Karnataka High Court
M.J.Shanthi Prasad vs Visvesvaraya Technological ... on 10 December, 2012
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
WP NO 22032 OF 2009 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN
M.J.SHANTHI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O LATE S G KUMAR,
R/A NO.693, 32 MAIN,
J P NAGAR IST PHASE
BANGALORE-560 078 ...... PETITIONER
(BY SRI : PRAKASH M H, & M.I. ARUN, ADVOCATES )
AND
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY (VTU)
JNANASANGAMA, BELGAUM
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ENDORSEMENT/ LETTER DT. 13.3.2009 VIDE ANX-H,
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. DIRECT THE
-2-
RESPONDENT TO CONDUCT FINAL VIVA-VOCE TO
THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
ALONG WITH ORDERS ON IA NO.2/2011 THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
The Petitioner has sought for quashing of the endorsement/letter bearing No.VTU/Exam/2008- 09/7876; dated 13.3.2009 at Annexure-H issued bythe respondent and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to conduct final viva-voce to the petitioner in accordance with Annexure-E and for such other orders.
2. The petitioner is a holder of B.E., M.Tech., (Electronics) degree and has been working as Prof. & HOD of Electronics and Communications at Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, Bangalore and has represented several Universities as Board Member and in several other senior Positions. He applied for part time Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering Sciences at the -3- respondent University through Research Centre, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysore, under the guidance of Dr. M.N. Shanmukha Swamy, Professor of Electronics and communication and got registered for the same in the year August 2003. He selected the topic for Ph.D in "Estimation and suppression of Substrate Noise in Mixed Signal IC'S"
and his registration for Ph.D., was approved by the respondent - University. The petitioner having completed his course work and comprehensive Viva- voce as required under the regulations, has become eligible for submission of the Thesis and submitted his thesis in the month of November 2006. The respondent identified examiners on 2.12.2006. The guide of the petitioner, after evaluating the Thesis, has accepted the same and subsequently has given clarifications sought. On 5.7.2007, foreign evaluator sent his report, wherein he did not recommend the acceptance of the Thesis and asked for resubmission of the Thesis. The Indian evaluator during February 2008, recommended for -4- acceptance of the Thesis of the petitioner suggesting certain clarifications. Thereafter, on 28.4.2008, the respondent - University intimated the guide Dr.M.N. Shanmukhaswamy, that the petitioner be intimated to carry out the corrections and resubmit the Thesis. The petitioner carried out the necessary corrections as indicated and resubmitted it in June 2008. The rejection of the Thesis of the petitioner for the award of "Doctor of Philosophy" by the respondent - University after the three evaluators have recommended the same is in violation of the regulation governing the award of Ph.D. in the respondent - University. Hence, this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent - University to conduct final viva-voce to the petitioner in accordance with Annexure-E.
3. Heard and perused the documents.
4. According to the petitioner, as per the provisions contained in Regulations governing the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the -5- Faculty of Engineering and the Faculty of General Science with effect from 30.6.2006, Regulation PHD 8.4 provides "The University shall arrange for the thesis to be evaluated by three referees, namely, the Guide, and two other experts appointed by the Vice-Chancellor from the panel as per PHD 8.2 which is applicable.
5. Regulation PHD 8.7 and PHD 8.8 reads as under:
"PHD 8.7: When favourable recommendations are received from all the referees, the Registrar (Evaluation) shall convey the same to the Guide along with copies of the adjudication reports of the thesis, with a request to conduct the final viva-voce of the candidate. The Committee for the final viva-voce shall consist of the Guide as the Chairman, Co-Guide, if any, and the Indian examiner. In case the Indian examiner informs in writing his/her inability to be present at viva-voce, the Guide shall intimate the same to the Registrar (Evaluation), who in turn shall appoint -6- another Indian examiner from the panel of examiners. The candidate shall provide suitable clarifications for all the queries, if any, at the time of viva-voce.
PHD 8.8 If two of the referees have not recommended for the award of the degree, the thesis shall be rejected. However, it shall be open for the candidate to seek registration afresh with the University."
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of the Regulations PHD 8.7 and 8.8, despite acceptance of the Thesis by the guide and the examiner and after such clarification given by the petitioner, instead of proposing for viva- voce, the respondent - University has sent a communication to the petitioner vide Annexure-H rejecting the thesis of the petitioner for the award of "Doctor of Philosophy", even without calling for the petitioner for viva-voce i.e. in total violation of Ph.D Regulations 8.7 and 8.8.
-7-
7. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent - Visvesvaraya Technological University, it is stated that the foreign referee has made a note about the thesis that, the Thesis suffers from too many cut and paste from PDF and documents files from the web. Also, according to the respondent, the petitioner is a student of Doctoral Program and false reports in such high level programs will bring down the quality of education and the name of the University, and as such, the thesis was further referred to two more experts to verify the plagiarized data, if any, which the Thesis seems to have. The two experts are from one of the highly ranked institutions and are professionals in the area of research carried out by the petitioner. The reports of the experts were placed before the Academic Senate and the Executive Council, who have also rejected the Thesis. It is further stated that petitioner being a student of doctoral program and has served in different capacities and taught number of students; if such people indulge in plagiarism in order to get their -8- degree, the quality of such high level degrees and even education will be under question. Accordingly, they have sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel representing the respondent
- University, it is noticed that the petitioner, after having duly completed the course work and comprehensive Viva-voce as required under the regulations, has become eligible for submission of the Thesis.
9. According to the Regulations of the respondent
- University, when a candidate registers himself for Ph.D, he shall be eligible for submission of thesis after a minimum period of three years from the date of provisional registration and if two of the referees have not recommended for the award of the degree, the thesis shall be rejected.
-9-
10. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, if once there was an observation with regard to plagiarism, it will be referred to two of the experts in the field and they have opined that petitioner is not entitled for award of Ph.D degree and as no favourable report was obtained, the case of the petitioner has been rejected by the academic council and executive council and there is no illegality. Accordingly, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
11. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, all such clarifications sought for by the external foreign examiner regarding authenticity of the references has been clarified and they are re- submitted to the external foreign examiner through the guide, the same has been accepted and there was no necessity once again to refer it to two more experts and taking a decision adverse to the interest of the petitioner. It appears, there is no proper procedure being followed even though the regulations governing -10- the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in awarding Ph.D. is very clear.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter at Annexure-H is hereby quashed. The respondent - University is hereby directed to act in accordance with the provisions of PHD Regulations 2006, regarding evaluation of the thesis and to take further action in accordance with law. The decision shall be taken within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL