Supreme Court of India
Sakshi Chauhan vs Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University on 22 July, 2025
Author: B. R. Gavai
Bench: B. R. Gavai
2025 INSC 882
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
( @ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 22269 OF 2023 )
SAKSHI CHAUHAN … APPELLANT
VERSUS
DR. YASHWANT SINGH PARMAR
UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURE
& FORESTRY, NAUNI & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein has, in pursuance of the Prospectus
issued in May 2020 by Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar
University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan, HP
(“Respondent No.1” herein), sought admission in
M.Sc/MBA (Agri Business Programme) for the Academic
Session 2020-21.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
3. Appellant applied in pursuance of the said Prospectus,
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.07.22
17:14:33 IST
Reason:
having passed the Bachelor of Science (Hons.) in
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 1 of 11
Agriculture in the year 2020 from a private university,
i.e., Eternal University, Baru Sahib, Sirmour, HP
(“Respondent No.2” herein), which was
affiliated/recognized by the University Grants
Commission (“UGC” herein).
4. As per the Prospectus, entrance test was proposed to be
held in the month of June 2020 but because of COVID-
19 pandemic, the admission test for postgraduate
programmes for the said academic session was
cancelled, and a merit list of candidates was directed to
be prepared by taking into account their Overall Grade
Point Average (OGPA)/marks obtained in the qualifying
degree, along with other weightages as prescribed
originally in the Prospectus of May 2020. The minimum
qualifying/eligibility prescribed in the Prospectus
remained unchanged.
5. Appellant applied for admission in May 2020, and the
said application was kept under processing and for
consideration. What has been asserted is that the said
application was never rejected and was accepted as
being one fulfilling all the requirements for admission.
6. On 03.12.2020, Respondent No.1 put up a notice
pointing out therein that the candidates who had passed
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 2 of 11
their B.Sc. degree from non-State Agricultural
Universities/Central Agriculture Universities/ Central
Universities (“SAUs/CAUs/CUs” herein) with
Agriculture faculty, in accordance with the prescribed
minimum qualification, were not eligible for allotment of
seat in the M.Sc. programme.
7. On 11.12.2020, Respondent No.1 University had issued
an addendum carrying out amendments in Chapter 3 of
the Prospectus stating therein that candidates who had
passed out from agricultural private
universities/colleges not accredited by Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (“ICAR” herein), even though
affiliated to public funded/government institutions, are
not eligible for admission.
8. On 15.12.2020, another addendum was issued stating
that candidates having a B.Sc. 4-year degree in
Horticulture/Forestry/Agricultural/Food Technology
from agricultural private universities/colleges not
accredited by ICAR, even though affiliated to public
funded/government institutions, are not eligible for
admission.
9. In pursuance thereto, two lists were prepared. One of
candidates who, according to these criteria, were
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 3 of 11
eligible, and others who were ineligible. Since the
Appellant had passed her B.Sc. Agriculture from a non-
SAUs/CAUs/CUs facility, although recognized by the
UGC, was declared non-entitled for allotment of seats in
the M.Sc. programme. The candidature of the Appellant
was, therefore, rejected.
10. The Appellant, under these circumstances, especially
with reference to the ever-changing eligibility criteria for
admission approached the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh by filing a writ petition CWP No. 369/2021
along with another candidate. Wherein the challenge
was to the change in criteria and the rejection of their
candidature, with a prayer for direction to the
Respondent No. 1 University to grant admission to the
Appellant and her co-petitioner to M.Sc. (Agriculture)
programme, strictly as per the merit of the candidates,
against normal or self-financing seats, as they had
applied for both the said seats.
11. While taking up the matter on 27.01.2021, an interim
order was passed by the learned Single Judge directing
Respondent No.1 to permit the Appellant and her co-
petitioner to participate in the counselling. It was further
mentioned that participation was not based on any
expression of merits and would not bestow any right on
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 4 of 11
the Petitioners therein which would be subject to the
outcome of the writ petition.
12. The Appellant was granted admission in M.Sc.
Environmental Management against a self-finance seat,
in which the Appellant took admission and continued
with the said course. Writ petition was finally decided by
the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.03.2021,
dismissing the same and holding that the Appellant was
ineligible for admission to Respondent No.1 University,
having passed her B.Sc. (Agriculture) from Respondent
No. 2 (private university). Merit and other aspects with
regard to the candidature of the Appellant were not
adversely commented upon.
13. An intra-court appeal LPA No. 15/2021 was preferred
only by the Appellant which came to be considered on
15.03.2021, when the Division Bench proceeded to stay
the judgment of the learned Single Judge. On
19.04.2021, the Court proceeded to direct the
Respondent No. 1 University to permit the Appellant to
continue her studies provisionally to the course of M.Sc.
Environmental Management and to attend classes.
14. The Appellant, in pursuance of the said provisional
admission, proceeded to complete her course and was
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 5 of 11
awarded the degree on 04.05.2023. The appeal before
the Division Bench came to be decided on 19.07.2023
vide which the said appeal was dismissed, upholding the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Leading
to the challenge to the said judgment by way of the
present appeal.
15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referring to the
above factual aspects and the manner in which the
eligibility criteria at initial stage followed by
clarifications/changes/addendums submitted that it led
to a lot of confusion and uncertainty in the process of
admission. Had the Prospectus been clear, the
application of the Appellant as submitted in May 2020,
should have been, at the very outset, rejected.
16. This exercise, if carried out in time, would have enabled
the Appellant to seek admission in other institutions.
Firstly, the Appellant was banking upon the competitive
examination for admission to be held in the month of
June 2020, and thereafter, on a decision being taken for
admission to be based on the merit obtained in the
graduation degree, the said process was also delayed
extraordinarily by the issuance of the various
addendums etc. as mentioned above. He, on this basis,
contends that once the admission had been granted and
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 6 of 11
the Appellant had completed her course and that too
successfully, leading to the issuance of postgraduate
degree, the cancellation thereof, vide notification dated
05.08.2023, and withdrawal of the same by Respondent
No. 1, University, is unsustainable.
17. Referring to the eligibility criterion, Counsel states that
it was not apparent that a candidate from a private
university would not be eligible for admission to the
postgraduate course. According to the minimum
qualification/eligibility clause as contained in the
Prospectus, a candidate who had passed B.Sc. from a
UGC-recognized university was eligible for admission,
which the Appellant possessed. It is not disputed that
Respondent No. 2 University, from where the Appellant
had passed her B.Sc. Agriculture was recognized by the
UGC. He, therefore, prays for the present appeal to be
allowed.
18. An additional prayer has been made for exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to
do complete justice in the present case, where the
Appellant would suffer irreparable loss in case the
degree, as has been withdrawn, is not restored to her.
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 7 of 11
19. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No. 1
University has supported the judgments as have been
passed by the High Court and has asserted that the
eligibility of the Appellant, if seen as per the original
Prospectus criteria, would render her ineligible, and
therefore the subsequent changes, if any, in the
eligibility criteria did not affect the candidature of the
Appellant. He, therefore, contends that a candidate who
was ineligible and had been granted admission on
provisional basis, conferring no right upon her, cannot
be permitted to assert on completion of the course, as a
matter of right for bestowing upon her a degree for which
she was ineligible at the very outset.
20. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the Appellant
had indeed fulfilled the requirements of attendance and
other requirements, including the participation in the
examinations with very good marks and having cleared
the same, except for the initial ineligibility for admission
in the course.
21. We have considered the submissions made by the
Counsel for the parties and, on going through the
impugned judgments especially with reference to the
eligibility criteria as has been laid down in Clause 3.1 of
the Prospectus of May 2020, the candidature of the
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 8 of 11
Appellant could be said to be not clearly falling in the
category of eligible candidates.
22. There appears to be some confusion even at the end of
Respondent No. 1 University requiring clarity at different
stages, which is apparent from the Notice dated
03.12.2020, amendments through addendum in
Chapter 3 of the Prospectus on 11.12.2020, and the
addendum dated 15.12.2020, wherein at each stage,
some additions were made with regard to a candidate
being eligible or not for consideration for admission.
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.
23. It is not in dispute that except for the initial ineligibility
i.e., having passed her B.Sc. Agriculture from the private
university which is also admittedly recognized by the
UGC, the Appellant fulfilled the other eligibility criteria.
It is not the case of Respondent No. 1 University that she
did not possess a graduation degree. What has been
pointed out is limited to the extent that it was from a
private university.
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 9 of 11
24. It is also not in dispute that she had passed the relevant
papers after fulfilling the course curriculum, including
the minimum required attendance, etc.
25. 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.
26. 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 consequence
thereof would be that the withdrawal of the said
postgraduate degree, vide notification dated 05.08.2023,
would be rendered otiose.
27. As a result, the impugned judgments passed by the High
Court by the Learned Single Bench as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
would not subsist and are set aside. The Appellant shall
be conferred with degree as completed by her in
accordance with due process by Respondent No.1
University.
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 10 of 11
28. The present appeal is allowed in above terms.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………….……………………..CJI.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 22, 2025.
C A No. ……. / 2025 @ SLP (Civil) No. 22269/2023 Page 11 of 11
