(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order Ref.No.4-1/2025(DEB-NFR) dated 12.08.2025 issued by 3rd respondent and Official Comm.No.IDE PF AMD.II/M.ScPsy/Coun.Psy/2025/785, dated 30.09.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and quash the same, and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete her MSc. Psychology in the 2nd respondent University.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the impugned order, dated 12.08.2025 issued by the third respondent, the communication, dated 30.09.2025 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same.

2. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner holds Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.,) in Psychology from the Tamil Nadu Open University having completed during July, 2020 to June, 2024. In the year 2025, she applied for Post Graduate degree of M.Sc., in Psychology through distance education mode with the University of Madras. Upon the petitioner being meritorious and successful in the admission process, by Provisional Admission Card, dated 02.07.2025, the petitioner was also admitted into the course.

3. While so, by the impugned order, dated 30.09.2025, she was informed that the University Grants Commission had stopped all permissions for undertaking the course by distance education mode and therefore, she was directed to change to any of the available courses, in which the distance education is permitted. Upon further enquiry, it was also found that the decision of the University Grants Commission was taken in its 592nd meeting and hence, the said decision is also challenged.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner is already admitted and the course is underway, half way through the course, the petitioner cannot be asked to change the course. The petitioner is only a graduate in Psychology and she can only pursue the Post Graduation in the said course. Firstly, the decision by the University of Madras was taken subsequent to the admission of the petitioner and therefore, as an existing batch student, the petitioner should be continued. Secondly, even the regulations by the University Grants Commission ought not to have been passed specially with reference to the current year. The petitioner, being a woman candidate, in a position to take care of her own family, should not be deprived of the opportunity. The decision is also further assailed on the ground that the necessary report from the State Commission has not been obtained.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the University Grants Commission would submit that the policy decision has been taken by the apex body after considering the provisions of the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP) Act, 2021. According to the learned Counsel, the decision was taken much earlier and the correspondence between the Madras University and the Commission was going on even from the month of May, 2025.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the University of Madras would submit that when the courses were already undertaken, accordingly, the prospectus was issued for the current year and the admission process was undertaken. Simultaneously, the correspondence was ongoing and only upon receipt of the final communication on 12.08.2025, the candidates, earlier admitted, were directed to choose some other course. All the other candidates, except the petitioner, chose different courses and only the petitioner alone refuse to change the course. As a matter of fact, the University also requested the University Grants Commission to permit the course for the current year, which was also rejected and therefore, the University has no other option than to discontinue the petitioner.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

8. It is true that the petitioner was given an admission card in the month of July, 2025 itself, but, at the same time, it can be seen that the decision of the University Grants Commission has been taken in its meeting, held on 22.04.2025. It is, in this regard, when further communications have to happen and after clarifying, finally on 30.09.2025, the impugned order was passed by the University. While it is correct that the petitioner has been granted admission, but, when the course has become a professional course by virtue of the Act and when a policy, throughout India, is being taken not to conduct Psychology courses on distance education mode, it cannot be conducted for the petitioner alone. Secondly, when all the other candidates have also changed their courses, one programme cannot be conducted for the sake of the petitioner alone. In order to strike a balance between the right of the petitioner, who was granted admission and the larger policy decision that is taken, this Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to apply for any regular course for the ensuing academic year and as and when the petitioner applies and writes the entrance examination, a seat shall be allocated without reference to her merit position in any college for the same course of M.Sc., Psychology.

9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The prayer of the petitioner, to quash the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 12.08.2025 and the communication of the second respondent, dated 30.09.2025 and to continue the petitioner in the distance education mode with reference to M.Sc., Psychology by conducting the course for the petitioner alone, cannot be granted;

(ii) Since the petitioner was given an admission card before the decision was finally taken, if the petitioner chooses to apply for the course on regular mode for the next academic year, as and when she applies and writes the entrance examination, without reference to her merit, a seat can be allotted to the petitioner;

(iii) The fee paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a web-copy of the order without waiting for a certified copy of the order;

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.