Mangaluru: The Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Nagpur advertised 35 seats for its PhD programme this year. As per Maharashtra’s reservation policy, 23 of these seats were earmarked for candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes, Socially and Economically Backward Classes, Denotified Tribes, and Nomadic Tribes.The university, however, admitted 22 candidates from the unreserved (more commonly known as general) category, which is ten more than the permissible limit. Only three OBC candidates (against seven reserved seats) and one candidate from the Nomadic community (against three seats) secured admission.The blatant violation of both the constitutionally guaranteed rights and state rules have now been raised before the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). In a complaint filed by PhD candidate Dipak Kharat, the NCSC has issued a notice to the university. The Wire reached out to the registrar of MNLU, Nagpur, Deepak Bhagwat, with a detailed questionnaire but is yet to receive any response. The story will be updated as and when he responds.In the complaint to the NCSC, Kharat points out the violations in the selection process. “The MNLU is a state-established and state-funded institution, obligated to uphold constitutional guarantees of equality and social justice. Denial of reservation at the doctoral level, which shapes future legal academics and researchers, raises several concerns of systemic discrimination and institutional non-compliance,” Kharat points out in his petition to the NCSC.The commission first issued notice on his complaint in March and when the university failed to respond within the stipulated 15 days period, another notice was issued on May 27. The university has not filed any response as yet. Kharat says for a state-run university to ignore a constitutional body is “quite telling”.Kharat, who belongs to the Nomadic community was also denied admission when he first applied at the university. He qualified in the All India Entrance Test (AIET) and was invited to send his proposal. Later, at the interview, which is also the final stage, he was denied admission. Kharat had then moved the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court to secure himself a seat at the university.Justice Anil Pansare, while hearing the petition, noted, “It is not enough to only celebrate Ambedkar Jayanti and hang his photo frames, you also have to ensure students from reserved categories make it to the university space. Instead of making space, you are fixing such provisions that exclude them.” When the counsel appearing for the university claimed that Karat didn’t meet the 50% cut off category, Justice Pansare had asked, “Who are you to decide it? For a student belonging to a (reserved) category, you should be a little lenient.”Following the petition, Kharat was admitted to the programme whereas the remaining candidates belonging to the reserved category were not granted admission. Dipankar Kamble, another prospective candidate, who qualified in the AIET and was invited to send his PhD proposal says out of the three levels of screening, only the entrance test is in their hands. “The remaining two – selection of research proposal and the final interview, are in the university’s hand and that is exactly where they exclude Bahujan candidates,” Kamble told The Wire. He is also a practising lawyer in Nagpur. Kamble had represented Kharat in his hearing before the Bombay high court.Kamble says, like him, several other students, across different reserved categories, were invited to submit their research proposals but the university en masse rejected them. Now some of these seats are left vacant and the university claims they didn’t find suitable candidates, a very common ground mentioned across educational institutions, to deny students admission. It is also important to note besides denying admission to those belonging to the reserved category, the university has also increased the intake of Savarna students, a practice that is both illegal and constitutionally violative.Exclusion of students from SC, ST and OBC backgrounds in the internal assessment is not new. For decades, students from the Bahujan communities have complained of systematic exclusion in both public and private institutions. Sukhdeo Thorat, an economist and former University Grants Commission chairperson, in one of his interviews to Frontline had noted that “exclusionary practices are deeply pervasive” in university spaces across the country.