Karnataka High Court
Mr Dipankar Kaundilya vs Union Of India on 13 September, 2022
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.52603 OF 2019 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. DIPANKAR KAUNDILYA
S/O RAM NARESH SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT ROOM NO.002
N. BLOCK, INDIA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
BENGALURU - 12.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT. KALPANA.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
DELHI - 400 001
REPT BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES.
2. THE DIRECTOR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
BENGALURU - 560 012.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. SUMATHI, CGC FOR R-1;
SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE / CAVEATOR R-2 )
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-
A i.e., THE LETTER / ENDORSEMENT DTD: 22.02.2018 ISSUED BY
R-2 AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned letter / Endorsement at Annexure-A dated 22.02.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent - IISc., and for other reliefs.
2. The material on record discloses that in the year 2007, the petitioner enrolled for integrated PH.D programme in the respondent No.2 - Institute comprising of three years M.Sc., and five years Ph.D and the course work having been completed, petitioner passed the comprehensive exam during May, 2010 and was awarded M.Sc. degree in 2014. There are various allegations and counter allegations by the petitioner and respondent No.2 against each other as regards non-completion of the Ph.D programme and submissions of the draft thesis by the petitioner within the outer limit of 8 years, which consequently resulted in automatic cancellation of the registration in favour of the petitioner on 31.07.2015.
3. The petitioner submitted a representation along with the draft thesis for the purpose of Ph.D 3 requesting the 2nd respondent to revoke the cancellation of registration, pursuant to which, 2nd respondent addressed a Communication dated 15.01.2018 to the petitioner intimating him that his request for revocation of the cancellation would be considered after the report is found suitable by the Committee of Professors. It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to various reasons which were beyond the control of the petitioner and not attributable to him, he could not gain entry into the Institute and submit a complete and proper thesis, as a result of which, his request for cancellation of the revocation has been rejected by the 2nd respondent, which is assailed in the present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition, rejoinder etc., and the pleadings of the petitioner as well as referring to the documents on record, learned counsel for the 4 petitioner submits that the impugned Communication / Order at Annexure-A dated 22.02.2018 issued / passed by the respondents is illegal, erroneous and arbitrary being contrary to law as well as the facts and probabilities of the case, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that despite successive representations submitted by the petitioner narrating as to why he was not in a position to submit a proper thesis as required by the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any steps to ensure that the petitioner could submit a proper draft thesis and has proceeded to reject the request for revocation of cancellation of registration of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and the documents produced on record, submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
5
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
8. The material on record discloses that there are several allegations and counter allegations made by petitioner and 2nd respondent as regards the petitioner being allegedly prevented from entering the 2nd respondent
- Institute premises and utilise the hostel and laboratory facilities for the purpose of completing and submitting his draft thesis, which was found to be not acceptable to the 2nd respondent and its Expert Committee. It is also seen that there are various documents including correspondence etc., in this regard. It is also an undisputed fact that as per the student information hand book of the 2nd respondent which has been prepared, pursuant to the scheme regulations and bye-laws of the 2nd respondent - Institute, the registration automatically gets cancelled after expiry of the period of 8 years. It is also specifically contended by the petitioner that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a proper draft thesis to the 2nd respondent for the purpose of seeking revocation of the 6 cancellation of his registration was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. Under these circumstances, though several contentions are urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would submit a fresh / new draft thesis for the purpose of reconsideration of his request for revocation of cancellation of his registration, without expressing any opinion on the merit / demerits of the rival contentions, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned Communication / Order at Annexure-A dated 22.02.2018 and issue necessary directions for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to submit a fresh / new draft thesis to be considered by the 2nd respondent afresh in accordance with law.
7
9. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order / Endorsement at Annexure - A dated 22.02.2018 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioner is hereby directed to submit a fresh / new draft thesis to the 2nd respondent within a period of three months from today.
(iv) Immediately upon the petitioner submitting the aforesaid fresh / new draft thesis, the 2nd respondent shall take steps to consider the same and take appropriate decisions / pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as well as the scheme, regulations and bye-laws of the 2nd respondent -
Institute as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of submission of the draft thesis by the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV/SRL