- (1.) Admission to the Ph.D Programme at the Panjab University is test based. According to the prospectus issued by the Panjab University, admission to the Ph.D Programme is either direct or through M.Phil Programme. The result of the written test is followed by an interview in the form of an interaction. The candidates who come via M.Phil are exempted from appearing in the entrance test. The appellant-University dehors the terms and conditions laid down in the prospectus sought to putt candidates through a second written test called an objective type test to be conducted on 13.12.2010. The imposition of such objective type test formed challenged in the writ petition that it was contrary to the terms of the prospectus. It transpired that in the academic session in question, the total seats offered were 6 whilst the eligible candidates were larger in number at 22. Faced with accommodating candidates fewer than the applicants and the ensuing competition, the Panjab University thought out a hybrid procedure of putting exemptees to a further test, that is, of students who had secured admission on the basis of the university entrance test to be put through a objective type test as well thereby making interview redundant and otiose. The exemptees have been singled out for adverse treatment not visualized in the prospectus that is by putting them through a further test. It is in these circumstances that the impugned notice issued by the department of Public Administration, Panjab University, Chandigarh (Annexure P-3) was impugned as resort to a methodology not envisioned by the prospectus.
(2.) The learned Single Judge has correctly in our opinion quashed the notice (Annexure P-3) as being foreign to the scheme of admission laid down in the prospectus. It is well settled that the terms of the prospectus are sacrosanct and cannot be departed from.
(3.) The Full Bench judgments in the case of Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, 1993 4 SLR 673, Raj Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University, 1994 4 RSJ 289, Sachin Gaur v. Panjabi University, Patiala,1996 1 RSJ 1, Anil Jain v. Controller of Exams, MDU,1997 3 RSJ 88 and Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports, Punjab,1999 4 RSJ 667 are helpful in this context. These decisions promote the case of the respondents. We see no reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge.;