JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J.
1. The petitioner's application dated 16-3-89 which was personally presented by him was treated to be a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Notice of this petition was issued to the Vice Chancellor of the Lucknow University and the Dean, Faculty of Science. The grievance raised in this petition is that the petitioner is not being admitted in the Ph.D. course, although he had passed M.Sc. (Physics) examination and was also declared successful in the "Joint C.S.I.R., U.G.C., J.R.F. Examination 1987."
2. In response to the notices issued to the University authorities, Sri Umesh Chandra put in appearance and produced before us a Notice duly signed by the Vice Chancellor in his capacity as the Chairman of the Admission Committee and the Registrar as Secretary of the said Committee which reads as under-
"The Admission Committee at its meeting held on April 1, 1989 considered the case of Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh for admission to'the Ph.D. programme in Physics of the University. As per existing Ordinance governing admission to the Ph.D. programme only such candidates are eligible for admission to the Ph.D. programme as have had a consistently good academic career as laid down and defined in the First Statutes of Lucknow University as amended up to date, that is to say, who have obtained at least 55% marks at the Post Graduate Examination in the subject concerned or an equivalent grade. Since Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh had obtained only 53.6% marks at the M.Sc. (Physics) Examination of 1988, he is not eligible for admission to the Ph.D. programme, even though he has qualified in the joint SSIR/UGC Junior Research Fellowship Examination, 1987 for the award of the JRF. This eligibility for the award of Junior Research Fellowship does not entitle him for admission to the Ph.D. programme of Lucknow University as matter of right.
Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh's application for admission to the Ph.D. programme is accordingly rejected.
3. A perusal of the above note would indicate that the petitioner has been refused admission in the Ph.D. Course on account of his having obtained 53.6% marks at M.Sc. (Physics) Examination of 1988. It is pointed out by Sri Umesh Chandra that the University in its Ordinances has laid down that the eligibility criteria for admission to the Ph.D. Course is the same as has been prescribed by the First Statutes of Lucknow University for purposes of appointment to the posts of Lecturers in the Faculty of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law and Education. Ordinances 1 and 2 made by the University on 20th May, 1988 for admission to the Ph.D. Course for the students admitted from the Session 1988-89, provide as under : --
"1. A candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosphy in a subject must hold a Master's degree in the subject concerned of this University or an equivalent degree of another University recognised by this University.
Explanation-- A candidate holding a Master Degree in an allied subject may also be considered for admission to Ph.D. by the Departmental Research Committee.
2. Additional qualifications for admission to the Ph.D. Programme shall be such as may be laid down by the Board of the Faculties concerned."
4. There is a Transitory Provision made in the said Ordinance which reads as under:--
"Until the Boards of faculties have laid down the additional qualifications for admission to the Ph.D. programme, a candidate with a consistently good academic career as prescribed by the First Statutes of Lucknow University, for purposes of appointment to the post of Lecturer in the Faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce, Law and Education shall be the minimum qualification for the admission of a candidate to the Ph.D. programme."
5. The qualification required to be possessed by a candidate seeking admission to the Ph.D. programme are :
(i) He must hold a Master's Degree in the subject concerned and
(ii) Possess such "additional qualifications" as may be laid down by the Board of Faculties concerned.
6. It is in respect of "additional qualifications" that a transitory provision has been made which provides that Until the Board of Faculties have laid down the additional qualifications", the candidate must also possess "consistently good academic career". It is in respect of the "consistently good academic career" that it has been said that it must be such as has been prescribed by the First Statutes of the Lucknow University for appointment to the post of lecturer in various faculties.
7. In order to find out the meaning of the Phrase "consistently good academic career"
one has to look to the provisions of the First Statutes of the Lucknow University.
8. The qualifications for appointment of teachers in the University are contained in Chapter XI Part I of the First Statutes of the Lucknow University. The relevant portions of Para 11.01 are quoted below : --
"11.01. (1) In the case of the Faculty of Arts (except) the Department of Physical Education and the Faculties of Commerce and Science the following shall be the minimum qualifications for the post of a Lecturer in the University, namely-
(a) a doctorate degree or research work of an equally high standard in a relevant subject: and
(b) consistently good academic record with -first or high second class Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a foreign University in a relevant subject."
The requirements of the provision contained in Clause (b) quoted above are two :
(i) consistently good academic record.
(ii) first or high second class Master's degree or an equivalent degree of a Foreign University in the relevant subject.
9. It may be pointed out that the provisions of Para 11.01 were amended, by Lucknow University (42nd Amendment) First Statutes, 1988 and for existing Clauses (1) to (9), new clauses were substituted. In place of Clause (1), as it originally stood, the following was substituted : --
"(1) In the case of Faculties of Arts, Commerce and Science the minimum qualifications for the post of a lecturer in the University shall be Master's Degree or an equivalent Degree of a Foreign University in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and consistently good academic record."
The amended Clause (1) also lays down two requirements : --
(i) Master's Degree or an equivalent Degree of a Foreign University in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks or its equivalent grade and
(ii) consistently good academic record.
10. The requirement of possessing the first or high second class Master's degree or Master's degree with at least 55% marks as prescribed by unamended Statute 11.01 or the amended Statute would not have the effect of displacing Ordinance I under which a candidate is required to possess only a Master's degree without any constraints.
11. The transitory provision which is meant to operate for a temporary period displaces only Ordinance II. The opening words of the transitory provision, namely, "until the Board of faculties have laid down the additional qualifications" indicate that it is only Ordinance II which is sought to be displaced.
12. The expression "consistently good academic record" was defined earlier in Statute 11.09(d) which provided as under : --
"11.09(d). A candidate (other than a candidate for lecturership in the Faculties of Education and Law) have obtained either an average of 55% marks in the two Examinations prior to Master's degree that is to say Intermediate and Bachelor's Degree Examination (irrespective of marks obtained in any of the two examinations), or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately is said to have consistently good academic record."
13. Clause (d) quoted above required that the candidates should have obtained either an average of 55 per cent of marks in the two examinations prior to Master's degree, i.e. Intermediate and Bachelor's Degree Examination or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately. If this qualifications was possessed by the candidate he was to be treated to have "consistently good academic record."
14. The expression "consistently good academic record" was also the subject-matter of amendment by 42nd Amendment in the First Statutes.
15. Sub-clause (5) of Statute 11.01, as amended by 42nd Amendment, provided in Sub-paras (a), (b) and (c) as under : --
(a) A candidate (other than a candidate for lecturership in the Faculties of Education and Law) having obtained either 55 per cent marks in Bachelor's Degree examination and second class in Intermediate examination, or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately is said to have consistently good academic record.
(b) A candidate for Lecturership in the Faculty of Education having obtained either 55 per cent marks in B.Ed. Degree Examination and second class in any other Bachelor's degree examination, or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately is said to have consistently good academic record,
(c) A candidate for Lecturership in the Faculty of Law having obtained either 55 per cent marks in LLB. Degree examination and second class in any other Bachelor's Degree Examination or 50 per cent in each of the two examinations separately is said to have consistently good academic record."
16. None of the clauses quoted above required the candidate to possess 55 per cent of marks in the Master's Degree. The requirement was that the candidate should have obtained either 55 per cent marks in the Bachelor's degree examination and second class in Intermediate Examination or 50 per cent marks in each of the two examinations separately.
17. Since in the Transitory provisions contained in the Ordinances, referred to above, the phrase "consistently good academic career" has been inducted by invoking the principle of "Legislation by reference", we have to look to the meaning given to this expression in the First Statutes of the Lucknow University which we have already done and reproduced the relevant provisions in the earlier part of the judgment. A reading of all the provisions, namely, provisions contained in the Ordinances and the Statutes it comes out, and we say, there is no other inference or possibility, that for purposes of admission in the Ph.D. course a candidate must possess :
(i) A Master's degree in the subject concerned as provided by Ordinance (1) and
(ii) Additional qualification of "consistently good academic record" as prescribed by First Statutes of the Lucknow University. (Vide Ordinance 2 read with the transitory provision).
18. As provided by Ordinance (2) read with the Transitory Provisions and the relevant provisions of the First Statutes of the Lucknow University, there is no requirement that the candidates seeking admission in the Ph.D. course should have obtained at least 55 per cent marks in the Master's Degree.
19. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner had obtained 74.2 per cent marks in the High School, 67.4 per cent marks in the Intermediate and 62 per cent marks in the Bachelor's Degree. The petitioner also possesses a Master's degree in the subject concerned he, therefore, fulfills all the requirements prescribed by the University itself for seeking admission to the Ph.D. course.
20. Since the Admission Committee has based its decision on the grounds that the petitioner had not obtained 55 per cent marks at the M.Sc. (Physics) Examination, 1988, the decision cannot be said to be correct. We are clearly of the opinion that the petitioner has been denied admission on a ground which cannot be sustained.
21. We may point out that the Admission Committee headed by the present Vice-Chancellor, who himself is an eminent academician is the high body of the University and as the Rule of Prudence requires we should not normally interfere with the decision arrived at by it, but, as observed by the Supreme Court in Dr. J.P. Kulshrestha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, AIR 1980 SC 2141 "the University organs, for that matter any authority in our system, is bound by the rule of law and cannot be a law unto itself, if the chancellor or any other authority lesser in level decides an academic matter or an educational question, the Court keeps its hands off; but there a provision of law has to be read and understood, it is not fair to keep the Court out."
22. In the same decision the Supreme Court further observed as under (para 17) : --
"But to respect an authority is not to workship it unquestioningly since the bhakti cult is inept in the critical field of law. In short, while dealing with legal affairs which have an impact on academic bodies, the views of educational experts are entitled to great consideration but not to exclusive wisdom. Moreover, the present case is so simple that profound doctrines about academic autonomy have no place here."
23. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the decision of the Admission Committee as set out in the Note dated 1-4-89 and direct that in the light of what we have stated above the Admission Committee shall reconsider the petitioner's application for admission to the Ph.D. course in Physics and shall take a decision in consonance with what we have said above within two weeks from the date of the communication of the certified copy of this order to the Vice-Chancellor or the Registrar.
24. Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the petitioner as also to the counsel for the Lucknow University.