Kerala High Court
Abdul Rasheed.K.M vs The Controller Of Examinations on 29 November, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32017 of 2010(B)
1. ABDUL RASHEED.K.M.,AGED 54 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
... Respondent
2. THE SYNDICATE REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASEENDRAN,SC,KANNUR UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 32017 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the Registrar of the Kannur University. According to the petitioner, on 28/1/2006, the Vice Chancellor of the University granted him no objection to register as Part Time Research Scholar under the Research guide Dr.Janardhanan, Reader in Chemistry of S.N.College,Kannur. Following the grant of no objection, on 15/7/2006, Vice Chancellor also granted registration to the petitioner subject to ratification by the Syndicate of the University.
2. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to the above, he completed the research work and submitted his thesis titled "Important Principles in Spices with special reference to Nutmeg"
on 28/10/2009. Ext.P1 is referred to as the acknowledgement issued by the Vice chancellor in this behalf. Petitioner says that his thesis ought to have been dealt with in terms of the Ext.R1(a) regulations framed by the University for awarding Degree of Doctor of Philosophy and that there was no further progress in the matter.
WPC No. 32017/10 :2 :
3. He therefore made Exts.P2 and P3 representations to the Vice Chancellor which are dated 23/11/09 and 16/4/2010 requesting for expediting further action on his thesis. It is subsequently on 15/5/10, the Syndicate ratified the decision of the Vice Chancellor dated 15/7/06 granting registration to the petitioner.
4. According to the University, in pursuance to the aforesaid decision, Ext.R1(b) order was issued by the University on 7/8/2010. Even thereafter, there was no progress in the matter and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to complete the process of adjudicating the thesis submitted by the petitioner for awarding him the Ph.D.
5. University has filed a counter affidavit producing various documents including Ext.R1(a), the relevant Regulations. The University also accepts that the petitioner has already submitted his thesis and according to the University, after Ext.R1
(b) order was passed ratifying the decision of the Vice Chancellor granting the petitioner registration, University in processing the thesis submitted by the petitioner in order to deal with the same WPC No. 32017/10 :3 : in accordance with Ext.R1(a) Regulations.
6. Therefore, as at present, all that is required is that the University should process the thesis submitted by the petitioner and if the documents submitted by the petitioner are inadequate, require him to make good the inadequacy, and thereafter, if the thesis is in order, appoint a panel of adjudicators, sent the thesis for their evaluation and report, and place the matter before the Syndicate for final decision.
7. Although, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the thesis was submitted on 28/10/2009, and till now, there has not been any appreciable progress in the matter, since the aforesaid process has to be undergone, I direct that the respondents herein will take further action on the thesis submitted by the petitioner in the manner as directed above.
8. This the respondents shall do as expeditiously as possible and the process shall be completed within five months of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp