National assets nothing but quality of population: Jharkhand High Court directs varsity to grant admission to PhD aspirant

Emphasising the state’s responsibility to enhance the quality of population, the court noted that it must take the endeavour to do so as it is mandated under Part IV of the Constitution of India.

“Enhancing the quality of population is the duty of the State and they have to take all the endeavour and it has also been mandated under the Constitution of India especially, in Part IV i.e. the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP),” the order read.

The Jharkhand High Court, therefore, directed the university to admit the student within three weeks.

Part IV of Constitution

Part IV of the Indian Constitution covers Articles 36 to 51 and outlines the directive principles of state policy. These principles serve as guidelines for the government to promote social, economic, and political justice.

Background

• CUJ had issued an advertisement in July 2023 inviting applications for PhD admissions.
• The petitioner qualified the entrance examination, appeared for interviews in both political science and public administration and international relations.
• After the interview was conducted, the result was published, however, the name of the petitioner was not in the list of qualified applicants.
• The petitioner approached the Jharkhand High Court claiming that the seats were still vacant, but he had been wrongly denied admission.
• The university argued that the first-ranked candidate was offered admission under the unreserved category, the second-ranked candidate under the OBC category, and the petitioner was placed on the waiting list. It further claimed that the remaining OBC seats were carried forward and merged with the intake of the next academic session.
• The petitioner disputed this claim, arguing that there was no rule or UGC regulation permitting the carry forward of vacant seats.
• The counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no concept of carry forward of the vacant seat.
• It was further contended that, admittedly, one seat was available but none of the candidates were available, save and except the petitioner. It was submitted that the candidature of the petitioner should have been accepted, allowing him to take admission.

Findings

• Factually the seat being carried forward and de-reserved and offered to the general category candidate in the next academic sessions, appears to be prima facie wrong.
• The registrar of the university has appeared in person and he has tendered unconditional apology, stating that the statement is factually incorrect and that the mistake has crept in due to the wrong communication given by his office.
• It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been denied a seat by navigating in a manner, which is not acceptable to the rule of law.
• Not only the factually incorrect statements have been made by the respondents, but a seat has also been wrongly denied to the petitioner in spite of litigation and several opportunities have been granted.
• Instead of correcting themselves, the endeavour has been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner by navigating in a wrong manner.
• In view of above discussions and settled principle of law, a seat cannot be kept vacant, rather it has to be offered to the eligible candidate.