Jharkhand High Court
Piyush Ranjan Das vs Indian Institute Of Technology (Indian ... on 27 July, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4781 of 2021
Piyush Ranjan Das ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad
2. The Director, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines),
Dhanbad ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
Mr. Jai Shankar Tiwary
For the Respondents: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar
-----
07/27.07.2022 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing letter No.
2012/DR/1023/AGL/Acad dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Assistant Registrar (PG), Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad whereby the petitioner has been communicated that the Chairman, Senate has approved the recommendation of the competent authority regarding termination of his Academic Programme (Part-time Ph.D.) due to exceeding the maximum duration prescribed for completion of the Ph.D. Programme, as a result of which, the academic programme of the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f. 31.3.2021. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant extension of tenure for completion of Part-time Ph.D. Programme to the petitioner in view of the decision taken by the respondent No.2 that the time lost by the Research Scholars due to their absence owing to Covid-19 pandemic since March, 2020 would be compensated.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got registered in Part-time Ph.D. Programme after approval of the Academic Council of the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad under Ph.D Part-time Rules, 2012, Rule 2.2(a) Note (i) in the discipline of Coal Geology, Coal Bed Methane w.e.f. 23.06.2011. However, on the request of the petitioner, his date of registration in the said programme was considered as 26.05.2012 by the competent authority. The topic of the research was 'Petrographic Controls on Coal Bed Methane of Jharia Coal Basin, Jharkhand' and the internal Guide of the petitioner was Professor A. K. Verma. The petitioner is an officer posted in Oil and Natural Gas 2 Corporation (ONGC) and he has undertaken all the experiments to be mandatorily done to get Ph.D for the subject in which he is writing his thesis. The total period for completion of Ph.D. under old Ph.D. Rule was seven years and as such the petitioner was required to submit his thesis by 25th May, 2019. The petitioner requested for extension of time to complete his thesis, on which, one year's extension was granted to him by the Chairman, Academic Council. Thus, the petitioner was to submit his thesis 25th May, 2020, however, due to Covid-19 pandemic, he was not in a position to submit the same till the said extended period. The respondent No.2 took a decision which was communicated to all the students/research scholars on 28.4.2021 informing them that the time lost by the research scholars due to their absence from the campus owing to Covid-19 pandemic since March, 2020 would be appropriately compensated after the Institute resumes its academic activities. Admittedly, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad did not resume its academic activities till 28.04.2021 and in the meantime, the impugned letter dated 07.04.2021 was issued informing the petitioner about termination of his part-time Ph.D Academic Progamme. The petitioner has come to know that the Institute has completely resumed its academic activities recently. Thus, he is also entitled for further extension of at least three months' time to complete his thesis, as the same has been granted to various other similarly situated persons and he cannot be deprived of the same. If the petitioner is given extension of three months, he will certainly submit his thesis within that period. The petitioner also preferred an appeal, however, the same was rejected without considering the fact that during Covid-19 pandemic, all the institutions had suitably provided time relaxation. The petitioner has also filed another appeal, but no relief has been granted which has compelled him to prefer the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Rule 2.5.9 of the Old Ph.D (Part-Time) Rules, 2012, no candidate can be permitted to remain registered for a period exceeding seven years from the date of 3 registration. However, an extension of one year can be granted by the Chairman, Academic Council on specific request of the candidate forwarded by the Guide. As per new Ph.D Rules also, the maximum duration remains as seven years plus one additional year for part-time scholars. The petitioner completed seven years of registration in the Ph.D Programme on 25.05.2019. After completion of seven years, he was granted one year's extension on his request as per the Institute's Rules so as to enable him to complete his academic programme. Thereafter, he completed eight years of registration in the Ph.D Programme on 25.05.2020. The petitioner has completed only 92% of his research work and has prayed for extension beyond eight years. Since the extended period of eight years ended in May, 2020 and there was no provision for grant of any further extension, the academic programme of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 31.3.2021 as per the Institute's Rules. In view of the said circumstances, the appeal of the petitioner for restoration of his academic programme was also not admitted by the Institute's Senate. So far as e.mail dated 28.4.2021 is concerned, the same is confined to the research scholars/Ph.D students who were using hostel facility, but the case of the petitioner is entirely different from them as he was not using hostel facility.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner seeks extension of three months time for submission of Ph.D thesis on the ground that he could not submit the same within the stipulated period of seven years as well as the extended period of one year as the entire world including the respondent-Institute had come to a standstill due to Covid-19 pandemic during the relevant period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some similarly situated persons have been granted extension even after completion of eight years of total duration, however, the petitioner's such request has been arbitrarily denied, despite having valid reasons for the same.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has already been granted extension of one year and no further 4 extension can be allowed to him under the Ph.D Rules.
6. Be that as it may. The petitioner has completed 92% of the project and he seeks only three months' more time for submission of his thesis. After extension, the petitioner was to submit his thesis by 25th May, 2020 and no further extension was to be granted under the Ph.D Rules. However, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that during the relevant period, the entire world had come to a standstill due to 1st wave of Covid-19 pandemic and the people were struggling for their lives. Under the said extraordinary situation, almost every Institution granted extension of time for compliance of any assigned work/duty, though the same was not specifically provided under any rule/regulation.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that since admittedly 92% of the project has already been completed by the petitioner and he seeks only three months' further time to complete the part-time Ph.D Progamme, his prayer should be allowed treating the case as an exceptional one. The respondents are accordingly directed to grant three months' further time from the date of this order to the petitioner to submit his thesis. The petitioner is also directed to strictly adhere to the said extended period as no further extension will be allowed to him. The impugned letter No. 2012/DR/1023/AGL/Acad dated 07.04.2021 issued by the Assistant Registrar (PG), Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad is hereby quashed.
8. It is however made clear that the said relief has been granted to the petitioner looking to the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case and the same shall not be made precedence in any other case in future.
9. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)