Kerala High Court
Dr.Beenamma Mathew vs Mahatma Gandhi University on 22 April, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:-
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/30TH KARTHIKA, 1935
W.P.(C).No.7121 of 2012 (M)
-------------------------------------------------
PETITIONER:-
--------------------
DR.BEENAMMA MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.ELIAS,
RESIDING AT NJARACKAL, MUTTAMBALAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY.
RESPONDENTS:-
-------------------------
1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,
MAHATMAGANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.
3. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMAGANDHI UNIVERSITY,
PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560.
4. LALIMOL.S,, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.PRATHAPAN,
RESIDING AT 'VISHNUPRIYA', MEMANA ROAD,
THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA - 682 018.
R1 TO R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL DR.P.LEELAKRISHNAN.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21-11-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.6635 OF 2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C).NO.7121 OF 2012-M
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
--------------------------------------
EXT-P1 - A LIST OF THE PAPERS PUBLISHED BY THE PETITIONER
IN THE VARIOUS JOURNALS.
EXT.P2 - A LIST OF THE SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS
ATTENDED/CONDUCTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.BV.2/793/2004
DATED 22-4-2005 ISSUED BY THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO.AC.A.VI/R.G/2005
DATED 20-4-2006.
EXT.P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE TEACHER'S REPORT CARD 2008-09 OF THE
NIRMALA COLLEGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXT.P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER,
UO NO.4823/AII/2010/ACADEMIC DATED 30-9-2010.
EXT.P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AII/2/674/MAL/JULY/2006
DATED 29-03-2007.
EXT.P8 - TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF TEXT MESSAGES SENT BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT AND RECEIVED IN THE MOBILE PHONE
OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AC.AII/2/1191/MAL/EXP/2012
DATED 7-2-2012.
EXT.P10 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AC.AII/2/674/MAL/JULY/2006
DATED 2.3.2012.
EXT.P11 - A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER SENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE BASELIOSE POULOSE II CATHOLICOSE COLLEGE,
PIRAVOM.
EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.16082/D3/07/H.Edn. DATED
11.06.2007 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXT.P13(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.26120/31/2011/H.Edn.
DATED 15.2.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXT.P13(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.2032/2012/H.Edn. DATED
27.09.2012 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
W.P.(C).NO.7121 OF 2012
- 2 -
EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF
TEACHERS DATED 27.10.2010.
EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE UO NO.5796/Ac.AVI 2010/Acad. DATED 8.11.2010.
EXT.P16 - THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION
GUIDELINES FOR THE MAJOR RESEARCH PROJECT.
EXT.P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR.
EXT.P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.Ac.AII/2/RTI/6863/2012 DATED
17.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, ALONG WITH THE EXTRACT OF THE
CONCERNED FILE OF THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P19 - TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTERS GIVEN BY THE
PRINCIPAL AND THE GUIDE IN RESPECT OF SMT.REKHA.K.
DATED 16.2.2013.
EXT.P20 - TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTERS GIVEN BY THE
PRINCIPAL AND THE GUIDE IN RESPECT OF MISS.CHITHRA MOHANAN
DATED 16.2.2013.
EXT.P21 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGULATIONS FOR THE REGISTRATION OF
Ph.D. AND FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY, 2001.
EXT.P22 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.Ac.AII/.2/914/Mal/Jan/09
DATED 22.6.2013.
EXT.P23 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.EBX(2)Ph.D/8/2013
DATRED 15.5.2013.
EXT.P25 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.F.3-1/2009 DATED 30.6.2010.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
----------------------------------------
EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE UO.NO.810/A1/2009/ADMN. DATED 24.02.2009 BY
WHICH THE SYNDICATE HAS DELEGATED TO THE
VICE-CHANCELLOR, THE POWER TO GRANT THE CHANGE OF
GUIDESHIP.
EXT.R4(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN
THE CASE OF MRS.ASHA MATHAI.
EXT.R4(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE
PRINCIPAL IN THE CASE OF SRI.BIJU VARGHESE.
W.P.(C).NO.7121 OF 2012
- 3 -
EXT.R4(c) - TRUE CO-PY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SRI.BIJU VARGHESE
TO THE CORPORATE MANAGER.
EXT.R4(d) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY SRI.BIJU VARGHESE
BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY FOR CHANGE OF GUIDE.
EXT.R4(e) - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL ASSESSMENT SHEET PREPARED
IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(f) - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATION OF Ph.D.,
THESIS DATED 8.11.2011 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R4(g) - TRUE COPY OF THE PROGRESS REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE RESPONDENT.
vku/ (true copy)
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.7121 of 2012-M & 6635 of 2013-D
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2013
JUDGMENT
Two scholars, both of whom are also teachers, are at each others throats. What ought not to have happened between a teacher and student, has occurred and this Court is set with the task of resolving that issue.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6635 of 2013 was a research scholar under the guidance of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.7121 of 2012. The parties are referred to as "research student" and "research guide". While the research guide has approached this Court against her removal at the fag end of the submission of thesis, the research student has approached this Court for the grant of her Doctoral Degree on the thesis submitted through another research guide.
3. The short facts necessary for the resolution of the dispute raised are that the research student was admitted to the part-time Research Scholarship under the respondent-University on 29.03.2007 by Exhibit P7, under the guidance of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.7121 of 2012. The research student was, after a period of time, made full-time Scholar and a synopsis was submitted on 10.11.2011.The final thesis had to be submitted within three months therefrom, which was WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 2 - 6635 of 2013-D extended for a period of one month, on the request of the research student. The research student contends that when the time started running out, the research guide did not countersign her thesis and hence, she approached the research guide at her residence, in the night, on 31.01.2012. Despite waiting throughout the night, the research guide, who was away attending a function, did not return. In such circumstances, she filed a representation before the Vice-Chancellor on 03.02.2012 and the University called for an explanation from the research guide.
4. The research guide, on the other hand, submits that, despite the relationship being very cordial till last, the research student, without any reason, came to the residence of the guide in the night of 31.01.2012. Despite the research guide not being present and in spite of the research student being categorically asked to come on the next day, she along with her husband waited outside the house of the research guide throughout the night, thus causing acute embarrassment to the guide's family.
5. On going through the explanation offered by both the research guide and the research student, this Court is of the opinion that both acted in a most intemperate manner without any restrain or grace. This Court records such an opinion only in the context of both WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 3 - 6635 of 2013-D the research guide and the research student, being teachers, engaged in imparting knowledge to their students. If only they had maintained the exalted position of 'Gurus' and behaved with the dignity that becomes scholars, the present circumstance would not have come to pass. Be that as it may, this Court does not intend to go into the allegations and counter-allegations made.
6. The writ petition filed by the research guide [W.P.(C). No.7121 of 2012] seeks for re-submission of the thesis by the research student through her as she had been guiding the research student throughout the research conducted and the thesis was prepared in its full form under her guidance. The research guide also prays for quashing of Exhibit P10 order by which the guide of the research student was changed. By an interim application, the points due to the research guide, on a research scholar being granted the Doctoral Degree, is also sought for. The research student, on the other hand, seeks to sustain the order of the Vice-Chancellor and seeks the aid of this Court for the grant of her Doctoral Degree.
7. The legal contention put forward by the research guide against the cancellation of her appointment is based on the Regulations of the University, produced as Exhibit P21 along with WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 4 - 6635 of 2013-D I.A.No.8633 of 2013. The research guide specifically refers to Regulation 26, which is extracted hereunder:
"Normally, a change of the Supervising Teacher is not allowed. However, in the event of death of the supervising teacher or when a supervising teacher leaves the department either permanently or on leave to distant places from where he/she cannot supervise the work of the scholar shall be allowed by the Syndicate to change the supervising teacher based on the recommendations of the supervising teacher/Departmental Doctoral Committee".
It is the contention of the learned counsel that, going by the said Regulation, change of guide can be effected only on consent being granted by the supervising teacher, i.e., the appointed guide, or after obtaining a report from the Departmental Doctoral Committee. In the present case, it is contended that neither of these are obtained.
8. Even though there was also a contention that only the Syndicate is empowered to make such orders, it is pertinent that the University has produced an order of 2009 [Exhibit R1(a)], wherein the Syndicate, delegated, specifically, such power to the Vice-Chancellor. Even then the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that going by the file maintained by the University, which the petitioner has obtained under the Right to Information Act WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 5 - 6635 of 2013-D and produced as Exhibit P18; it would be clear that the order of the Vice-Chancellor is vitiated by total lack of reasons and for violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submits that immediately on a complaint being filed by the research student, the explanation of the research guide was called for. The research guide had submitted Exhibit P17 explanation, which details what had happened on the night of 31.01.2012. From the files, it is also indicated that even after the explanation was offered by the guide, the research student was directed to give her remarks as per the directions of the Vice-Chancellor. This resulted in a detailed explanation having been submitted by the research student, which also is part of the files produced as Exhibit P18. Allegations galore are made against the research guide and she was not put notice of the same, is the contention.
9. As has been noticed above, this Court is not enjoined upon to look into the allegations and counter-allegations, with respect to the incident in the present writ petition. But, necessarily the legal ground raised by the learned counsel has to be met. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on Regulation 26, according to this Court, is not sustainable. The instances of changing the supervising teacher, specifically, as noticed in Regulation 26, is the WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 6 - 6635 of 2013-D death of the supervising teacher or when on any account the supervising teacher leaves the Department disabling him/her from supervising the work. It is only in such circumstance that the change of the supervising teacher is provided for, with the consent of the supervising teacher or with a report from the Departmental Doctoral Committee. This does not mean that in any other circumstance, a research guide ought not to be changed. Eruption of disputes like the present one, on account of clashes between individuals, necessarily would not have been taken into account by the University when Regulations are made. All situations of human conflict cannot be possibly contemplated while framing Regulations and remedies provided there for. The Vice-Chancellor being the head of the institution, subject only to the Chancellor, and being the person designated with all administrative and academic powers, necessarily could exercise his discretion and pass an order changing a research guide in circumstances like the instant case. It cannot at all be said that the Vice-Chancellor could not exercise powers unless and until a particular situation is stipulated under the Regulations.
10. In looking at the reasonableness of such a power exercised by the Vice-Chancellor, especially on the question of WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 7 - 6635 of 2013-D violation of principles of natural justice and the lack of reasons recorded, this Court would necessarily have to keep in mind the prejudice caused to the parties. Evidently the prejudice caused to the research guide is in so far as being denied of the points as per the University Grants Commission Regulations, which she would have obtained if the research student had submitted the thesis under her guidance. In the context of the allegations and counter-allegations raised, this Court finds that the discretion exercised by the Vice-Chancellor is perfectly in order and was only to maintain good order in the academic institution. The lack of reasons, again, cannot be a ground looking at the allegations made by both of the parties. The Vice-Chancellor consciously would have desisted from making any comments on the same. The violation of principles of natural justice in the context of the voluminous explanation and counter-explanation recorded before the Vice-Chancellor, again would be an empty formality. The Vice-Chancellor, in the opinion of this Court, took the best course open, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. The decision to change the guide even at the fag end, to see that the student does not lose her Doctoral Degree merely by reason of the conflict that has arisen with the guide, WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 8 - 6635 of 2013-D cannot be faulted. The research guide too, definitely, should be compensated and should feel that no prejudice has been caused to her in such action. That in fact has been remedied by this Court by an interim order dated 29.03.2012 in W.P.(C).No.7121 of 2012. The interim order is extracted hereunder:
"The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the University to allot points to the petitioner by assessing the work she has undertaken, for successful completion of the thesis work.
The petitioner can file a request to the University along with a copy of this order and the same will be considered by the Vice chancellor and appropriate decision will be taken and communicated to the petitioner".
12. However, on the request made by the research guide pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the University has considered the issue and communicated to the research guide by letter dated 24.06.2013 that "the University has no system of awarding grade points to research guides on completion of research by research scholars" (sic). The research guide is prejudiced in so far as the UGC Regulation provides for grant of points with reference to each research student, supervised by the guide, at the time of consideration for promotion to the post of Professor. This WP(C).No.7121 of 2012-M & - 9 - 6635 of 2013-D stipulation is as per the notification of the UGC, produced as Exhibit P24, which is published in the Gazette dated 16.10.2010.
13. The only prejudice caused to the research guide would be in such points being denied at the time of promotion. Such prejudice can be rectified in so far as directing the University or the concerned authority to consider the research student, Lalimol.S., as having obtained the Doctoral Degree under the guidance of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.7121 of 2012 and requisite points for the same be awarded to the research guide, at the time she is considered for promotion. So far as the research student is concerned, her writ petition [W.P.(C).No.6635 of 2013] stands allowed and she shall be issued with the Doctoral Degree, if it is finally sanctioned by the respective academic body of the University.
Both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the above directions. The parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
( true copy )