Karnataka High Court
V Sathya Kumar vs The Registrar (Evaluation) on 2 January, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.29799 OF 2013 (END-RES)
BETWEEN:
V SATHYA KUMAR
S/O LATE S VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO.C A SITE NO.2
KUMARADHARA
14TH 'A' CROSS
2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE
BEHIND NANDHINI THEATRE
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
MAHALAKSHMI PURAM
BANGALORE - 86
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G M ANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
PAREEKSHA BHAVAN
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE - 560 056
2.THE CHAIRPERSON AND
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BANGALORE - 56
2
3.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 01
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N K RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SMT. KAVITHA H.C., HCGP FOR R3,
R2 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DT.11.5.2010
AND ENDORSEMENT DT.2.2.2013 VIDE ANNX-A & B AND
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
SYNOPSIS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO
PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT THESIS AND
CONSIDER THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISION 7
OF THE P.HD REGULATIONS AND TO PROCEED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF 8 TO 10 OF THE
REGULATION TO AWAD PHD DEGREE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner's application to pursue Ph.D in Yoga was accepted and permitted to complete Ph.D within five years with effect from the date of acceptance. As per the acceptance, the petitioner was supposed to complete the Ph.D and produce the thesis for acceptance on or before 2007. 3 When his first guide Dr. Sitra Sarojini, the Professor provided by the University to the petitioner was shifted her residence from Bangalore to Andhra Pradesh, he requested the University to provide for second guide. Accordingly, he was permitted to prepare Ph.D thesis under new guide Dr. Thara Sabhapathi, the Head of the Department of the Education. He submitted that he had prepared his Ph.D thesis and forwarded the same for approval through Dr. Thara Sabhapathi. Since there was delay in providing the second guide, he could not complete his thesis and submit the same to the respondent - University within five years. Hence, his Ph.D thesis was not accepted since it had lapsed five years period. Even though the University issued letter dated 14.08.2009, to complete and submit the entire research work within six months from 14.08.2009. Due to some obstacle the petitioner had to seek extension of three more months time for submission of the thesis. The letter seeking extension of time was rejected by the respondents- University. Petitioner also alleges that, his second guide has intentionally delayed to forward his thesis so as to accommodate Mrs. Mini, as research scholar. Hence, he made prayer to issue writ of 4 mandamus directing the respondent - University to accept the Ph.D thesis for approval.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - University has filed the statement of objections. Originally the duration period for completion of Ph.D is five years as per the regulations, which expired on 27.6.2007. Since the first guide provided by the University was shifted to Andhra Pradesh in the year 2006. Further time was extended after providing second guide to complete Ph.D within six months from 14.08.2009. The same was not done as per the regulations. As per the regulations the petitioner ought to have deposited Rs.8,300/- as process fee by challan through State Bank of Mysore. But, no such amount is deposited and the petitioner has not produced any challan for having paid the fees along with thesis and the petitioner was not serious about the Ph.D. course. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, under these circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner may be rejected.
5
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.
4. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was registered for Ph.D and a subject was allotted to complete the thesis within a period of five years. Accordingly, he should have completed on or before 2007 but the same has not been done. The second guide was provided by the University as the first guide was shifted from Bangalore to Andhra Pradesh in the year 2006. The petitioner supposed to submit the Ph.D thesis within six months. But the same has not been done and he has not produced the thesis for its process. As per the regulations, the petitioner could have deposited Rs.8,300/- as process fee by challen through State Bank of Mysore in the address of University and submitted challan for having paid the fee. Petitioner submits that he has paid the fees but has not produced the receipt for having paid the process fee. Unless, the amount is deposited, the thesis produced by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the same has not been considered by the respondents - University. Another aspect of the matter to be noted is that, petitioner was not serious about his Ph.D. His subject was registered on 6 28.02.2002 and he was permitted to produce the same on or before six months from 14.08.2009. For extension of period to submit final synopsis sought by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents-University by its order dated 11.5.2010 and 2.02.2013 at Annexures-A and B. The same have been challenged in the present Writ Petition and it indicates that the petitioner was not serious in obtaining his Ph.D.
5. The petitioner has approached this Court with delay and latches. He has approached this Court after three years from the second endorsement and more than thirteen years from the date of registration and there is lot of changes and the subject chosen by the petitioner has also got lot of changes. Under these circumstances the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be considered.
Accordingly, petition filed by the petitioner is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE ra