Delhi High Court Asks Jamia To Strictly Follow Regulations In PhD Admissions, Questions Holding Of ‘Deliberative Process’ After Award Of Marks For Interview

Questioning AJK Mass Communication Research Centre's action of conducting a “qualitative assessment” after declaration of results of the interview in a PhD programme, the Delhi High Court has said that it “hopes and expects” that Jamia Millia Islamia will conduct admissions strictly as per the procedure laid down under its academic ordinance and regulations.

Denying relief to a candidate aggrieved by denial of admission to Ph.D. programme in AJK Mass Communication Research Centre, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the practice of making such deliberations after award of marks for the interview is contrary to scheme of admission process contemplated under “Ordinance No. 9 (IX), Part I of Ordinances and Regulation (Academic).”

“Court is unable to appreciate why after awarding marks and announcement of results, further assessment was undertaken. Interview is the only time during the entire admission process that merit and suitability of both, candidates and their proposal, are evaluated and assessed,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea moved by Ikra Khan who was denied admission after being provisionally selected for the PhD programme. Her name was deleted in the subsequent final list. She alleged that her selection was final in all respects and the University had denied her admission arbitrarily and in violation of the Ordinance.

The University issued an initial notification on August 11, 2022 containing a list of 19 provisionally selected candidates, including petitioner’s name. The candidates were required to report to office of the Director of Centre for verification or submission of documents and to collect an offer letter.

The CRC held a meeting on August 23, 2022 where further deliberations were held and 11 out of 19 candidates were selected.

On September 12, the petitioner visited the University to complete admission formalities. However, the same day a notification was issued publishing a list of 11 selected candidates who were recommended by the AJK MCR Centre's Research Committee (CRC) and Committee of Studies (CoS). The said notification did not contain petitioner’s name.

Justice Narula noted that as per the Ordinance, comprehensive assessment of candidates of competence is to be done on the basis of the interview, where the candidates discuss their broad research interest or area through a presentation.

The bench observed that the CRC could have continued with internal deliberations after conducting interviews, but not after declaration of results of the interview.

“If the information presented during the interview was not adequate and only a rudimentary assessment could have been done on the basis of material presented by the candidates, then marks should not have been awarded and certainly, a list should not have been published, even so provisionally. This deliberative process which spanned over a period of time, after award of marks, is plainly irregular,” the court said.

Observing that the marks were awarded based on candidate’s competence to pursue research as judged in the interview, the court said that once that was done, subsequent deliberations to ponder upon the competence is a “flawed approach” and a breach of the Ordinance.

The court said since Khan progressed to the stage of interview and reached as far as the Initial Notification, she predictably assumed that admission process is complete and her selection is final. Since the language of notification asks her to complete the formalities, it does give the impression of certainty and thus she has a justifiable reason to draw such an assumption, it added.

“Although the University has defended its action by pleading past practice, yet, in the opinion of Court, Initial Notification ought not have been published, as it is misleading for the candidates and to that extent Court finds this action of the University not to be in conformity with the Ordinance. There is no other provision in the Ordinance which envisages such list to be published while the admission process was still ongoing,” the court said.

However, the court said the "incongruity" cannot be the sole ground to allow the petition, adding that Khan must be able to establish that she was in fact selected or demonstrate manifest irregularity or arbitrariness in the admission process.

The court observed that provisionally selected candidates as per the initial notification was only tentative and not based on complete assessment of her candidature. 

"It has been explained that since marks for written examination were not known to CRC at the time of interview, no merit list was drawn up and no supervisor was assigned to any student. Nevertheless, the Initial Notification although provisional, was issued by CoE based on marks of the interview and written exam. Actual deliberations, as per the University, were conducted on 23rd August, 2022, wherein competence of Petitioner and other candidates to pursue proposed research was assessed and it was weighed whether a supervisor could be assigned to mentor and guide the candidate in their proposed area of research. On the basis of this criteria, CRC finally selected only 11 of 19 candidates, which did not include Petitioner," added the court.

Justice Narula said the list prepared after deliberations held on August 23, 2022 was endorsed by CoS in meeting held on September 1, 2022, and 11 candidates were selected for provisional admission which was sent to CoE and Registrar of University, and published in the impugned notification.

"Thus, the provisionally selected candidates as per Initial Notification were undoubtedly not endorsed by CoS as per paragraph 2(g) of the Ordinance and to that extent Petitioner’s version of decisiveness is not made out. That apart, the final list as per Impugned Notification is also provisional in nature and subject to fulfilment of Ph.D. admission guidelines," said the court.

The court also noted that apart from finding her proposal to be lacking merit, the CRC also rejected her candidature due to lack of a faculty member possessing requisite specialisation in the research area of scholar. The title of the proposal was 'Meme – As A Tool Of Political Communication in India: History Scope & Its Effectiveness'.

“The Court cannot step into merits of reasons for non-selection, which is a subject matter of experts. The admission to the Programme mandates assignment of a supervisor for each candidate. The supervisors have limited number of slots available under them per UGC Guidelines and the expertise of supervisor and topic of research proposal of candidate have to be in congruence for assignment of supervisor and successful completion of Ph.D,” the court said.

The court also observed that congruence between a supervisor’s expertise and candidate’s proposed area of research are critical towards grant of admission as well and that the supervisor holds the responsibility for guiding the scholar from inception to completion in their doctoral project.

“Given the limited seats with supervisors, CRC did not recommend admission for candidates, whose proposals/ interview performance indicated that the topic was too scattered/ inconclusive to determine the area of specialisation; or if plagiarism/ similarity levels were high; or if the candidate did not demonstrate requisite competence to carry out the doctoral project. University/ CRC is in best position to assess the candidature of Petitioner. In absence of any demonstrable malice, Court is not inclined to interfere with University’s final decision qua competence of candidature of Petitioner,” the court said.

The court also said that Khan cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation on the basis of provisional selection, as no offer letter was issued by the varsity.

“For the reasons discussed above, departure from the stipulated admission process is manifest, which the Court disapproves. This finding will perhaps give some consolation to the Petitioner, but not entirely, as the Court finds no compelling ground to grant her any tangible relief. At this stage, annulment of entire admission process, which is complete, would cause extreme hardship to all candidates who have confirmed admissions and are progressing with their Ph.D. programmes,” it observed.

The court said though its finding regarding departure from the stipulated admission process may give some consolation to the petitioner, it does not find any compelling ground to grant her any tangible relief.

"At this stage, annulment of entire admission process, which is complete, would cause extreme hardship to all candidates who have confirmed admissions and are progressing with their Ph.D. programmes. The Court has also considered the relief of granting admission to the Petitioner, without disturbing the admissions already granted, as a seat has been reserved by way of interim order. However, since she has been denied admission both on merits as well as under paragraph 5(a) of the Ordinance, and not because of a malafide action, such a relief also cannot be granted. Moreover, as it turns out, vacancy in Ph.D. programmes refers to not ‘seats’ available at the centre/ department but to number of scholars a Ph.D faculty member can be assigned for supervision," it said.

Advocates Govind Manoharan, Samiksha Godiyal, Nakul Ranjan and Shivalika Rudrabatla appeared for the petitioner.

Standing counsel Pritish Sabharwal appeared for JMI.

Title: IKRA KHAN v. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 40

Click Here To Read Order