kumar Choubey v. Central University of Jharkhand through Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Choubey v. Central University of Jharkhand through Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Hafiz Vs State of Jharkhand

Monika Ekka Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

M/S K.D. Infraengicon Private Limited through Its Director Manzar Imam Khan Vs the Secretary, Department of Road Construction

Bhuneshwar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Land and Revenue

Rameshwar Chakrabarty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt Rupa Nath Shahdeo Alias Rupa Shahdeo Vs State of Jharkhand