Orissa High Court
Sudhansubala Patanaik vs Vice Chancellor on 16 August, 2023
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7503 of 2019
Sudhansubala Patanaik .... Petitioner
Dr.J.K.Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
Vice Chancellor, Utkal University .... Opposite Parties
and others
Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Order No. ORDER
16.08.2023
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as
Mr.A.K.Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Utkal University.
Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents
annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following
prayer :
" In the circumstances, the Petitioner, therefore,
most humbly prays that your Lordships would be
graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the
Opp.Parties to show cause as to why the impugned
rejection order dated 31.10.2018 at Annexure-8 should
not be quashed and as to why the Opp.Parties should not
be directed to give registration number to the Petitioner
forthwith and allow the Petitioner to submit the Ph.D
thesis and if the Opp.Parties fails to show insufficient
cause/causes the Rules be made absolute;
// 2 //
And further be pleased to impose cost and
compensation on the Opp.Parties for harassment and
mental agony for last 8 years;
And issue any other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper;
4. The factual background of the Petitioner's case, as culled out
from the Writ Petition is that the Petitioner, who has completed her
Post Graduation in Odia had applied to the Opposite Parties-
University for Ph.D registration in the subject topic "Kuntala
Shrastha-Mansara Barna Bichitra". Such application of the Petitioner
was placed before the Subject Research Committee ( in short SRC )
on 24.05.2010 and the SRC recommended her name for registration
in Ph.D programme of the University on the subject mentioned
herein above. Moreover, the Vice Chancellor as per order dated
30.09.2011approved the recommendation of the SRC. Thereafter, the Petitioner was intimated by the Controller of Examinations on 15.10.2011 to deposit a sum of Rs.1500/-, which the Petitioner has already deposited towards the fee for registration on 27.10.2021. After depositing the aforesaid amount, the Petitioner communicated to the University for taking further action in the matter and to grant Registration number to the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that on several occasions i.e. on 15.10.2021, 17.10.2012, 20.01.2014 and 07.10.2016 the Petitioner reminded the University for providing registration number to the Petitioner. However, the Opposite Parties University did not grant registration number. Being aggrieved by such inaction, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that at the time of submitting her application, the Petitioner has given the name of Dr.Nrusingha Charan Sarangi as Guide for her Ph.D work.
// 3 // He also submitted that all the relevant documents as are required for Ph.D registration including the name of the Guide were also submitted. Even the Subject Research Committee in its meeting approved the name of the Guide suggested by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the Petitioner has submitted his migration certificate, however the same was misplaced by the University along with the original file and the same could not be traced out in the Office of the University. Thereafter, the University issued duplicate migration certificate on 04.02.2018. After resubmission of migration certificate, the University wanted to know about the status of the Guide/Supervisor. The Guide/Supervisor intimated the University that 13 numbers of candidates doing research under him have already been awarded Ph.D by the University from 1992-2011 and that the Petitioner is doing her research work under his guidance and accordingly the abovenamed Guide recommended for issuance of registration number in favour of the Petitioner.
6. Despite such intimation by the abovenoted Guide/Supervisor, the University vide its letter dated 31.10.2018 informed the Petitioner that registration of Ph.D programme of the Petitioner cannot be considered since the Subject Research Committee recommendation was made in her favour on 24.05.2010 i.e. eight years back and the proposed guide is a visiting Professor of Odia in Stewart Science College, Cuttack. The present guide of the Petitioner who was working as a Reader has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation recently from Stewart Science Degree College, Cuttack. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the delay of eight years as has been alleged by the Petitioner is due to missing of original file of the Petitioner in the // 4 // Office of the University. As a result of which the Petitioner had to resubmit her migration certificate before the University again. So far as the guide of the Petitioner is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is no difficulty for the Guide to continue even after retirement from service. Moreover, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the event the Guide is not acceptable to the University, then they should have informed the Petitioner with regard to the disqualification /ineligibility of the guide/supervisor thereby giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to suggest another guide. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the process the Petitioner has lost over a decade's time in completing his Ph.D work. The loss sustained by the Petitioner in true sense, an irreparable loss and the same cannot be compensated in any manners. Accordingly, he has filed the present Writ Petition.
7. Mr.A.K.Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Utkal University has filed a Counter Affidavit. In the Counter Affidavit, the University has taken a stand that the Petitioner has deposited Rs.1500/- in response to a letter of the Controller of Examination dated 15.10.2011 towards processing fees for registration and such fee was not deposited towards registration fee for the Ph.D programme. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the SRC is the final authority and after their recommendation only the Petitioner will get his registration number as per the University Regulation. In the Counter Affidavit, it has also been stated that the Petitioner had to deposit the required fee for registration on 04.11.2011 and as per Rule she has not suggested any proper guide although she has not got her registration number as per the University Regulation.
// 5 //
8. In the Counter Affidavit, it has been categorically admitted by the Opposite Parties-University that the SRC has recommended the name of the guide on 24.05.2010. However, such recommendation of the SRC was not sent by the P.G. department of the University. Moreover in paragraph-11 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated by the Opposite Party University that the named guide/supervisor has given a self declaration which includes the name of scholars, who are pursuing Ph.D programme under his guidance. Therefore, the University has taken a stand that such declared number exceeds permissible quota as per the UGC Regulation, 2016. Learned counsel for the University further contended that since the recommendation of the SRC was made eight years back and recently new Rules and Regulation have been framed by the UGC which is being followed by University. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the recommendation of the SRC is no more acceptable at this stage by the University. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the University submitted before this Court that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties, on a careful consideration of their submissions as well as after going through the pleadings from both sides and on examination of the materials placed on record, this Court observes the slackness shown by the University authority in the present case. It is also observed by this Court that although the SRC had recommended the case of the Petitioner since 24.05.2010, it is because of slackness of the University, the Petitioner has been waiting to get the registration number for several years. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the University that since the recommendation was made more than // 6 // eight years back, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, it is observed that the Petitioner had deposited the processing fee pursuant to an intimation by the Controller of Examinations. However, the same is being disputed by the University by submitting that the registration fee has not been paid. In that view of the matter, the University authority should have informed the Petitioner immediately. Accordingly, there is nothing on record that any such offer/demand was ever made by the University authority, even after accepting the amount deposited by the Petitioner, pursuant to letter dated 15.10.2011.
10. With regard to the guide suggested by the Petitioner and not by the SRC, this Court also observes that initially the name of the guide was suggested by the Petitioner. Thereafter, there was no problem and the Petitioner was continuing her research work under her guide. At a belated stage, the University objected to appointment of a guide, who is working as Visiting Professor in a private College at Cuttack. Moreover, in the Counter Affidavit, the University authority has categorically admitted that five candidates are doing their Ph.D work under the abovenamed guide. Acceptance of the Petitioner by the same guide would be in violation of UGC Regulation, 2015. Such stand taken by the University does not stand to reason. This Court is of the further view that in the event the guide was not eligible then such fact should have been informed to the Petitioner immediately. Then she should have opted for another guide. However, there is nothing on record that the Petitioner was given any such option prior to the impugned letter under Annexure-8 dated 31.10.2018. On perusal of the letter dated 31.10.2018, it appears that two grounds on which the Petitioner was not granted registration despite being recommended by the SRC. On a careful analysis of the factual // 7 // background of this case, this Court is of the view that the University cannot absolve itself of the allegation of causing delay in granting registration to the Petitioner. No-doubt, the Petitioner is equally responsible as she should have approached this Court earlier.
11. This Court in a recent judgment in the matter of Lalitendu Mohanty-vrs. Utkal University & others in W.P.(C) No.9962 of 2017 decided on 10.07.2022 had the occasion to deal with an identical type of matter of non-granting registration number to a candidate for the Ph.D programme for a long time by the very same University. This Court vide its judgment dated 10.07.2023 has come to a conclusion that in view of the Notification dated 04.08.2020 the Opposite Party-University is bound to grant registration to the Petitioner for Ph.D work with effect from 18.10.2018 as has been indicated in the Notification dated 04.08.2020. With regard to the allotment of guide/Supervisor, the Opposite Parties were directed to take a decision in the matter keeping in view the letter under Annexure-11 to that Writ Petition. Further, leave was granted to the University to appoint any fresh Guide/Supervisor within a stipulated period of time.
12. Keeping in view the decision of this Court in Lalitendu Mohapatra-v.-Utkal University and others, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Opposite Parties to grant registration to the Petitioner with effect from 18.10.2018 keeping in view the Notification dated 04.082020. Further, it is directed that in the event the guide has been nominated by the Petitioner and accepted by the SRC and who is otherwise not ineligible, he/she shall continue as a guide for the Petitioner and in the event the authority found that the guide is ineligible for appointment under the latest Notification, then the University // 8 // authority shall do well to appoint a fresh guide/supervisor in consultation with the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the copy of this order by the Petitioner.
13. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition is allowed.
14. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Ex-A.R.-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 22-Aug-2023 12:41:56