Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prasad Vilas Pawar vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 August, 2015
VINOD KUMAR
2015.08.25 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CM Nos.7503-04-CWP-2015 in [1]
CWP-25363-2014
******
Prasad Vilas Pawar vs. Union of India & ors. Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. J.S.Puri, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
***** The main writ petition was disposed of on 09.04.2015 with the following directions:-
i) to appoint the Administrative Guide of the petitioner;
ii) to allow the petitioner six months time from 09.04.2015 to submit his thesis if required along with synopsis report without payment of stipend beyond the period he is entitled (extended period);
iii) to allow the petitioner to stay in the hostel without any charge (extended period) till the submission of his thesis; and
iv) to consider the interim presentation submitted by the petitioner as his synopsis for all intents and purposes and that he would mention in his thesis that he was under the guidance of Dr. Neeraj Kumar who may be a member of the Oral Defence Committee if the law so permits. VINOD KUMAR 2015.08.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.7503-04-CWP-2015 in [2] CWP-25363-2014 ****** In the end, the petitioner was also given liberty to approach this Court again in case he feels aggrieved for non- compliance of any of the aforesaid directions.
The petitioner has filed the present application(s), alleging that Dr. Arvind K. Bansal, HoD, Department of Pharmaceutics, NIPER, has been appointed as his Administrative Guide on 24.04.2015, who has been harassing him in the past and he had made number of complaints against him, therefore, a non-controversial Administrative Guide may be appointed. The petitioner suggested the name of Dr. Joydev K. Laha, as Administrative Guide but his request was rejected by the respondents on the ground that Dr. Joydev K. Laha, Assistant Professor (Process Chemistry), Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, cannot be appointed as Administrative Guide, in accordance with the Rules.
After notice was issued in these application(s), the respondents have filed the reply and have strongly contested the application(s) on the ground that Dr. Joydev K. Laha is not related to the Department of Pharmaceutics and is not even remotely connected with research matter of the thesis of the petitioner. In this regard, counsel for the respondents has referred to Clause 29(g) of the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Degree of Masters and Doctor of Philosophy) amended Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter VINOD KUMAR 2015.08.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.7503-04-CWP-2015 in [3] CWP-25363-2014 ****** referred to as the "Ordinance"), which provides as under:-
"29. Advisor:
(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(g) Where the Advisor is not available on
account of retirement/resignation/death/long absence from the Institute before the approval of synopsis, a new Advisor shall be appointed for such a student.
Provided that if such a situation arises after approval of synopsis, the research shall be deemed to be completed under the originally appointed Advisor. For completion of remaining requirements, an Administrative Advisor shall be appointed by the Head of the Department with the concurrence of Dean and Director. The originally appointed Advisor shall be invited as a member of Oral Defence Committee, but in case of inability to accept the invitation, the Administrative Advisor will act as an Advisor. Reallocation of Ph.D. students under different Advisor shall be permitted under administrative exigencies to the satisfaction of Dean and Director. The change may be permitted in related discipline."
It is submitted by counsel for the respondents that the function of the Administrative Advisor is only to the extent that after the synopsis is prepared, the student has to submit his thesis to the Administrative Advisor, who would further submit the same to the Dean of the Department. The Administrative Advisor, in consultation with the Student VINOD KUMAR 2015.08.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.7503-04-CWP-2015 in [4] CWP-25363-2014 ****** Research Committee, shall also recommend to the Dean a panel of six experts, out of whom three of the experts shall be from abroad. Thereafter, the Dean has to nominate two experts out of the said panel for evaluation of thesis, out of whom one of the experts shall be from abroad. This is so provided in Clause 32 of the Ordinance:-
"32. Panel of Examiners-
a) xxx xxx xxx
b) Ph.D. Programmes:
i) The Advisor in consultation with the
Student Research Committee shall
recommend to the Dean a panel of
six experts, for every doctoral
student. Three of the experts shall
be from abroad; and
ii) Where the student submits Ph.D.
Thesis, the Dean shall nominate two
experts out of the panel for
evaluation of thesis. One of the
experts shall be from abroad."
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that after the thesis is evaluated by the experts and approved, the student has to face Oral Defense Committee in which the originally appointed Advisor shall be invited as a member and it is only in the case of his inability to accept the invitation by the originally appointed Advisor, the Administrative Advisor will act as an Advisor, as provided in Clause 29(g) of the VINOD KUMAR 2015.08.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.7503-04-CWP-2015 in [5] CWP-25363-2014 ****** Ordinance.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is presuming a lot before submitting his thesis to the experts because the job of the Administrative Advisor is only to recommend to the Dean a panel of six experts, that too with consultation of the Student Research Committee. Out of the six experts, three have to be from abroad and only two experts have to be chosen by the Dean of the Department, who would ultimately evaluate the thesis of the petitioner.
In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner is imagining a lot about the role to be played by Dr. Arvind K. Bansal against him. It is not expected that the person like Dr. Arvind K. Bansal, who is also the HoD, would try to harm the petitioner in any manner while recommending name of six experts with the consultation of the Student Research Committee.
In the end, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he was given six months time to complete his thesis when the original order dated 09.04.2015 was passed, but out of that period, he has lost a period of about 4 months, while pursuing these applications, therefore, he has prayed for extension of time by six months.VINOD KUMAR
2015.08.25 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CM Nos.7503-04-CWP-2015 in [6] CWP-25363-2014 ****** Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as per the Rules, six months time cannot be further extended.
However, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the period of 6 months is further extended from today i.e. upto 23rd February, 2016. The petitioner, if so advised, may submit his thesis by tomorrow. It is made clear that the petitioner shall also have the hostel facility without charges for the extended period.
This extension of period of six months in this case shall not be treated as a precedent in future.
Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.
August 24, 2015 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge