Dismissed

J.Vijendar v. The Union of India

Telangana HC10 Apr 2023WP/34543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged Osmania University's Ph.D. admission notifications under three categories. The court held the categorization valid under UGC Regulations, found no procedural irregularity, and dismissed the petitions, noting that some petitioners had participated in the process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed.

J.Vijendar Vs The Union of India — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2023)

I\ Y : i t

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

; t t t ) -l

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶8

W.P.No.34543 of 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

J.Vijendar, S/o. J.Pandu, aged about^{28 years, Occ} ;-^{Student, R/o.H.No.4-22,} Venkatraopet Village, Talakondapalli^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶11

P.Ramesh, S/o. P.Narasimha Rao, aged^{about34 years,Occ : Student,} R/o.H.No.1-4, Madhira, Khammam District.

¶12

G.Narender, S/o. G.Pentaiah, aged^{about 26 years,Occ} ;^{Research_Scholar,} R/o.Room No.56, Old P.G.Hostel, O.U.^{Campus, Hyderabad - 500007.}

¶13

K.Sharath Naik, S/o. Shankar Naik, aged^{about 27 years,Occ - Student,} R/o. Room No.328, New Godavari^{HostetO.U. Campus, Hyderabad - 500 007}

¶14

V.Ashok, s/o. V.Khubya Naik,^{Aged about 28 yearg,} _Qq.-;_Student,^R/o. Room No.20, Sports H6stel, O.U.^{Campus, Hyderabad- 500 007.}

¶15

P.Chandrasekhar, S/o.^{P.Venkataiah,Aged about 29 years,Occ : Student,} R/o.H.No.1-190, Chityala Village and^{Mandal, NalgondB District.}

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

The Union of lndia, Ministry of^{Education, Rep.by its Secretary, New Delhi-} 1 10 001

¶19

The University Grants Commission,^{Rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi - 110} 001.

¶20

The Osmania University, Rep.^{by its RegistrarO.U. Campus, Hyderabad-} 500 007.

¶21

The Osmania University, Rep.^{by its Director of AdmissionsO.U. Campus,} Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶22

The Dean Faculty of Arts,^{Osmania University,O.U. Campus, Hyderabad -} 500 007.

¶23

o. The Dean Faculty of^{Social Sciences, OsmaniaUniversity, O.U. Campus,} Hyderabad 500^007.

¶24

The Dean Faculty of Education, Osmania University, 0.U. Campus, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶25

The Dean Faculty of Science. Osmania University, O.U.^{Campus,Hyderabad} - 500 007

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction. more^{particularly one in the natureof} a writ of Mandamus declaring^{the action of 4th respondentin issuingimpugned} Notification Ph.D. Entrance^{Test-2022for Ph.D. Entrance Test-2022 under} category-ll in various^{subjectsof different facultiesdated01.08.2022and} cons;quent Notifications^{issued by the respondents 5 to 8'in} 81q991.91g^'tqS9'y I the Notification was issued^{beiring No.472DSS/Ph.D./JRF/OU/2022 dated} 01 .08.2022 in respect of^{Faculty of Social sciences,Notificationbearing} No.280lDAt2O22-23tJRFlPh.D.l2O22^{dated 01.08.2022 in respectof the Faculty} of Arts, Notification bearing^{no.173/DEAN/FOE\OU|2022dated01.08.2022in} respect of Faculty of Education^{andNotificationNo. 1258/DFSclOUl2022 dated} o1 .'08.2022 in respect of^{Faculty of Science as arbitrary, illegal,u nconstitutional,} against the^{principles of naturaljusticeand set aside the same'}

¶28

¶29

:1 OF 2022

¶30

Petition Under section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High co,urt may be pleased-to} suspend the operation^{of 'tire impugned Notif(cation Ph.D. EntranceT est-2022 for} ph.b. Entranc e f es(2022 under Category-ll in various subjects of different faculties dated 01.08.2022^{issued by the fourth respondent and consequent} Notifications issued^{by the respondents 5 to 8 in respectof} ,Cate-g-o-ry | lhe Notification was issued^{bearing No.472DSS/Ph.D./JRF/OU12O22daled} 01 .08.2022 in respect of^{Faculty of social sciences,Notificationbearing} No.2BOtDAl2O22-2ilJRF/Ph.D.l2O22^{dated 01.08.2022 in respectof the Faculty} of Arts, Notification bearing^{no.173/DEAN/FOE|OU|2022dated01.08.2022in} respect of Facutty of Educalion^{andNotification No.1258/DFSc/OU/2022dated} 01 .08.2022 in respect of^{Facultyof Science, pending disposalof the above writ} petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI.P.B.VIJAY^{KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR} Ms.A.V.S.LAXMl AND Ms.K.V.RAJASREE

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1 : SMT.B.KAVITHA YADAV}

¶33

Counset for the Respondent No.2 : Ms.MEGHARANI^{AGARWAL, SC FOR} UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION / AGP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 8 : SRI.CH.JAGANNATHA RAO, SC FOR OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

¶35

W.P.NO: 4251 OF 2023

¶36

Between:

¶37

Bairu Nagaraju, S/o. Narasimha, aged^{about 29} .years,^O.9 ;^Student, R/o.H.No.Z-153, Thallavellamla Village,^{ChtyalaMandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶38

V.Ashok, S/o. V.KhubyaNaik, Aged^{about 28 years, Occ} ;Student,^Nagdhar Village, Kalhasr Mandal, Sanga Reddy^District.

¶39

Podili Ramesh, S/o. P.Narasimha Rao, aged^{about 34 years, Occ . Student,} R/o.Madupai Village, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District.

¶40

Aelpukonda Ramakrishna, S/o. Venkataiah Aged about^{26 years, Occ} ;Student,^{R/o. 3-190, Chikatayapalem Village, Thorrur Mandal,Mahabubabad} District.

¶41

SompangiAkjhil Kumar, S/o.Maisaiah, aged about 27^years, Occ ;^Student, R/o.Namavaram Village, Mothey Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶42

Pallepu Chandrasekhar, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged about 29^{years, Occ} ; Student, R/o.H.No.1-190, Venkateswara Colony, Chityala, Chityala^ttlandal, Nalgonda District.

¶43

Chatari Dasharath, S/o. Kistaiah, aged about 27^years, Occ ;^Student, Rlo.2-107, Kowkuntla Village, Chevella Mandal, Vikarabad District.

¶44

D.Suresh, S/o. Laxmanna, Aged abour 38^years, Occ ; Student, R/o.^5-13/6, Mothakpalli Village, Narsapur Mandal, Nirmal District.^.

¶45

...PETITIONERS

¶46

AND

¶47

The Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar O.U. Campus, Hyderabad .- 500 007.

¶48

The Executive Council, Osmania University, rep. by its Chairman, O.U., Campus, Hyderabad-500007.

¶49

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Education, Rep. by its Secretary,^{New Delhi -} 1 10 001.

¶50

The University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, New^{Delhi - 110} 001.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more^particularly one in the nature^of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the^{action of 1st RespondentUniversity in} issuing impugned Notification Ph.D. Entrance^{Test-2022for Ph.D.Entrance Test-} 2022 under Category-ll in various subjects of^{differentfaculties dated01.08.2022} and consequent Notifications issued in respect of^{CategoryI bearingNo.472} DSS/Ph.D:/ JRF/OU12022 dated 01.08.2022 in respect of^{Faculty of Social} Sciences, Notification bearing No.280/DA12022-^{23lJRF/Ph.D.12022dated}

¶53

O'l .08.2022 in respect of the Faculty of Arts,^{Notificationbearing} no.173/DEAN/FOE|OU|2O22 dated 01 08.2022 in respect^{of Faculty of Education} and Notification No.125BIDFSctOUl2OZ2 dated^{0'l .08.2022 in respectof Faculty} of Science as arbitrary, illegal, u nconstitutional, against^{the principlesof natural} justice and by nullifying the same direct the Respondents to issue^fresh notification in tuen with the UGC Regulatlons,2016.

¶54

A.NO:1 23

¶55

Petition Under section 151 cPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court may be pleased to} suspend the interview to^{be conductedfor admission into PhD Courseunder} category-ll in various^{subjectsof different faculties and the admissionsdonein} Catelory-l vide Notification^{No.472 DSS/Ph.D./JRFlOUl2022daled 01 .08.2022,} ruo.z6o6Rlzoz2- 23tJRFtPh.D.l2o22^{dated 01.08.2022, no.173/DEAN/FOE/} OU12O22 dated⁰¹ .08.2022,^{No.1258lDFSc/OU/2022 dated0'l .O8'2022and} similar in different faculties^{in the Respondent-university, pending disposal of the} above writ^petition.

¶56

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: Ms.A.V.S.LAXMI}

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2 : SRI.CH.JAGANNATHA RAO (SC FOR} osMANlA UNIVERSITY)

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent^{No'3 : SRI.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR}

¶59

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4 : Ms.MEGHARANIAGARWAL, SC FOR} UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

Between:

1 . Budiqe Suman, S/o.^{Galaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ ;} -Student, R/o.ti.No.2-21, Guruvannapet^{village, KomaravellyMandal, Siddipet District'}

¶64

1. M. Swaroopa, D/o. Balaiah,^{Aged about 3! years,Occ} ;^{Student,Ranajol} Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sanga^{Reddy District.}

¶65

J.Kiran, S/o. Rajaiah,^{aged about 36 years, Occ} ;^{Student,Rl/o, Katrapally} Village, Shayampet Mandal, Hanamkonda^Diskict.

¶66

Surampalli Parsharamulu,^{S/o.Venkataiah,Age! about 37} ..yeqr!r .qc9^; Studerit, R/o.1-103, Gouravelli^{village,Akkannapet Mandal, Siddipet District.}

¶67

AND

¶68

The Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar O.U. Campus, Hyderabad - 500 oo7.

¶69

The Executive Council. Osmania University, rep. by its Chairman, O.U., Campus, Hyderabad-S0O007.

¶70

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Education, Rep. by its Secretary, New^Delhi- 1 10 001.

¶71

The University Grants Commission,^Rep. by^{its Secretary, New Delhi -} 110001

¶72

...RESPONDENTS

¶73

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more^particularly one^{in the natllre of} a WRIT-OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of^{'lst RespondentUniversity in} issuing impugned Notification Ph.D. Entrance^{Test-2022for Ph.D. Entrance Test-} 2022 under Category-ll in various subjects of^{differentfaculties includingTelugu} Department dated 01.08.2022 and consequent Notifications^{issuedin respectof} Category I Notification bearing No.280/DA12022-^{23l3RFlPh.D.l2022dated} 01.08.2022 issued by the Dean, Faculty of Arts, as^{arbitrary, illegal,} unconstitutional, against the^principles of natural^{justice. and by nullifyingthe} same direct the Respondents to issue fresh notification^{in tune with the UGC} Regulations, 2016.

¶74

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶75

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto suspend the interview to be conducted for admission into PhD^Courseunder Category-ll in Telugu subject and the admissions done in Category-l^vide proceed ings No. 3201D AlPh. D/J RF/N FSC/NFOBCI OU 12022 datedl 3-09- 2022in the Respondent-University,^pending disposal of the^{abovewrit petition.}

¶76

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.A.V.S.LAXMI

¶77

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l & 2 : SRI.CH.JAGANNATHA^{RAO (SC FOR} osMANrA UNTVERSITY)

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI.GADI PRAVEEN^KUMAR

¶79

Counsdl for the Respondent No.4 : Ms.MEGHARANI AGARWAL,^{SC FOR} UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

¶80

W.P.NO:9384 OF 2023

¶81

Between:

¶82

a Reddy Sateesh, S/o. Ailaiah, aged about 33^years, Occ ; Student,^{R/o.H.No.3-41,} Kondapur, Chirugumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶83

.PETITIONER

¶84

AND

¶85

The Osmania University, rep. by its Registrar O.U. Campus, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶86

The Executive Council, Osmania University, rep. by its Chairman, O.U., Campus, Hyderabad-500007.

¶87

The Dean, Faculty of Oriental Languages, Osmania^{University, O.U.Campus,} Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶88

The Union of lndia, Ministry of Education Rep. by its^{Secretary, New Delhi -} 1 10 001

¶89

The University Grants Commission,^{Rep. by its Secretary, NewDelhi - 110} 001.

¶90

...RESPONDENTS

¶91

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to issues any Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature^of MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondent University in^{issuing impugned} Notification Ph.D. Entrance Test-2022 for Ph.D. Entrahce Test-2O22^under Category-ll in Department of Telugu, Faculty of Oriental Languages^dated 01.08.2022 and consequent^process of selection of students^{for admission into} Department of Telugu, Faculty of Oriental Languages as arbitrary,^illegal, unconstitutional, against the^principles of natural^justice and by^{nullifyingthe} same direct the Respondents to issue fresh notification in tune^{with the, UGC} Regulations, 2016 giving first priority to Oriental students in admission^{into PhD} course in Telugu, Faculty of Oriental Languages.

¶92

I.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶93

Petition Under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto suspend the admissions made into Department of Telu$u, Faculty of^Oriental Languages, in the Respondent-University, pending disposal of the above^writ petition.

¶94

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.A.V.S.LAXMI

¶95

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : SRI.CH.JAGANNATHA RAO^(SC FOR osMANrA UNIVERSTTY)

¶96

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI.GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶97

counsel for the Respondent No.S : Ms.MEGHARANI AGARWAL, sc FoR UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

¶98

The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

¶99

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICB K. LAKSHMAN NN oF

¶100

COMMON ORDER:

¶101

The /ls involved in these writ petitions is one and the sanre. Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this common order.

¶102

Heard Sri P.B.vijay Kumar, rearned Senior counsel. representing Ms.A.V.S.l,axrni, and Ms.K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri ch.Jaganrratha Rao, learned Standing counsel tbr osmania University. Ms. Megharani Aganval, learned Standing counsel appearing for thc [,lniversity Grants. commission and learned r\sst.Govt.Pleader fbr I ligher Education. perused the record.

¶103

These writ petitions are filed to tleclare the action of Osmania University in issuing ir,pugned Notification .for ph.D. Entrance Test2022 under Category"ll in rarious subjects of different Faculties dated 01.08.2022 and consequent notifications issued by respondent Nos...s to 8, in respect of category-l Notification No.4TzlDSS/r)h.D/JRF'/olli 2022. dated 01.08.2022 in respect of the lraculty of social sciences; Notification No.280 /D Alzaz2-231 iR* tph.D.lzTzz dateci 0t .08.2022 in respect of Facuhy uf Arts; Notitication bearing No.l73IDEANVFOE/ \a

I I I I I -.1

otJl2o22 dated^{01.08.2022in respect of Faculty of Education;} Notification^{No.1258/DFSclOtJl2022 dated 01.08.2022in respect of} Faculty of^{scienceas illegal and set asidethe same and to direct fresh} notification.

¶108

4-a. In W.P.No.3^{4543 of 2022 there are six petitioners, all of} them have^{completed Post Graduation in differentsubjects. 1't and 3'd} petitioners^{are Post-Graduates in Telugu,Zndpetitioneris in Journalism'} 4th petitioner^{in Chemistry,5'h petitioncr in Physical Educationand 6th} petitioner in ArchaeologY.

¶109

4.b. In W.P.No.425l^{of 2023, there are 8 petitioners, all of them} have completed^{Post-Graduation in various subjects' 1't petitioner in} Sociology ,^{Zno petitioner in Physical Education, 3'o petitioner in} Communication^{and Journalism,4th petitionerin Sanskrit, 5th petitioner} in Zoology,^{6th petitionerin Archeology,7th petitioner in linguisticsand}

¶110

8th petitioner^{in Chemistry.}

¶111

4-c.In W.P.No.5665^{of 2023, thereare 4 petitioners and all of} them have^{completed Post-Graduation in Telugu subject.}

¶112

4-d. In W.P.No.9384^{of 2023, the petitionerhas completedPost-} Graduation in Telugu^{language with M.A.(L) from Faculty of oriental}

¶113

¶114

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

¶115

Languages.

¶116

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

¶117

Dr.P.B. v,jay 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:-

¶118

i. Inviting the applications separately and categorization is

¶119

illegal and in vioration of University Grants commission (Minimum standards and procedure for Award of

¶120

M.Phil/ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2016 (for shorr, the Regulations, 2016')

¶121

ii. The Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) is only to give financial assistance to students to secure employment, whereas, the^ph.D. Programme is fbr 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

¶122

.^'- 1

¶123

i .Et 'l I III '\L. \tr: -qII

¶124

¶125

¶126

then, respondents have^{devised a separaternethodologyof} categorization of^{perspective students as Category-l, Il} ANd III.

¶127

iii. Deans of the^{Facultyof respondentUniversityhas issued} notification in^{respect of Category-l,whereasDirector of} Admissions of^{Osmania University issued Notification} dated 01.08.2022^{under category-tland the sameare in} violation of the^{Regulations, 2016. The respondent} University framed^{syllabusfor entranceexamination of the} Ph.D. course in different^{subjectscontrary to the} Regulations, 2016.^{The Research methodologyhas no} place in the syllabus^{framed. Thus, the admission process} is contrary to the^{UGC Regulations, 2016'}

¶128

Whereas, respondent^{Universitycontended that it has power to} decide separate^{terms and conditions for Ph.D.entrancetest for those} students who^{qualiff UGC-NET (Including JRF)ruGC-CSIR NET} (tncluding JRFysLETlGATElteacher^{fellowshipholder 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.

¶129

¶130

¶131

As per the said Rules, University has decided the

¶132

Admission/Registration into Ph.D. Programme in three broad categories i.e. Category-I, Category-ll and Category-Ill. 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.

¶133

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.Fhil and Ph.D.programmes, in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 26(r) (0 and (g) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. In supersession of the said Regulations, the UGC vide notification F.No. r-3/z0zl(elp), dated 07.11 .2022 had issued UGC Regulations,z\22. perusal of both the old and new Regulations would reveal that there are certain changes in the

¶134

; &. i I i , I -. \ltI

¶135

¶136

new Regulations i.e. Regulations, 2022. The^{impugnednotificationis}

¶137

dated 01.08.2022 and therefbre, the^{Regulations, 2016 are applicable.}

¶138

However, both the Regulations^{deals with the procedurefor admissions.}

¶139

Regulation No.5 Regulations,^{2016 is relevantfor the purpose of the}

¶140

present case and the same^is extracted^below:-

¶141

Procedure for Admission:-

¶142

All Universities and^{InstitutionsDeemedto be Universitiesshall admit} M.PhiyPh.D students^{through an Entrance Test conducted at the levelof} Individual University/lnstitution^{Deemed to be aUniversity'The} University/lnstitution^{Deemed to be a University may decideseparateterms} and condition for Ph.D.^{Entrance Test for thosestudents who qualilyIJCC-} NET (including JRFyUGC-CSIR^{NET (lncluding.IRF)/SLET/GATEi} Teacher Fellowship^{holder or have passedM.Phil Programmc. Similar} approach may be^{adopted in respect of Entrance'fest fbr M.Phil} programme.

¶143

5.2. Higher Educational^{tnstitutions(HEIs) referred to in sub-clausel'2} above and Colleges^{underthem which are allowed to conductM'Phil} and/or Ph.D.^{programmes,shall;}

¶144

5.2.1. decide on an^{annualbasisthroughtheir academic bodiesa pre-} determined and^{manageablenumber 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 normsregardingthe scholar-teacherratio (as} inaicatia in^{Para6.5), laboratory, library andsuch other facilities;}

¶145

5.2.2. notiff^{rvellin advancein the institutional website andthrough} advertisement in^{at least two (2) national newspapers,of whichat} least one (l) shall^{be in the regional language, the numberof seats for} admission, subject/discipline-wise^{distributionof availableseats,} criteria for admission,^{procedurefor admission,examinationcentre(s)} where entrance test(s)^{shall be conductedand all other relevant} information for the^{benefit of the candidates;}

¶146

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

¶147

",b

¶148

¶149

r ! I I tI Ii I I I 3 I Ii Ii I: i

¶150

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 Govemment from time to time.

¶151

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

¶152

5.4.1: An Entrance Test shall be qualifying with qualifying marks as 50Yo, 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

¶153

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.

¶154

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

¶155

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

¶156

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

¶157

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

¶158

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 hisftrer research, name of his/her supervisor/co-supervisor, date of enro lment/registration.

¶159

Thus, the respondent University is having power to decide separate

¶160

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

¶161

quali$/ UGC-NET (including JRF)AIGC-CSIR NET (Including JRFy

¶162

sLET/GATE/Teacher Fellowship holder or have passed M.phil

¶163

i 'I I 't'*','',' I I .1

¶164

¶165

Programme. Sirnilar approach may be^{adopted in respectof Entrance} Test for M.Phil programme. By^{invoking the said provisions,the} respondent University had issued^{Ph.D. Rules and Regulationsw.e.f. the} year 2022.

¶166

Regulation No.4 of the^{said Regulations,2022deals with the}

¶167

Ph.D. admissions and the same^{is extractedbelow:-}

¶168

4.1: The Deans of the^{facultiesshall invite the applications for} Ph.D.Programme from eligible^{candidates and shall provisionallyadmitthe} candidatei based on merit-cum-statutory^{reservations againstthe notified} vacancies of which 50% is^{demarcatedfor category-l and 50% for} category-li. category-lll^{is on supernumerarybasis.In caseof a tie, thc} o.deioimerit will^{be decided based on the age of the candidate (seniorin} age will be^getting higher^priority).

¶169

4.2: The admission/registration^{into Ph.D.Program is madein threc} load categories as^follows:

¶170

4.2. I : Catesorv-1^{(ResearchFellowship Holders).}

¶171

These candidates are admitted^{directly into the Ph.D. Programby following} the procedure mentioned^{as under:}

¶172

a) The Dean of the^{concemedFaculty shallissue a notification twice in an} academic^year by^{callingapplications for Ph.D. admissionfromJunior} Research Fellowship^{holders (UGC/CSIR/ICAR/ICMR/DBTor DST.} INSPIRE or FIP/QIP^{TeacherFellowships)as Category-I'}

¶173

b) The research^{fellowshipholder shall submita filled in application form} to the Dean of^{the Faculty concerned withnecessaryrequired documents}

¶174

c) The Ph.D. Admission^{Committee/Departmental Research Committee} interviews (Annexure-I)^{these candidatesand the candidateexplains the} research interests after^{which the committeeallots him/hera research} supervisor in the area ofinterest^{ofthe candidate and generallybased on the} specialization of the research supervisor^{and availability of the vacancies.}

¶175

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

¶176

¶177

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

¶178

e) The candidates with research fellowships admitred inro the ph.D Program must work only as Full-time Research Scholars.

¶179

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

¶180

4.2.2. Cateeorv-Il Candidates

¶181

a. The category-ll 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.

¶182

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

¶183

c' The list of provisionally admined candidates shall be senr to the Dean of the concerned Faculty for finarizing the admissions b,v the ph.D. Admission committee -/ Departmental Research committee for the purpose of allotment of Supervisor and finalization of research arealtopic thrtugh an interview with the provisionally selected carididates

¶184

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

¶185

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

¶186

4.2.3 Category-Ill Candidates

¶187

The Category-Ill candidates include:

¶188

a. Foreign scholars: one eligible foreign scholar shall be allotted to each supervisor (or a maximum of two) on supemumerary basis, on receipt of a requisition application received from the University Foreign Reiations office (uFRo), and on the recommendation of the Dipartmental Research Committee concemed.

b. Corporatei industry/ Professional^{Candidatesetc. To forge collaboration} betvveen the Govt/Corporatc/lndustry^{and the University. one eligible} candidatc anlong the foltowing^{categoriesshallbe allottedto each} supervisor on supernumerary^{basisas under:-}

¶193

i. Civil Servants working in^{the Government not belowthe cadre of} Joint SecretarY.

¶194

ii. Scientists / Researchers^{working in National/lnternationallevel} scientific organizations^{not less than the rank of Scientist-D.}

¶195

iii. InternationalAtrational/State^{level top publicsectororganizations} working in the rank not^{less than the GeneralManager'}

¶196

iv. Defense^{personnelin service with not below the rankof Wing} Commander / Captain^{(l'lavy) / Colonel.}

¶197

v. working personnel in Private^{organizations with annual} turnover not less than^{Rs.lQ0crores and with the positionnot} Iess than Vice-President.

¶198

vi. Serving or retired^{Judges withnotlessthan the rankof Judgesof} High Court of the State

¶199

The fee payable by^{these categoriesof the candidates shall be as per the} University Rules^{issued from timeto time.'}

¶200

The applicants in the^{Category-lllshall approach the Dean of the concerned} Faculiy along^{with the necessaryproposal and documents,and the} adrnisiion shall be^{given as per the Rules applicable on the} recommendation of^{the Departmental Research Committee concerned.}

¶201

The candidates falling^{underthe category-Ill shall be exemptedfrom the} Ph.D. Entrance Test.

¶202

As per Regulation^{5.2.1 of Regulations, numberof M.Phil}

¶203

and/or Ph.D. scholars^{to be admitted dependingon the number of} available Research^{Supervisors *i} other academic and^physical facilities available,^{keeping in mind the norms regardingthe scholar-} teacher ratio.

¶204

ln 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 ie the

¶205

¶206

available vacancies in the respective departments shall be made allotted in the ratio of 50:50 for Category-I and category-Il. 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.

¶207

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 Regulatio ns 2022, it came into force a little later to the nodfications issued by the 2nd respondent. There is no mention about any such categorization.

¶208

l'4. lt is the further contention of the petitioners that the JRF and other Fellowships are only for extending financial assistance to the

¶209

,ir:, \

¶210

¶211

students to secure employlnent, wl'rereas, 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 fellowshipwill be} cancelled. Thus, it is very clear that JRF^{candidates are not a separate} and distinct category and they have to take the^{mainstreamPh.D.} entrance examination. However,^{respondent University for the reasons} best known has devised a separate^{methodology categorizingthe} perspective students as Category-I, II and III. The^{said categor\zationts} illegal and contrary to the LIGC Regulations,^2016.

¶212

It is the specific contention of the respondent^{University that} the FIEIs are under decentralization of^{power and were madethese} admissions under category-Il, III and I^{and the Universityis continuing} the system already existed in terms of^{RegulationNo.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 concemed^and taking into account the reservation policy of the Central/State Government from time to time. Thus, the respondent University had issued notification for

¶213

¶214

admissions in all three categories. The notifications are strictly in accordance with Regulation No.5 of the Regulations,20l6 and2022.

¶215

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/ICI{R/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.

¶216

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 UGCNET (Including JRFyUGC-CSIR NET (Including JRF)/SLETIGATE/ teacher fellowship holder or have passed M.Phil. Programme. As per Regulation 5.3 of Regulations, 2016, the adrnission 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 starutory bodies concerned, and taking into account, the reservation policy of the Central/State Government from time to time. In terms of Regutation 5.1 of the Regulations,20l6, the respondent University has issued

¶217

¶218

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

¶219

procedure for admission into Ph.D. courses.

¶220

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 categorywise.

¶221

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 inegularity in issuing notification by the Deans. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that the Deans are not having powers to issue notifications is untenable.

¶222

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 concemed subjects from the University

¶223

¶224

¶225

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

¶226

Osmania University does not^{includeresearch methodology as a subject} at Post Graduation Level. In order^{to maintainuniformityin the entrance} examination, the University has decided the^{syllabusexcluding} Research methodology. However, the same is introduced in^Ph.D. course work. The Scholars taking admission into Ph.D. Programmeⁱⁿ Category-Ill has to be approved by the Departmental Research Committee along with the recommendation of the Deans of the Concerned Faculty. The Supervisors alloffed 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.

¶227

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.

¶228

¶229

The petitioners^{in W.I'}.No.34543of 2022 havingraisedthe} aforesaid syllabus^{issue but they havechallenged only with regard to} categorization.

¶230

23.lt is the specific^{contention of the respondent Universitythat} its Standing^{Committee of Academic Senatein its meeting held on} 29.07.2022^{has passed resolutionthat the the available vacancies in the} respective^{departmentsshall be allotted in the ratio of 50: 50 for} category-I and^{admissions.Therefore, accordingto the respondent} university,^{they have framedthe Rules as per the UGC Regulations,} 2}l6and they^{have issued the albresaidnotificationsCategory-wise'}

¶231

There are^{16 clear vacancies in TeluguDepartmentwhere} 7+1(Physically^{challenged person was adrnitted at later stage) in total 8,} Ph.D. admissions^{and were made under category-[ and remaining} vacancies will^{be filledas per provisions. The University will regularly} notiff its Academic^{Excellency including admissions for different} courses on their^{Institutionalwebsite i.e. www.osmania.ac.inin addition to} display of the^{hard copies on the noticeboards of the concerned} Departments and^{Faculties. University has displayed 8 vacanciesin} Telugu subject on its^website. It^{was clearly mentioned in the} notification released in local and national newspapers asking the

¶232

lt^r>

¶233

¶234

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.

¶235

25.|t 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 respohdent University has issued the said notification in the Hindu

¶236

¶237

:i -. It I ,I ..{'q,II

¶238

Iti

¶239

(English Daily),^{Namasthe-felangana (Telugu Daily)and Siasat (Urdu} Daily)on03.08.zLLz.Therefore,thecontentionofthelearnedSenior CounselthattherespondentUniversityhasnotpublishednotificatiotrin thenewspapersisunsustainable.Inthesaidnotifrcations,thereis specific^{mention about the request made by the Universityto the} students^{to visit the website and know the details of the Entrance Test} etc.,arespecificallymentioned.ThereforeaccordingtothisCourt,there is no irregularitY^{in the same}

¶240

26.SriCh.JagannathaRao,leamedstandingcounselappearlng

¶241

forosmaniauniversitywouldsubmitthatthepetitionersin W.P.No.5665of2023and425|of2023havingparticipatedinthe selectionprocesscannotchallengethenotification.Hehasalsoplaced reliance^{on the principte laid downby the ApexCourt in Ranjan Kumar} Vs.StateofBiharlandD.SarojakumariVs.R.HelenThilakom2.[n RanjanKumar(supra),theApexCourtrelyingontheearlierjudgments in Indu^{Shekhar singh vs. state of u.P.3 including judgment in union of} India^{vs. s.vinodKumarnheld that those candidates who have taken} part in^{the selection process knowingfully well to the procedure laid}

¶242

' 1zott116^{scc 187} 2 atR 2ot7 sc 458. '(zooo)^{8scc 129} o 1zoot1 8 scc too

down were not entitled to question the same. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in D.Sarojakumari (supra).

¶247

As discussed supra, the petitioners in w.p.Nos. s66s and, 425r of 2023 have participated in the serection process and therefore, they cannot now turn around and chalrenge the notification itserf.

¶248

28' whereas, Dr.p.B.vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel referring to principre raid down by the Apex court in Dr.(Major) Meeta sahai vs. state of Bihars and in Krishna Rai (dead) through L.Rs. vs. Banaras Hindu University trrrough Registra16, would submit that estoppel does not operate against law.

¶249

29' In Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), an advertisement was published by the Bihar public Service commission (hereinafter, "commission") in various locar newspapers on rg.07.20r4, inviting applications from eligibre candidates for filring up 2301 vacant posts of General Medical officer in Bihar. The advertisement issued by the commission to the extent it mandated that onry work experience in hospitals of Government of Bihar shalr be considered for awarding marks for 'work experience', the petitioner therein having participated in the selection process, having failed in getting selected, challenged the

¶250

t lzote;20 scc I7

¶251

u 2022 LiveLiw (SC) 553

¶252

¶253

very^{notificationitself. The petitionerthereinwas having work} experience^{in Army hospital, which was not considered since as per the} said^{notificationwork experiencein hospitalsof Governmentof Bihar} only^{considered for awarding marksfor work experience'The Apex} Court^{on considering construction ofinterpretationofstatutes'} grammatical^{constructionof objects etc., held that interpretation of} statute^{or rule is the exclusive domain of Courts,and given the scopeof} judicial review^{in delineating such criteria,the appellant's challenge} cannot^{be turned down at the threshold.The appellant challengeto the} maintainability^{and estoppelsis not applicable'}

¶254

¶255

Whereas,^{in the present case, the facts are different'The} petitioners^{are challengingthe notificationsmainly on categorization} and^{syllabus etc. There is no violation of any procedure by the} respondent^{Universitywith regard to the admissionsinto Ph'D' course'} Therefore,^{the principlelaid down therein is not applicable to the facts} ofthe Present^case'

¶256

In^{Krishna Roy (supra),the Apex Court consideredthe} eligibility^{criteria prescribed in the statutory Service Rules for procedure} of promotion^{of Class-IVemployeesto Class III working in the Banaras} Hindu University. There was violation of procedure laid down in the

i i I I I

said statutory service rures. 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.

¶261

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.

¶262