Allahabad High Court steps in to “restore the PhD student’s admission”
Last Updated on August 12, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
Justice Alok Mathur observed that substantial research is essential for a developing to a developed nation. It is improper to hamper students from completing their studies due to legal technicalities while they are near completion.
Background
The petitioner, A law graduate was admitted to a PhD program in Sociology from Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University in 2016. In 2021, the petitioner requested more time to submit a report, but his supervisor refused to accept. The student approached the court through the writ, and HC directed the university’s Vice-Chancellor to investigate his case. In October 2022, the university canceled his admission, as he failed to submit a requested affidavit. The student’s lawyer argued that he was properly admitted through the entrance test, while the university’s lawyer claimed that the student hadn’t qualified and didn’t submit the required affidavit, leading to the cancellation of his admission.
Verdict of the High Court
Court observed that the petitioner’s name was given as Ph.D. student for the session 2016-17 and confirmed that he has continued his Ph.D. studies from 2016 to 2022 without dispute.
In the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University The Supreme Court has held that institutions like technical colleges are responsible for wrongful admissions and that students should not suffer because of the mistakes made by these institutions. The court emphasized that students should not be penalized for the mistakes of universities.
Accordingly, Justice Mathur held that the petitioner’s admission to the Ph.D. cannot be canceled after 5 years of study, even in case of initial irregularities. The court stated that possible irregularities during the admission procedure cannot be used as a basis for denying the applicant the possibility to complete the course. Since there was no evidence of misconduct or fraud on the part of the petitioner, the University was not permitted to revoke the admission and was required to consider the petitioner’s request for an extension.
Further, considering the importance of research to national development, the court set aside the cancellation decision and directed the university to review the petitioner’s request for an extension.
Case law: Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disabilities,[WRIT – C No. – 1213 of 2023]
Written By: Kirti Sharma
