Karnataka High Court
Sri R Ranjith vs Bangalore University on 28 October, 2022
-1-
WP NO. 20052 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.20052 OF 2021 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI R RANJITH
S/O LATE SRI RANGARAJU M
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
PH.D STUDENT AT BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
BENGALURU-560056
R/OF SOLURU VILLAGE (KOTE), MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562127.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GURURAJ KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANA BHARATHI
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
BENGALURU-560052.
of Karnataka
2. THE CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
UVCE
JNANA BHARATHI
BENGALURU-560052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY T P., ADVOCATE FOR R1
AND R2)
-2-
WP NO. 20052 OF 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-J I,E THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 12.08.2021 AND ANNEXURE-K I.E
PROVISIONAL PH.D REGISTRATION MEMO DATED 13.08.2021
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned Notification dated 12th August, 2021 produced at Annexure-J to the writ petition and the provisional Ph.D. registration memo dated 13th August, 2021 issued by the respondent-University.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a BE (Civil) Graduate and completed M.E.(Highway Engineering) in the year 2018 and intends to pursue Higher Education, i.e. Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.). The respondent-University has issued Notification dated 06th June, 2019 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for admission to Ph.D. Course for the period 2019 as per Annexure-B and B1 to the petition. Pursuant to same, the petitioner made application under the Category of III-A seeking admission to Ph.D course. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared -3- WP NO. 20052 OF 2021 for the relevant examination conducted by the respondent- University and was declared eligible for admitting to Ph.D. course. The name of the petitioner was notified in the provisional Rank List for Admission to Ph.D. for second round counseling in the Department of Civil Engineering as per Annexure-F. In the meanwhile the respondent-University has issue Circular dated 05th July, 2021, fixing the date as 20th July, 2020 for second round counseling and the petitioner attended the counseling and opted one Dr. Manjesh.L (Highway Professor) as his Guide for Ph.D. course. The said option has been accepted by both, the Guide and the petitioner herein, and as such, petitioner appeared personally for counseling. However, the petitioner came to know that one Dr. Suresh G., (Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering) has been appointed as Guide to the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri Gururaj Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University.
-4-
WP NO. 20052 OF 2021
4. Sri Gururaj Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, appointing Dr. Suresh G as Guide to the petitioner for pursuing Ph.D. course by the respondent- University is contrary to Clause 11 of the Guidelines for Admission of the Candidates for Ph.D. course under Regulations 2016 produced at Annexure-L to the writ petition. He further argued that as per Annexure-P to the writ petition, the petitioner earlier studied Masters degree in Civil Engineering (Highway Engineering) and has also published paper in the International Conference guidance under Dr. Manjesh L during 2016-18, and therefore if Dr. Manjesh L is continued to be guide even for pursing Ph.D course, the petitioner would be more benefited accordingly sought that appointing Prof. Suresh G as his guide to pursue Ph.D. course, is to be set aside in this writ petition.
5. Per contra Sri T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University by reiterating the grounds taken in objection statement, contended that the language employed in Clause 11 of the Guidelines provides for the word "may" and therefore the petitioner has no legal right to claim appointing Dr. Manjesh L. -5- WP NO. 20052 OF 2021 as his Guide. He further contended that the petitioner himself had appeared in the counseling and as per Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections agreed for choosing Prof. Suresh G as his Guide and therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to change his Guide at his whims and fancies and therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. He further contended that as per Annexure-R6 to the statement of objection, only two Professors are eligible for guiding the students who are opting for Ph.D. course and there is no vacancy as such, and therefore he submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. In the light of the submission made the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed his Bachelors degree in Civil Engineering and Masters degree in Civil Engineering (Highway Engineering) in the year 2018 from the respondent-University. Perusal of the certificate produced at Annexure-P would indicate that Dr. Manjesh L was the Guide of the petitioner during the Masters in Civil Engineering and however, taking into consideration the fact that Regulations of the University provides for admitting the student for Ph.D. Course in the respondent-University, I have carefully examined the language -6- WP NO. 20052 OF 2021 employed in Clause 11 of Guidelines produced as Annexure-L to the writ petition, which reads as follows:
"11. After the notification of Consolidated Merit List, the universtiy may arrange for the counseling before the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) at the University PG department for the allotment of research supervisor/guide or may ask the Departmental research committee of the respective department under the chairpersonship of the P.G. Department to allot the candidates to the Research Supervisors based on the merit list, specialization stream of the candidate and the Research Supervisor and the willingness of both the Research Supervisor and the Candidate."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Having taken note of Clause 11 of the Guidelines for admission of the candidate for Ph.D. program under Regulation 2016, the appointment of Guides is at the behest of the respondent-University, since the language employed is "may" and not "shall" as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is also submitted by Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay during the course of arguments that the respondent-Universty has already allotted 8 students to Dr. Manjesh L, which is the maximum limit for sending the students -7- WP NO. 20052 OF 2021 for Guideship and therefore, I am of the view that interference, at this stage, cannot be made insofar as the prayer made by the petitioner. Further, having taken note of Annexure-R4 to the statement of objection whereby the petitioner himself as chosen Prof. Suresh G as his Guide for Ph.D. Course and same was accepted by the said Guide, i.e. Prof. Suresh G, and same has been endorsed by the Chairman of Civil Engineering and as such, at this stage interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not arise in the academic field. Therefore, writ petition fails, accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54