Preeti Yadav vs B. Hanumaiyya. Up Kul Pati and Another

Hon''ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Y.S. Lohit, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Applicant''s candidature for pursuing Ph.D. Course from Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University has been considered by the Registrar of the University and given admission to her but on the basis of a complaint, the Head of Department, vide order dated 27.1.2011, cancelled her admission. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has approached the writ Court by filing writ petition No. 1183 of 2011 (M/S). The writ Court, vide order dated 3.3.2011, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 27.1.2011 and further directed the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to pursue her Ph.D. Course in the University on the ground that Registrar is empowered to admit/cancel the admission of any candidate but in the instant case, the Head of Department has lost sight of the aforesaid fact, while passing the order dated 27.1.2011.

Since the applicant has not been allowed to pursue her Ph.D. Course in the University in compliance of the order dated 3.3.2011, as such, the instant criminal proceedings u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been initiated.

Notice was issued and in response thereof, Sri Y.S. Lohit, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the University. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the observations made by the writ Court while passing the order dated 3.3.2011 that Registrar is empowered to admit/cancel the admission of any candidate and not the Head of Department, the Registrar considered the candidature of the applicant afresh and passed the order dated 18.3.2011 and the same has been assailed by the applicant by filing writ petition No. 1901 (M/S) of 2011.

Sri Y.S. Lohit, learned Counsel for the University submits that applicant was not eligible for doing Ph.d. Course insofar as she does not possess the minimum 55% marks required in Ph.D. Regulations 1999 prevalent at the time of her admission as Ph.d. Scholer and as such, it is not said that the cancellation of admission was illegal. He submits that in her application form, applicant herself mentioned 53.7% as the "Marks obtained at the last Qualifying Examination" and made declaration to this effect that the "authorities will have the right to punish me in any manner, they deem proper including cancellation of registration, if I fail to abide by the declaration" and that "I agree to abide by the rules of the University including those relating to requirement of admission, attendance, discipline and examination..." He submits that Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Regulation issued by the Registrar on 10.12.2008, after modification/amendment on them, Regulation 1999 notified on 18.9.2001 by the Registrar. Regulation 1999 and the amended Ph.d. Regulation 2008 were adopted in the meeting held on 7.11.2008. Regulation 1.1 provides that it "shall be implemented from the date of notification". Thus, it is not retrospective. Therefore it is not applicable in the case of the applicant insofar as applicant has sought admission on the basis of the order dated 15.4.2006 obtained from the Head of Department of Applied Plant Science (Horticulture) but applicant''s counsel contended before the writ Court that it is only the Registrar, who is empowered to admit or cancel the admission and not the Head of Department.

Sri Y.S. Lohit further submits that in view of Regulation 3.2 of Ph.D. Regulation 1999, governing the admission of Ph.D. Scholar, candidates, who belongs to General Category/OBC and secured 55% or equivalent point average in the qualifying examination and the candidates who belongs to S.C./S.T. category and secured 50% point average in the qualifying examination, shall be eligible for Ph.D. registration but as the applicant did not obtain 55% marks, her candidature has been cancelled. Even otherwise, the applicant has filed the instant contempt petition by concealing the fact that after the order 3.3.2011 passed by the writ Court, Registrar has passed an order dated 18.3.2011, which has been assailed in writ petition No. 1901 of 2011 (M/S).

Admittedly, the applicant has concealed the fact that after the order 3.3.2011 passed by the writ Court, Registrar has passed an order dated 18.3.2011, which has been assailed in writ petition No. 1901 of 2011 (M/S) and in such a situation, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the appellant tenure-holders is amazing. The appellants efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts got transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot, but treated as reprehensible. In view of the above, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices to opposite parties are hereby discharged.