Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anjali C. Rajan And Another vs Punjab Technical University And Others on 6 February, 2014
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No. 21699 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 21699 of 2013
Date of decision: 06.02.2014
Anjali C. Rajan and another ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Punjab Technical University and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Karambir Singh Chawla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate,
for respondents no. 2 to 5 and 9 to 12.
Mr. I.B. Bhandari, Advocate,
for respondent no. 6.
Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate,
for respondent no. 7.
Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate,
for respondent no. 8.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction that the respondent-University should declare the result of B.Tech 8th semester examination of the petitioners and supply their detailed mark cards and B.Tech degrees. Apart from seeking the relief of compensation from respondents no. 1 to 12 for harassment and mental torture.
The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they were admitted in the 4 years/8 semesters course of B.Tech (Electrical and Communication Engineering) for the academic session 2009-10 with the respondent no. 6- Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 2 college i.e. Chandigarh Engineering College, Landran, District Mohali in Punjab. The said college is affiliated to respondent no. 1- Punjab Technical University. In the 8th semester, the petitioners were required to undergo industrial training for six months and the petitioners were recommended by their college for industrial training to the Terminal Ballastics Research Laboratory, Chandigarh (TBRL), Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The petitioners were placed in the Bunker Blasting Group by the Head of the Research Department (HRD) of the TBRL and were required to report for training at the TBRL Range, Ramgarh. The said training was to last for six months from January 2013 to June 2013, which would be apparent from e-mail dated 03.01.2013 (Annexure P-9) whereas they were required to report initially on 21.12.2012 as per e-mail dated 17.12.2012 (Annexure P-10). The training was with a group of Scientists namely Mr. R.S. Bisht (Scientist F), Sh. M.K. Sharma (Scientist E) and the group head Dr. A.K. Sharma (Scientist F)-respondent no. 8. The petitioners were allotted the project "Spectroscopic Analysis of Shock Synthesized materials, using Specialized Electronic Equipments."
For undertaking the training, the petitioners went to Ramgarh and worked under the above group of Scientists and were also sent to the department of Physics, Himachal Pardesh University on the request of respondent no. 8 to work on the said project. It is, however, pleaded that this was done by respondent no. 8 as he was himself working on the said research project and thus they went to Shimla to avoid annoying the Group Head Dr. A.K. Sharma. It was further alleged that the said respondent made them to work various personal and awkward works which should not have been worked from female trainees and he himself was preparing for his Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 3 interview for promotion which was to be held on 21.05.2013 and the petitioners were asked to enable him to prepare for his interview. The mid term reports had to be submitted to the college authorities during March, 2013, which was duly done. The petitioners had submitted complaints dated 15.05.2013 to the Director, TBRL against respondent no. 8 and they completed the said project and the final viva was scheduled to be held on 20.05.2013 to 22.05.2013 by the college and various documents were asked for. Since the petitioners had completed their project which was the mandatory requirement, they asked respondent no. 8 to prepare the necessary final evaluation reports but he was adamant not to submit the same till the end of June, 2013 even though their work had been completed in May, 2013 itself. Many other similarly placed students of the petitioner- college itself with Industrial Training under the DRDO at different stations and many other similarly placed students of various other colleges affiliated to PTU were issued final evaluation reports and other necessary documents by their training Instructors/Supervisors without any difficulty. But due to the adamant attitude of respondent no. 8, they were harassed and they made complaints to the Director, TBRL. Eventually, the final reports were issued by Dr. M.K. Sharma (Scientist E). Thereafter, certificate dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure P-20) was also issued that the petitioners had undergone the industrial training in the TBRL by Dr. Amarjit Singh (Scientist G), Associate Director, TBRL. Similar certificates were also issued on 12.07.2013 regarding the industrial training undergone from 08.01.2013 to 30.06.2013 by Dr. V.K. Devgan, Group Director, HRD (Annexures P-21 and P-22). The college had sent the marks of the exams and of the vivas but result of the petitioners against their roll numbers was withheld. On Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 4 complaint, they came to know that respondent no. 8 had used his influence with the Vice Chancellor of respondent no. 1-University and the results were withheld on account of the complaint filed by him. Thereafter, the petitioners were called before an inquiry committee on 15.07.2013 on the complaint of respondent no. 8. The petitioners alongwith petitioner no. 1's mother and petitioner no. 2's father went to the University at Jalandhar wherein, respondents no. 9 to 12 were part of the inquiry committee and started pressurizing the petitioners for withdrawing their complaints (Annexures P-13 and P-14), which they had filed before the Director. The said committee had never disclosed that what were the allegations levelled against the petitioners by respondent no. 8 but kept on harassing the petitioners to withdraw their complaints on the ground that the training would be treated invalid and their academic year would be wasted. The alleged inquiry was a farce exercise and they had proceeded against the same on 16.07.2013 by sending e-mails and RTI application was moved on 18.07.2013 but the respondent-university did not give the reply. A notice dated 30.07.2013 was received whereby, they were required to appear before the inquiry committee on 01.08.2013 by respondent no. 9-Dr. Balkar Singh (Director, College Development). The petitioners alongwith their fathers managed to appear on the said date where respondent no. 8 was again present and a farce and biased inquiry was held which was objected against by sending separate e-mails on 02.08.2013. Respondent no. 8 had filed a complaint on 17.06.2013 (Annexure P-37), which was being acted upon illegally and on account of this, the result of the petitioners was not being declared. Resultantly, the present writ petition was filed pleading that the petitioners have been put to loss since during the Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 5 training period, they had received offers from various companies but due to the non-declaration of result, they have been prejudiced.
In the written statement filed by the respondent-university and on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 and 9 to 12, the plea taken was that the result was withheld because of the complaint made against the students by respondent no. 8 that the students had not returned the vital data and study material and samples which was handed over to them for spectroscopic analysis at Physics Department, Shimla. It has been alleged by Dr. A.K. Sharma that the students had fraudulently stolen their scientific work and reported the same for award of B.Tech. degree without his concurrence and approval. The committee had been constituted to call for the record of the students and the information had been asked for on the complaint of respondent no. 8 dated 07.06.2013 (Annexure R-1). The Director of TBRL had been informed regarding the same vide communication dated 27.06.2013 (Annexure R-3) asking for response to the case and the petitioner had also been asked to come present on 15.07.2013. In the meeting held on 15.07.2013, the petitioners had been asked to give their statements in writing to the Committee for record but they refused to do same. Then they were given a questionnaire but without submitting any reply and without giving any intimation, both the petitioners left the university and both the parties were called again on 29.07.2013. The minutes of the meeting dated 15.07.2013 were attached (Annexure R-7). No meeting was held on 29.07.2013 but it was held on 01.08.2013 in which respondent no. 8 was also present and petitioners with their parents were also there. The petitioners and their parents refused to answer the written question proforma which was provided to them by the inquiry committee Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 6 and the inquiry committee had recommended that a technical committee should be constituted having members from the field of Physics Material Science to evaluate the claim of Dr. A.K. Sharma on the said research work and the data published in the papers submitted by the trainees and the result was to be declared after the decision of the Technical Committee. The report dated 01.08.2013 was attached as Annexures R-9 and R-10. A technical committee was constituted of Dr. Ravi Kumar, Principal, Beant College of Engineering and Technology, Gurdaspur, Dr. A.K. Tyagi, Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Engineering, Ferozepur, Dr. Hitesh Kumar, Assistant Professor, PTU, Er. Navdeepak Sandhu, Placement Officer, PTU as convener. The said committee had scanned the work and found that there was ample evidence that the report of the students was resembling the interim reports signed by Dr. A.K. Sharma and the students should be asked to take a certificate from Dr. A.K. Sharma for work reported in their final report and TBRL Authorities be requested to discourage last minutes change of supervision to avoid these type of cases. The recommendation of the Committee dated 13.09.2013 was attached as Annexure R-12. Accordingly, the result stood withheld because the petitioners had used the research material of Dr. A.K. Sharma and false and frivolous allegations were levelled against the university.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 7-TBRL, it was stated that the petitioners were placed in the BKB group for training at Ramgarh Range and respondent no. 8 was also Group Director whereas Dr. Sh. R.S. Bisht and Dr. M.K. Sharma were supervising and coordinating the assigned work. The students were required to complete training within a maximum period of six months ranging from January, 2013 to June, 2013 Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 7 and the final issue of the project report was to be decided by the college as per their exam schedule. The final evaluation report could be issued even before the completion of six months training as the said final project report/final evaluation report is to be considered by the college authority at the time of viva. The duration of the industrial training was six months commencing from 08.01.2013 to 30.06.2013. Mid term report had been given for the progress of the petitioners and the petitioners had completed the project on 12.05.2013 and the final viva was scheduled from 20.05.2013 to 22.05.2013 and the petitioners were required to get the final project report assigned to them. Respondent no. 8 had made a complaint in his personal capacity as it was without approval/knowledge of the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 7. The petitioners had also made complaints against him on 15.05.2013 on which a fact finding enquiry was conducted by a committee of five officers and action on the report of that committee was under process in Head quarter of Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. The petitioners had successfully completed the industrial training at TBRL and the final evaluation reports had been signed by Sh. R.S. Bisht and Sh. M.K. Sharma.
Respondent no. 8, in his reply, took the plea that the petitioners have raised unreasonable demand of issuing the final training report 1-1/2 months prior to the completion of their training period and they had just obliged the Director by making the complaints (Annexures P-13 and P-14) levelling false and frivolous allegations and in return the Director got them issued the final reports and evaluation reports. The said reports were in violation of all norms from the persons who had never guided and imparted training to them. Mr. M.K. Sharma who was simply B.Tech (Mechanical) Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 8 under whom the petitioners never took any training, the issuance of certificates of training to the petitioners by the Director himself and the tone and tenor of the letters sent by the TBRL administration to the PTU authorities for providing the exact information proved his connivance. The respondent was already in litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh on the issue of denial of promotion to him as Scientist G and an order had been passed restraining the Director, TBRL from passing the order to the detriment of the applicant and unconditional apology had to be issued for causing delay in complying with the directions of the Tribunal. The answering respondent had also written to the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister of India on 27.09.2012 levelling serious charges against the Director, TBRL and demanded independent inquiry. The period of training was six months from January, 2013 to June 2013 and the petitioners wanted to get the final report and training certificates one and half month earlier prior to the completion of period and undue requests had been made for issuance of final reports. The answering respondent had to go to Delhi on 20.05.2013 to appear before the Internal Screening Committee (Main) constituted by Recruitment and Assessment Centre (RAC) of DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India on 21.05.2013 for assessment of further promotion for the post of Scientist-G. When he came back, he came to know that the petitioners had stopped coming to his group and some complaint had been filed against him about three weeks ago which was sent to the Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister and copy was only supplied later to him. Copies of the said complaint were already sent to the Chief Controller before his appearance for interview on 21.05.2013 and thus, his career was being spoiled on false complaints. Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 9 When the inquiry was conducted by the PTU, it transpired that valuable research work had been utilized and the answering respondent had appeared before the inquiry committee and submitted his comments whereas the petitioners have behaved arrogantly and refused to give written comments. It was further alleged that only petitioner no. 2 was placed in BKB group and she had reported for training exclusively to him and was under his guidance and other scientists of the group had nothing to do with their training. Petitioner no. 1 came to the answering respondent alongwith petitioner no. 2 with the request that she being a friend of petitioner no. 2 and a student of same college, she wished to get the same training under him and the answering respondent had allowed her to work with the condition that she would produce the orders from the HR department regarding her placement in BKB group, which she never did till her departure from the group in the month of May 2013. That the petitioners had requested him to send them to Himachal Pardesh University, Shimla and father of respondent no. 2 had even visited the said respondent's house to make the said request. The petitioners had taken costly specimens and study material from the answering respondent for the purpose of carrying out experiment at Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla and had not returned the same till date and the Shimla University had provided facilities to the petitioners free of cost only on his recommendation. Accordingly, the action of the non-issuance of the certificates was justified and the inquiry committee had acted fairly and granted full opportunity.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that he was associated with the Institute-TBRL and not with Dr.A.K.Sharma, respondent No.8, as such and the certificates having been issued by the Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 10 TBRL and since TBRL itself has given certificates that they have completed the internal training, the University was not justified in taking a stance that the certificate should be taken from Dr.A.K.Sharma, respondent No.8, as per its meeting dated 13.09.2013. It is alleged that he is the person who has harassed the petitioner's and therefore, he will not give any such certificate and they have been prejudiced as much as the result has not been declared since July, 2013.
Though counsels for TBRL and the College have not opposed the ground of relief, the opposition only stems from the University- respondent No.1 and with great vehemence from respondent No.8, Dr.A.K.Sharma. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No.8 that the petitioners were under the charge of the Group Head and the complaint was at the behest of the Director of TBRL who does not see eye to eye with respondent No.8 due to the fact that he had to apologise and filed an affidavit in the Central Administrative Tribunal and he has misused his position to get complaint filed by the petitioners against him. The respondent has written to the Scientific Advisor to the Defence Ministry against his conduct in April, 2013, 05.06.2013 and on 27.09.2013. Accordingly, reliance has been placed upon the final report submitted by the Committee set up by the University.
After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is liable to be allowed. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners had been sent for training to the Institute-TBRL and it is the Head of the Institute who is to further get allocated students to the respective groups and appraisal performa has to be duly signed by the Group Director, HRD. The said certificates have been issued on Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 11 12.07.2013, regarding the training which the petitioners have undergone (Annexures P-21 & P-22). The said certificate is in consonance with the letter dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P-23) and therefore, it is not for respondent No.1-University to unnecessarily hold an enquiry to the said procedure once the students had been sent for training with the Institution and as per the instructions, the certificates had been issued. It is also admitted matter of fact that vide letter dated 04.07.2013 written by respondent no. 8, the Institute had written to the University to supply them the copy of letter dated 07.06.2013, which was not written by TBRL. Similar requests had also been made on 27.07.2013 and on 02.08.2013. Respondent No.8 had to work under the directions of the Director of the Institute, who had issued orders dated 29.01.2013 (Annexure P23), wherein, it had been directed that TBRL students who had undergone training, could not be issued certificates directly. It had been directed that the concerned groups would forward the appraisal performa duly signed by the Group Director to the HRD Group on the basis of which, the Group Director of HRD would issue the training certificate to the respective students of the Institution. Withholding of the certificates at the instance of respondent No.8, to the detriment of the petitioners, was not justified.
However, one cannot but also notice the adamant attitude which has been adopted by the petitioners in not co-operating with the enquiry which had been conducted by respondent No.1. Perusal of Annexures go on to show that the students had complained to the Director of the Institute directly on 15.05.2013, without bringing it to the notice of the College where they were studying that they were having some difficulty for non-furnishing of the certificates. Thereafter, respondent No.8 also is Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 12 equally at fault as he, instead of resolving the issue with the Director of the Institute, further directly wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.1- University on 07.06.2013 which led to the meeting taking place on 15.07.2013. The students there also did not answer to the question which was prepared by the Committee and did not co-operate with the Committee set up. Thereafter, a technical Committee was constituted to evaluate the claim of the students, on the report sent by the trainees which came to the conclusion on 13.09.2013 that the final report submitted by the students was resembling with the matter sent by the interim report signed by respondent No.8 and also to the book published by him in the General Applied Physics and Material Science and Processing. It was, in such circumstances, the Technical Committee found that the students should take the certificates from Dr. A.K. Sharma. It is due to this reason the delay in the declaration of result has taken place. The conduct of respondent No.8 also cannot but be found wrong as he directly rushed to respondent No.1, Vice Chancellor, without approaching the Head of TBRL. The TBRL had never written or was aggrieved against the students and the conduct of respondent No.8 in directly approaching respondent No.1-University was also uncalled for. The said respondent's dispute with the Director of the Institute has also led to filing repeated complaints with the Ministry of Defence and from the written statement of the Institute, it would be clear that a Committee has been constituted to examine the conduct of the said respondent. It is unfortunate state of affairs that such a specialised institute, conducting such sensitive research, has fallen prey to rivalries inter se the eminent Professors who are holding important posts and doing valuable research. But, it is for them to put their house in order and it is not for this Court to opine on the Gupta Shivani 2014.02.06 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 21699 of 2013 13 same as it would be digressing from main issue in question.
It is not disputed that the petitioners have attended the said training from January, 2013 onwards and the dispute arose only in May and it is apparent that respondent No.8 was himself under some pressure of an interview regarding his promotion which was to take place in Delhi and the College was insisting for the evaluation material which was not furnished, which led to unnecessary pressure by respondent No.8, leading to the present stalemate. The certificate, thereafter, having been furnished by respondent-Institute in such circumstances, it would not be justified, now, for the respondent-University to withhold the result of the petitioners.
Accordingly, a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to immediately declare the result of the B.Tech. (Final) Eight Semester Examination of the petitioners and to supply detailed mark-cards and the final B.Tech Degrees, within a period of 2 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order.
06.02.2014 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
shivani JUDGE
Gupta Shivani
2014.02.06 12:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 21699 of 2013 14
Gupta Shivani
2014.02.06 12:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh