Callous Attitude Resulted In Harassment: Bombay HC Imposes Cost Of ₹50k On University For Refusing To Assign Research Guide To Scheduled Caste Scholar

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University for wasting years of a scholar belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category saying that the callous attitude of the officers concerned resulted in frustration and harassment.

The petitioner, in this case, was an aspirant of Doctorate (Ph. D.) in Fine Arts who was denied admission to the Ph. D. programme 2021 vide a communication issued by the university since there was no vacancy with the only research supervisor/guide. He sought direction for extension of validity of the result, declaration of the final merit list and making available research guide from inter disciplinary studies.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Shailesh P. Brahme held, “The respondent No. 2 has not tendered any satisfactory explanation. This is discrimination causing great hardship to the petitioner. This is gross violation of the rules. The petitioner is a meritorious scholar and belongs to reserved category. The respondent No. 2 is responsible for loss of valuable years of the petitioner. We deprecate the conduct of the respondent No. 2 and the officers concerned with the process of admission or R.R.C. Their attitude is callous which has resulted in frustration and harassment. The petitioner was not at fault in the process.”

The Bench said that the minimum which could have been done by the university was to make available guide promptly to avoid an educational loss.

Advocate Swapnil Joshi appeared for the petitioner/scholar while AGP S.G. Sangale and Advocate S.S. Tope appeared for the State and University (respondents) respectively.

Factual Background -

The petitioner belonging to the SC category did his Master in Fine Arts discipline from the respondent university. He appeared for Ph. D. Entrance Test (PET) and secured 91 marks in PET- I and 82 marks in PET – II papers out of 100, of which result was declared on March 20, 2021. The result was valid up to March 16, 2022 as stated in the result sheet and hence, from the declaration of the result, his battle started for securing research guide in Fine Arts. He applied for registration as a research student for degree of doctorate of Ph. D. with a research topic and thereafter, appeared for viva voce in which he secured 60.55 marks out of 70 for presentation and 21.13 marks out of 30 for viva voce. He topped the merit list and was therefore, eligible for Ph. D. programme.

The respondent could not provide a research supervisor to the petitioner for the subject of Fine Arts due to which he made correspondence with it, requesting for making available research supervisor. In the meantime, the validity of the result was extended from March 16, 2022 to June 30, 2022. The petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation made by him. In pursuance of the same, the respondent communicated decision of the committee vide a letter declaring that it was not possible to provide admission to the petitioner for Ph. D. programme for want of vacancies with the research guide. Such a communication was questioned in the petition.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “The petitioner was aware of the period of validity. He was anxious to secure the admission before its expiration. The period expired on 30.06.2022. He could not be accommodated by allotting him to any research supervisor within the period. There is no provision to admit a candidate after stipulated period of validity. … The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any provision from Ordinance 1009 or any norms of UGC providing for admission after period of validity.”

The Court said that the petitioner might not be at fault, but by that itself it cannot be directed to accommodate him post expiration of validity. It further said that there is no provision to exceed the quota.

“The purpose of fixing quota is the job of experts. There is no discretion provided to admit additional scholars. The instances cited above by the petitioner are irregularities, without having any sanctity of the norms and basis of the rules. The petitioner is not entitled to claim parity in the illegality. … It is permissible to allot the petitioner to the research guide of another subject falling in the category of inter disciplinary studies. However, in the wake of our finding recorded earlier that the validity of the performance of the petitioner has expired, we are unable to come to the rescue of the petitioner”, noted the Court.

The Court said that it has to accept the submissions of the counsel for the university that the petitioner has to again appear for the Entrance Examination of PET.

“We therefore deem it appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the respondent No. 2. The university shall be at liberty to recover it from the erring officers by conducting appropriate enquiry. The amount of fine shall be paid to the petitioner”, directed the Court.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the respondent to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks.

Cause Title- Nilesh v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment