In a significant ruling emphasizing complete justice, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and ordered the restoration of a postgraduate degree to a student whose admission was invalidated due to eligibility criteria amended after she had applied. A bench of CJI B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to regularize the student’s admission, holding that depriving her of the degree after she successfully completed the course would amount to an “irreparable loss.”
Background of the Case
The case originated when the appellant, Sakshi Chauhan, applied for admission to the M.Sc./MBA (Agri Business Programme) at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry for the academic session 2020-21, based on a prospectus issued in May 2020. The appellant held a Bachelor of Science (Hons.) in Agriculture from Eternal University, a private university in Himachal Pradesh recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the university cancelled the planned entrance test and decided to prepare a merit list based on the marks obtained in the qualifying degree. Ms. Chauhan’s application was kept under consideration and was not rejected at the initial stage.
However, in December 2020, months after her application, the university issued a series of notices and addendums. A notice on December 3, 2020, declared that candidates from non-State Agricultural Universities were ineligible for the M.Sc. programme. This was followed by addendums on December 11 and December 15, 2020, which explicitly stated that candidates from private agricultural universities not accredited by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) were ineligible for admission.
Based on these new criteria, the appellant’s candidature was rejected.
Legal Proceedings
Ms. Chauhan challenged the rejection and the changing criteria by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On January 27, 2021, a learned Single Judge passed an interim order directing the university to permit her to participate in the counselling, with the clear stipulation that this would not create any right in her favour and would be subject to the final outcome of the petition.
Pursuant to this interim order, the appellant was granted provisional admission to the M.Sc. Environmental Management course against a self-financed seat. Subsequently, the Single Judge dismissed her writ petition on March 6, 2021, holding her ineligible for admission.
The appellant filed an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench, which, on March 15, 2021, stayed the Single Judge’s judgment. An order on April 19, 2021, allowed her to provisionally continue her studies. Under the protection of these court orders, she completed the entire two-year course and was awarded her postgraduate degree on May 4, 2023.
However, the Division Bench eventually dismissed her appeal on July 19, 2023, upholding the Single Judge’s decision. Consequently, the university issued a notification on August 5, 2023, withdrawing her degree, which prompted her appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the university’s frequent changes to the eligibility criteria created significant confusion and uncertainty. It was contended that had the criteria been clear in the initial prospectus, her application would have been rejected immediately, allowing her to seek admission in other institutions. The appellant asserted that she fulfilled the conditions of the original prospectus, which required a degree from a UGC-recognized university, a credential her private university possessed. Having been granted admission and successfully completing the course, the subsequent withdrawal of her degree was argued to be unsustainable. The appellant urged the Court to exercise its powers under Article 142 to prevent “irreparable loss”.
Conversely, the counsel for the university supported the High Court’s judgments, asserting that the appellant was ineligible even under the original prospectus. It was argued that her admission was purely provisional and conferred no rights, and therefore, she could not claim the degree as a matter of right. The university did not, however, dispute that the appellant had fulfilled all academic requirements, including attendance and examinations, which she passed with very good marks.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Augustine George Masih, observed that there appeared to be “some confusion even at the end of Respondent No. 1 University requiring clarity at different stages,” as evidenced by the series of addendums issued in December 2020.
The Court held that the benefit of this confusion should go to the student. The judgment noted, “Under these circumstances, the benefit should go to the Appellant, especially when she had completed her course with good marks by investing two years of hard work.”
The bench emphasized that the only point of ineligibility raised by the university was that the appellant’s undergraduate degree was from a private university. It was undisputed that she possessed a valid graduation degree and had fulfilled all requirements of the postgraduate course.
Concluding that this was a fit case for intervention, the Court stated, “By depriving her of her degree at this stage would not be appropriate and may end up in injustice to a student who had invested two important and valuable years of her career leading to an irreparable loss.”
Exercising its special jurisdiction, the Court declared, “In our view, this would be a fit case where jurisdiction as conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India needs to be exercised for regularizing her admission to the M.Sc. Environmental Management course and thereafter upholding the conferring of the postgraduate degree on 04.05.2023.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The university’s notification withdrawing the degree was rendered “otiose,” and it was directed to confer the M.Sc. degree upon the appellant.
