NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has observed that the 'qualitative assessment' method for PhD programme conducted by A.J.K. Mass Communication Research Centre, a constituent institute of the Jamia Millia Islamia, after granting marks and announcing results, is 'contrary' to the admission process.
The 'qualitative assessment', a final selection process comprises of interview marks, plagiarism level, along with comments on domain knowledge, familiarity with existing literature, research acumen, and strength in academic potential of research proposal, as per the university.
University has explained that these assessments are not made public so as to prevent prejudice against candidates who apply to other centres. Confidentiality of this process allows CRC members to express their opinion freely and openly, it said.
"Court is unable to appreciate why after awarding marks and announcement of results, further assessment was undertaken. Interview is the only time during the entire admission process that merit and suitability of both, candidates and their proposal, are evaluated and assessed," Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
The court said interview is the only time during the entire admission process that merit and suitability of both, candidates and their proposal, are evaluated and assessed.
"The Court hopes and expects that going forward, the University shall conduct admissions strictly as per the procedure laid down under the Ordinance," it said while dealing with a plea moved by a candidate Ikra Khan, whose register number appeared in "Entrance Test Qualified Category" after interview but removed ahead of receiving her 'offer letter.'
"Since Petitioner progressed to the stage of interview and has gotten as far as the Initial Notification, she predictably assumes that admission process is complete and her selection is final."
Refusing to grant relief to the petitioner, the court said, " However, since she has been denied admission both on merits as well as under paragraph 5(a) of the Ordinance, and not because of a malafide action, such a relief also cannot be granted."
As per the authorities, the Proposal for her final selection was weak and entirely composed of scattered material from the internet. The reading list given at the end of the proposal has no reference within the proposal. It is difficult to determine how much of the proposal is written by the candidate who does not appear to understand the Academic Expectations of a PhD. Difficult to assign supervisor.
It was also noted that court was informed that as per UGC Guidelines, there is a limitation regarding the number of candidates that can be supervised by a supervisor. Thus, selection of candidates needs to be judicious, and on consideration of several factors over which the Court cannot sit in appeal.