DIRAJ GANGAL CHOUDHARY vs Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu on 15 October 2026

ORDER

Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member

1. The SWP No.1384/2024 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.83/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - I. “Allow this writ petition of the petitioner. II. Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned memorandum bearing no. AUJ/Acad/24-25/F-05/688-91 dated 03-05-2024, issued by the respondent no.2, whereby the respondent no.2 has rejected the case of the petitioner for pursuing Ph.D program in the discipline of Agricultural Economics, SKAUST-Jammu. III. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to select the petitioner for admission in Ph.D Pregame in the discipline of Agricultural Economics, SKAUST- Jammu as in service employee. IV. Pass such other order as the facts of the case demands and this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper be also passed in the favour of the petitioner.”

3. The present Transfer Application arises out of SWP No. 1384/2024, which was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu to this Tribunal and registered as T.A.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 83/2025

No. 83/2025. The applicant has challenged Memorandum No. AUJ/Acad/24-25/F-05/688-91 dated 03.05.2024, whereby his request for admission to the Ph.D. Programme in Agricultural Economics at Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Jammu (SKUAST-Jammu), as an in-service candidate was rejected on the ground that he had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority before appearing in the entrance examination.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Field-cum-Lab Assistant in SKUAST-Kashmir in the year 2017. In the year 2018, he was transferred to SKUAST-Jammu, where he was posted as Senior Technician in the AICRP Weed Management Unit at the Main Campus, Chatha. The applicant was interested in pursuing higher studies and, accordingly, appeared in the Common Entrance Test for admission to the Ph.D. Programme in Agricultural Economics.

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 83/2025

5. The applicant submits that he had earlier qualified the entrance examination in the year 2019 and was provisionally selected for admission vide notification dated 04.02.2019. However, he was not permitted to join the programme on account of the requirement relating to the prescribed length of service.

6. Subsequently, the University invited applications for admission to various Ph.D. Programmes, including Agricultural Economics, for the academic session 2023. The applicant appeared in the Common Entrance Test and secured the second rank in Agricultural Economics. According to him, four seats were available in the said discipline. However, when the University issued the provisional selection notification dated 26.02.2024, his name was not included in the selection list.

7. The applicant claims that he had submitted an application dated 22.12.2023 seeking permission to appear in the entrance examination,

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 83/2025

but the respondents did not communicate any decision upon the same. He submits that despite securing the second rank, he was denied admission merely because he had not obtained a No Objection Certificate from the University.

8. Aggrieved by his exclusion from the selection list, the applicant submitted a representation dated 27.02.2024 to the University authorities. Thereafter, he approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WP(C) No. 771/2024. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 03.04.2024, directed the respondents to decide his representation in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, preferably before completion of the admission process.

9. In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the respondents examined the matter and issued the impugned memorandum dated 03.05.2024, rejecting the applicant’s request on the ground that he had not obtained prior permission from the competent authority before

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 83/2025

appearing in the entrance examination. Being dissatisfied with the said decision, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking quashing of the memorandum and a direction to the respondents to grant him admission to the Ph.D. Programme.

10. The respondents have opposed the application by filing their reply. Their stand is that the admission notification clearly required in- service employees to obtain prior permission from the competent authority before appearing in the entrance examination. According to the respondents, the applicant did not fulfil this mandatory condition and, therefore, was not eligible for admission under the in-service category.

11. The respondents further submit that merely securing a higher rank in the entrance examination does not confer an automatic right to admission. Every candidate is required to fulfil the eligibility conditions prescribed in the admission notification. Since the

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 83/2025

applicant had not obtained the required permission, his candidature was not accepted. The respondents maintain that the impugned memorandum was issued after examining the applicant's representation in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court and the applicable rules.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the pleadings and material available on record.

13. The principal question that arises for our consideration is whether the applicant, who appeared in the Ph.D. entrance examination without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, can claim admission merely on the ground that he secured the second rank in the examination and had submitted an application seeking such permission.

14. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the desire of an employee to pursue higher education is certainly appreciable. Acquiring higher

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 83/2025

qualifications not only helps an employee improve his knowledge and professional skills but may also benefit the institution in which he is serving. However, when an employee seeks to pursue higher studies during service, he is required to comply with the rules and conditions prescribed by his employer.

15. In the present case, the admission conditions applicable to in-service employees required them to obtain prior permission from the competent authority before appearing in the Common Entrance Test for admission to the Ph.D. Programme. The purpose of such a requirement is to enable the employer to examine whether the employee can be permitted to undertake higher studies, keeping in view the nature of his duties, administrative requirements and the applicable service rules.

16. The applicant has mainly relied upon his application dated 22.12.2023, through which he claims to have sought permission from

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 83/2025

the University. However, there is a clear distinction between seeking permission and obtaining permission. Merely submitting an application does not mean that permission has been granted. Until the competent authority accords the necessary approval, an employee cannot presume that he has been permitted to appear in the examination as an in-service candidate.

17. Even if the applicant’s contention that he submitted an application dated 22.12.2023 is accepted, the fact remains that no permission had been granted to him before he appeared in the entrance examination. The applicant has not placed on record any order or communication showing that the competent authority had approved his request. In the absence of such approval, the mandatory condition of obtaining prior permission cannot be treated as fulfilled.

18. The applicant has also argued that the University did not respond to his application and that he should not suffer because of the inaction of

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 83/2025

the respondents. We are unable to accept this contention as a sufficient ground for directing his admission. Non-disposal of an application for permission cannot, by itself, be treated as deemed approval unless the applicable rules specifically provide for such a consequence. No such provision has been brought to our notice.

19. The applicant has further emphasized that he secured the second rank in the entrance examination and that four seats were available in Agricultural Economics. However, merit in an entrance examination and fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions are two separate requirements. A candidate may perform well in an examination, but that alone does not entitle him to admission if he has not complied with an essential condition of the admission process.

20. The applicant has also referred to the selection of a candidate placed below him in merit. However, a comparison of merit becomes relevant only when the candidates fulfil the applicable eligibility

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 83/2025

requirements. Since the applicant had not obtained the required prior permission, he cannot claim admission merely because another candidate with a lower rank was selected.

21. We have also considered the applicant’s reliance upon the provisions relating to study leave under the J&K Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1979, and the communication dated 25.01.2016 concerning permission for higher studies by non-teaching employees. These provisions may enable an eligible employee to seek study leave or permission for pursuing higher education, subject to the prescribed conditions and approval of the competent authority. However, they do not establish that an employee is entitled to admission without obtaining the permission specifically required under the admission notification.

22. Similarly, Clause 5.5.7 of the Revised Regulations and Instructions, 2020, relied upon by the applicant, regulates the permissible credit

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 83/2025

load of in-service candidates while performing their regular duties. The said provision cannot be interpreted to mean that an employee is exempted from obtaining prior permission for admission to a Ph.D. Programme. It deals with the academic workload of in-service candidates and does not dispense with the requirement of obtaining approval from the employer.

23. Another important aspect is that the applicant had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No. 771/2024. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 03.04.2024, directed the respondents to decide his representation in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines. The said order did not direct the University to grant admission to the applicant. It only required the competent authority to examine his grievance and take a decision in accordance with law.

24. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondents issued the memorandum dated 03.05.2024, rejecting the applicant’s request on

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 83/2025

the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of prior permission. Thus, the respondents have taken a decision on the applicant’s representation. The mere fact that the decision is not favourable to the applicant does not, by itself, establish that the directions of the Hon’ble High Court have been violated.

25. It is settled that judicial interference with decisions relating to academic admissions is warranted where the decision is shown to be contrary to the governing rules, arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise unlawful. The Court or Tribunal cannot ordinarily direct an educational institution to ignore an essential eligibility condition merely because a candidate has secured good marks in an entrance examination.

26. In the present case, the applicant has not established that the requirement of obtaining prior permission was waived in his favour or that the competent authority had granted him such permission. Nor

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 83/2025

has he established that the University was legally bound to treat his application for permission as sufficient compliance with the admission conditions.

27. We are conscious of the fact that the applicant has made efforts to pursue higher education and has performed well in the entrance examination. However, sympathy for an employee who wishes to improve his qualifications cannot be a ground for granting relief contrary to the prescribed admission conditions. The rules governing admission are required to be applied uniformly, and an exception cannot be made merely on account of the applicant’s merit position.

28. The applicant has alleged that the respondents acted arbitrarily and deliberately denied him admission. However, such allegations must be supported by material showing that the decision was taken for an improper purpose or in violation of the applicable rules. On the basis of the material placed before us, we do not find sufficient grounds to

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 83/2025

hold that the impugned decision was arbitrary or motivated by mala fides.

29. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant’s failure to obtain prior permission from the competent authority before appearing in the entrance examination was a valid ground for declining his admission as an in-service candidate. The applicant’s merit position, though appreciable, does not confer upon him an enforceable right to admission in disregard of the prescribed conditions.

30. Accordingly, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned memorandum dated 03.05.2024. The applicant has failed to establish his entitlement to the relief claimed in the present application.

31. For the reasons recorded above, the present Transfer Application is found to be devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The

HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: TA 83/2025

impugned Memorandum No. AUJ/Acad/24-25/F-05/688-91 dated 03.05.2024 does not call for interference by this Tribunal.

32. However, dismissal of the present application shall not prevent the applicant from applying for admission to any future Ph.D. Programme, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed eligibility conditions and obtaining the necessary permission from the competent authority. If any such request is made, the respondents shall deal with the same in accordance with the applicable rules, without being influenced by the dismissal of the present application.

33. There shall be no order as to costs. (RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit/

HARSHIT YADAV