Facts -

Sakshi earned her degree in May 2016 from Yashoda College, Pune, which is connected to the Pune
Law University. She then finished her one-year LL.M. in Human Rights at the Baylor Institute of
Advanced Legal Studies, Baylor University in Delhi, in May 2017. She then began working as an
assistant professor on a contract basis at Pune Law University on July 1, 2019.

The Pune Law University PhD Regulations, 2023 now in effect specify qualifications for admission
to a Ph.D. programme in law, among other things. As per the regulations in Regulation 3.1, entry to
the Ph.D. programme at Pune Law University is restricted to individuals who hold a "Two Years
LL.M.”

According to Pune Law University's Ph.D. announcement dated 14.03.2024, Sakshi was not
qualified to apply for the Ph.D. Research Programme in Law because of Regulation 3.1 of the Pune
Law University P.hD Regulations, 2024.

Issue:

Whether Pune Law institution's eligibility requirements, which state that applicants must have
completed "two years of LL.M." in order to be admitted to the Ph.D. programme in law, are unfair
to Sakshi, who completed a one-year LL.M. programme and has taught at the institution, and
whether they are arbitrary. This calls into question the qualifying requirements' rationality and
fairness as well as their compliance with University Grants Commission guidelines.

Advice to Sakshi and legal option available to her

Sakshi may also try to convince Pune Law University to accept her one-year LLM in Human Rights
from Baylor Institute of Advanced Legal Studies as fulfilling the requirements needed to be
admitted to the Ph.D. programme. She might also ask the institution for further information about
whether or not the programme will accept her credentials and teaching expertise.

Sakshi may contest the eligibility requirements established by Pune Law University in accordance
with Regulation 3.1 of the Pune Law University PhD Regulations, 2023, which stipulates that
admission to the Ph.D. programme in law needs a "Two Years LL.M." Regulation 5.1 of the
University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Award of M.Phil/Ph.D.
Degrees) Regulations, 2016 could be broken by this condition. Sakshi may want to explore
challenging the qualifying requirements as being unfair and arbitrary by submitting a writ suit in the
High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Sakshi may refer to the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, in which the Supreme Court ruled
that an arbitrary or unjust statute or regulation infringes against the right to equality protected by
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. She may also bring up the TMA Pai Foundation v. State of
Karnataka case, in which the Supreme Court stressed the significance of impartial and
nondiscriminatory admission standards for academic establishments. Sakshi may also choose to rely
on the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. The need of
guaranteeing impartiality and absence of bias in academic admissions procedures was underscored
by this particular example.