Bombay High Court
Ku. Vandana D/O Balkrishna Mahatme vs The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur ... on 8 July, 2022
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
J-wp3780.11.odt 1/30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3780 OF 2011
Ku. Vandana d/o. Balkrishna Mahatme,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. P-11, Chintaman Nagar,
Wardha Road,
Nagpur-440 025. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur,
Represented through its Vice Chancellor.
2. Deputy Registrar (Ph.D Cell),
The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
3. Shri B.P. National Institute of Social Work,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur,
Represented through its Principal,
Dr. L.S. Tulankar.
4. Dr. V.J. Shingnapure,
Reader, Tirpude College of Social Work,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. University Grants Commission,
Western Regional Office, Ganesh Khind,
Pune-411 007, Represented through its
Joint Secretary,
Dr. G. Srinivas. : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 :::
J-wp3780.11.odt 2/30
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri P.S. Sadavarte, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondents No.3.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
None for Respondent No.5.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 17/06/2022.
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED ON : 08/07/2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. The petitioner has challenged the communication issued by the respondent No.5-University Grants Commission dated 10.6.2011 by which the respondent No.5 directed the respondent No.3-National Institute of Social Work to recover substitute teacher's salary from the petitioner for availing study leave granted by the University Grants Commission and has prayed to restrain them permanently from recovering the said amount from the petitioner.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present proceeding are as under :
The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Social ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 3/30 Work on 21.11.1984 in respondent No.3-Shri B.P. National Institute of Social Work, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur. In January 2002 she applied for registration of her name for Ph.D. degree through respondent No.3-College. She has also suggested the name of respondent No.4 Dr. V.J. Shingnapure as her Guide. The respondent No.4 has also given his consent to act as a Guide. The Assistant Registrar (Academic) of the respondent No.1 University vide its letter No.Acad/Research/1588, dated 25th November, 2003 informed the petitioner that the Research and Recognition Committee has accepted the application for registration for Ph.D. degree. The respondent No.1-University approved topic of research "Role of Urban Working Women in Nagpur University and its affiliated colleges with special reference to economical and Socio- Psychological dimensions: An analytical Study" and also approved Guide Dr. V.J. Shingnapure, Reader of Tirpude College of Social Work-respondent No.4. As per the approval she had to complete her thesis within five years from the date of registration. On 20.12.2007 petitioner applied for change ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 4/30 of Guide by suggesting the name of Dr. S. Katarni, as she had some differences with the respondent No.4. As per her contention she was harassed by the earlier Guide and, therefore, she was constrained to file an application to change the Guide. Said request letter was received by respondent No.1 on the same day i.e. 20.12.2007. As she had to complete her thesis on or before 9th October, 2008, she made various correspondence with respondent No.1, but she had not received any response from respondent No.2 regarding the letter dated 20.12.2007. She alleged that she was humiliated with extremity, due to which she could not complete her thesis within stipulated period on or before 9th October, 2008.
3. As per the rules and regulations of University re-registration form for Ph.D degree is required to be submitted only twice in a year i.e. 15th January or 15th July every year. She suggested the name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni, who was Principal, Matru-Seva Sangh, Insitute of Social Work. She had also attached the consent form of suggested Guide which was forwarded to respondent No.1-University on 12th ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 5/30 January, 2009. The Research and Recognition Committee in a meeting held on 28.5.2008 and considered her application dated 20.12.2007. The said Committee directed the petitioner to submit NOC of her earlier Guide i.e. respondent No.4. The petitioner again on 26.9.2008 by issuing letter to the respondent No.2 requested to review its decision and grant permission to change the Guide. However, the respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 26.11.2008 addressed a letter to the petitioner and informed that the decision of Research and Recognition Committee for change of Guide vide letter 21.8.2008 has been already communicated to her. It has been further informed that under the provisions i.e. para 10 of the Ph.D. Ordinance No.43, it is necessary to submit the thesis within a period of five years and she was directed to deposit the balance Retention Fee of previous year of Rs.3,600/-. It was further informed to her that if any candidate fails to submit the thesis within specific period of five years from the date of re-registration then the name would be removed. Thereafter, she applied under the Right to Information Act, ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 6/30 2005 to get the information regarding the rule under which she was asked to obtain the NOC of earlier Guide. Her application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was rejected on 15.10.2008. She had filed an appeal against the same but no speaking order was passed. Therefore, she filed an appeal before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur vide its order dated 18.8.2009 held that Information Officer as well as Appellate Authority both had deliberately avoided to give information to the petitioner and thereby directed to supply the information to the petitioner. The documents received by her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed to her that the notice of the meeting to consider agenda dated 8.5.2008 was given to four members. Meeting was held on 15.5.2008, but no decision was taken on that day regarding her application for change of Guide. Thereafter, her application was placed before the said Committee in the meeting dated 28.5.2008 and a decision was taken as to obtain the NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure, the earlier Guide. In ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 7/30 pursuance of the said decision respondent No.2 had sent a letter to her on 21.8.2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the Research and Recognition Committee is illegal and without any justification. She further contended that neither the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 nor in the Statute framed under the provisions of the said Act or any other Notification issued by the University in pursuance of execution of the provisions of the said Act, a demand that the NOC of earlier Guide is required to change the Guide. In fact, when the Guide was initially selected by her and thereafter during the day to day experience of the said Guide she was harassed at the hands of the said Guide and, therefore, she filed an application. She further contended that the Committee established under Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 do not empower to consider over the said matter for change of Guide only. In absence of any provision under the said Act or any Statute Rules and Regulations or Notification, Committee has no right to direct the petitioner to submit NOC of her Guide for ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 8/30 replacement by appointing another Guide. Thus, the directions of the Committee asking her to furnish No Objection Certificate from the earlier Guide is without any jurisdiction of the Research and Recognition Committee.
4. It is further alleged by her that the question of change of Guide arose due to the reason that the respondent No.4 was not behaving properly with her, but she had not disclose this fact except in the writ petition. She further contended that the respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 5.8.2009 informed the petitioner that her Ph.D. re-registration is rejected for the reason that the NOC of the original Guide i.e. from the respondent No.4 was not produced and the direction of the Committee had not been followed. After continuous persuasion she received the information and after going through the said information it revealed to her that her re-registration was rejected by the Committee. She submitted the fresh registration form on 12.1.2010 along with payment of registration fee which was again placed before the Committee on 28.4.2010. She received a letter dated ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 9/30 20.11.2010 from the Deputy Registrar of the respondent No.1- University that unless and until the subject of Ph.D. degree is changed, fresh registration cannot be granted. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances no permission was granted to her for registering herself for the Ph.D. degree.
5. It is further her contention that the Principal of respondent No.3-College where the petitioner was serving was well aware of the fact that the dispute of the change of Guide and re-registration had not yet resolved either by University or by Chancellor or by the Court, but the respondent No.3- College with malafide intention and only to harass the petitioner had deliberately made a representation before the respondent No.5 on 14.5.2011 for recovery of substitute teacher's salary of Rs.3,61,680/- and contingency grant for teacher fellow of Rs.10,000/- i.e. total Rs.3,71,680/- towards two years salary paid by UGC by recording reasons that, "if a teacher fellow fails to complete her Ph.D. programme and leave the midway, she has to refund the entire amount paid to her by UGC during her teacher's fellowship" and thereby ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 10/30 misguided the respondent No.5 by referring the untruthful facts to the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 without issuing notice to her and without giving an opportunity of hearing passed order for recovery of the amount allegedly claimed. The respondent No.3, vide its communication dated 14.6.2011, informed the petitioner the said order on 12.7.2011 and called upon the petitioner to submit her explanation in this regard within five days. It is alleged by her that the Principal of respondent No.3-College had deliberately made a reference to the respondent No.5-University Grants Commission for recovery of two years salary of substitute teacher because leave was granted to her for completing her research over the subject and submitted the same to the respondent No.1-University within time. She contended that the University Grants Commission without following the principles of natural justice and without calling any explanation from the petitioner and without giving opportunity of hearing passed the order for recovery of the amount which was illegal. She contended that she was ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 11/30 continuously trying to get re-registration for her Ph.D. degree under able guidance of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni. She made correspondence continuously with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 but only because of non-response of respondent Nos.1 and 2 she could not re-register herself for Ph.D. and hence she has filed this writ petition.
6. Due to the indulgence of this Court by passing order on 19th March, 2012 the respondent No.1-University was directed to re-register the petitioner for Ph.D. in the subject. Accordingly, she was registered. She has completed her thesis and submitted on 16.1.2014 on the same subject under the able guidance of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni. She contended that she could not complete her thesis earlier as without any authority respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 directed her to submit NOC which is unjust and unfair and, therefore, she is not liable to pay the amount which is claimed by the respondent No.5.
7. In response to the notice issued the respondent No.1 and 2 resisted the writ petition on the ground that there was ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 12/30 no dispute that the candidate has right to select his or her supervisor for the research work. From last more than 25 years the requirement of no objection certificate of original Guide is insisted for in the event candidate seeks change in Guide or for re-registration on the same topic of research. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to obtain the NOC. It is the contention of the respondent No.1 that as the petitioner was inclined to complete her thesis on very same topic under the supervision of another Guide and, therefore, No Objection Certificate from the earlier supervisor is insisted for. It is contended by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the direction of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to obtain the NOC was not illegal and unjust and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. The respondent No.3 also resisted the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is presently working as a Lecturer in respondent No.3-College. As per the scheme of respondent No.5 she filed an application for registration for Ph.D. degree in January 2002 and Research and Recognition Committee approved her application on 10.10.2003. She ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 13/30 applied under Teacher Fellowship of Faculty Improvement Programme and availed paid leave from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007. However, as per the University Regulation it was mandatory to submit thesis within a period of five years from the date of registration and petitioner failed to submit the same. As per the rules and regulations i.e. as per the Faculty Improvement Programme and particularly in view of clause (8.3) if a Teacher Fellow fails to complete her Ph.D. programme and leaves it midway, she has to refund entire amount paid to her by UGC during her Teacher Fellowship. As the petitioner failed to complete the programme, therefore, the amount was claimed from her. No cause of action arose to the petitioner to claim the relief against the respondent No.3 and hence petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard Shri P.S. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the contentions as per the writ petition. In support of his contentions he submitted that the Research and Recognition Committee has accepted the application of petitioner for registration for Ph.D. degree on ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 14/30 10.10.2003. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent No.2 with a request for change of respondent No.4 as a Guide for Ph.D. due to fundamental differences on important aspects of research work and the problems of communication feedback. The respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the petitioner informing her that she should obtain NOC of respondent No.4 to change the Guide. There were no rules and regulations nor any provision in the Statute to obtain said NOC, but the Committee i.e. respondent No.2 insisted for the said NOC. Though the petitioner had made communication repeatedly, said order was not reviewed by the Committee. On the contrary, the respondent No.1 had sent a letter to the petitioner on the subject of change of Guide to deposit Rs.3,600/- towards balance Retention Fee. The Principal of respondent No.3-College wrote a letter to the petitioner and claimed the recovery of the substitute teacher's salary and contingency grant for Teacher Fellow total amounting to Rs.3,71,680/-. Said order was passed by the respondent No.5 without giving an opportunity of hearing to ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 15/30 the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of the respondent No.2 and attitude of the inferior officers in conducting the affairs of respondent No.1-University and there being no provision under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder to obtain NOC, the direction of respondent No.1 for obtaining the NOC was illegal and unconstitutional.
10. In support of his contention he relied upon various documents. Annexure-I is the letter addressed to the petitioner by the Additional Registrar, Nagpur University dated 22nd November, 2003 by which she was informed that Research and Recognition Committee held on 10.10.2003 has accepted her application for registration for Ph.D. degree for the subject Role of Urban Working Women in Nagpur University and its affiliated colleges with special reference to economical and Socio-Psychological dimensions: An analytical Study. Annexure II is the letter issued by the petitioner to the Deputy Registrar, Nagpur University for requesting to consider her request of change of her Guide Dr. V.J. Shingnapure to Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni along with the consent letter of Dr. ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 16/30 (Mrs.) S. Katarni. By letter dated dated 21.8.2008, the Deputy Registrar, Nagpur University informed her that her application dated 28.12.2007 for change of Guide she had to obtain the NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure, Reader, Tirpude College of Social Work, Nagpur. After receipt of the said communication from the University she again applied to the Deputy Registrar, Nagpur University requesting that she was asked to obtain the NOC from Dr. V.J. Shingnapure and she requested to review the order of directing to obtain the NOC. Again on 26.11.2008 she received the communication from the Deputy Registrar, Nagpur University informing her that she had to pay balance Retention Fee of previous year of Rs.3,600/- and also informed her that if the candidate failed to submit the thesis within the specific period of five years from the registration in the University then the name is removed from the register of research students and if she wanted to re-register, in that case the subject offered at the time of re-registration must be the same as before. After re-registration the thesis could be submitted even before the completion of period of two years ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 17/30 but in no case after a further maximum period of five years. It also appears from the record that she filed an application with the Information Officer dated 15th October, 2008 but her application was rejected. Thereafter, she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, it was also rejected. Therefore, she filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, Nagpur which was allowed and the Information Officer of respondent No.1-University was directed to furnish the information to her. From the said information it revealed to her that there is no Rule or Statute to obtain NOC as per the Ordinance prescribing eligibility criteria and procedure for registration of candidates, selection of guides and research topic, thesis submission and its evaluation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the faculty of Arts & Social Science. There is no Rule or Statute that candidate has to obtain the NOC in case of change of Guide. One Professor P.K. Shende also obtained information from the University and respondent No.1 informed to him vide letter dated 14.9.2009 that there is no such Rule in a written form stating that while changing ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 18/30 Guide, the no objection of earlier Guide is to be obtained.
11. Learned counsel Shri Sadavarte submitted that this fact clarifies that there is no Rule or Statute to obtain the NOC for changing the Guide. Thus, the correspondence on record sufficiently shows that when she applied for change of Guide on 20.12.2007 there was no response for two years. Vide communication dated 1st September, 2009 she had issued a letter to the Principal B.P. National Institute of Social Work - respondent No.3 mentioning that study leave was granted to her for two years on 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007. The objective of the scheme was to provide an opportunity to the teachers of the Universities and Colleges to pursue their academic research activities leading to the award of M.Phil/Ph.D degree and that UGC provides assistance for award of Teacher Fellowship for such Colleges which are included in the list maintained by UGC. Under the said scheme a teacher is entitled to receive full salary from the parent institution and college during the period of Teacher Fellowship. She had also made correspondence with the Chancellor and Governor of ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 19/30 Maharashtra regarding the said issue. It appears from the record that despite continuous follow up, she was not re-registered to complete her Ph.D. On the contrary, the recovery was claimed from her against the salary which was given by respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 has passed an order without giving an opportunity to her of hearing for recovery of amount of Rs.3,71,680/- illegally. Therefore, she knocked the door of this Court by filing this writ petition.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel Shri Sadavarte for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present writ petition by which University was directed to re-register her for Ph.D. in the subject, the petitioner was registered and she had completed her thesis within two years. She could not complete her thesis earlier due to the adamant approach of respondent No.1-University as well as respondent No.3-College. When there was no provision to obtain the NOC, the NOC was insisted for and therefore she could not complete her Ph.D. The petitioner cannot be blamed for non-completion of her Ph.D within five ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 20/30 years in the above said facts and circumstances. There is substance in the submission.
13. After hearing learned counsel Shri Sadavarte for the petitioner, learned counsel for Shri P.D. Meghe, for the respondent No.3 and Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, it is apparent that the petitioner had submitted application for registration of her name for Ph.D. degree through responded No.3-College along with name of Guide i.e. respondent No.4-Dr. V.J. Shingnapure. The respondent No.1-University communicated to her on 22/25th November, 2003 that the Research and Recognition Committee in its meeting on 10.10.2003 had approved her application. As per approval she has to complete her thesis within five years from the date of registration. On 20.12.2007 the petitioner applied for change of Guide by suggesting name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni as petitioner had some differences with her earlier Guide respondent No.4- Dr. V.J. Shingnapure. The petitioner had alleged that there were certain fundamental differences between her and respondent ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 21/30 No.4 on important aspects of research process which reached at extremity. She was insulted by respondent No.4-Dr. V.J. Shingnapure. It is her further contention that as per the rules and regulations of University re-registration form for Ph.D. degree is required to be submitted only twice in a year i.e. 15 th January or 15th July. She applied for change of Guide by suggesting name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni along with her consent letter. The contention of the petitioner is supported by Annexure-II which is a communication by her to the Deputy Registrar, Nagpur University dated 20.12.2007 along with consent letter of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni.
14. It further revealed from the record that after eight months respondent No.1-University informed her that she has to obtain NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure i.e. respondent No.4 vide letter dated 21.8.2008. Immediately she made a representation to the responded No.1-University to review the decision of direction to obtain NOC. But her representation was not considered by the respondent No.1-University. On the contrary, it was informed to her that the decision of the ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 22/30 Research and Recognition Committee was already communicated to her and she has to complete her thesis within five years. The documents received by her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed that in meeting dated 28.5.2008 Research and Recognition Committee had taken decision that the petitioner has to obtain NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure. It is pertinent to note that her averments in para No.6 that the decision of the Research and Recognition Committee is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction are not denied by the respondents. To buttress her contention she relied on the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 guidelines/norms issued by University for candidates who registered for Ph.D. and M.Phil. Admittedly, neither the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 nor any statute framed under the provisions of the said Act, any norms framed by the University shows NOC is required to change the Guide. It is apparent from the record that one Professor, namely, Shri P.K. Shende obtained information and it was informed to him vide letter dated 14.9.2009 by respondent No.1-University that ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 23/30 there is no rule in written form stating that while changing Guide the no objection of earlier Guide is required. Professor P.K. Shende was allowed to change Guide without NOC. These facts substantiate the contention of the petitioner that in absence of any statutory provision, norms formed by University, she was directed to obtain NOC which was illegal and arbitrary. Thus, the correspondence on record sufficiently shows she applied for change of Guide on 20.12.2007 but she did not receive any response for two years. Her representation for review of direction issued by Research and Recognition Committee was also not considered.
15. The record further shows that her application for re-registration was also not considered on the ground that unless and until the subject of Ph.D degree is changed, fresh registration cannot be granted. Thus, it is apparent from record that the petitioner has continuously pursued the matter with respondent No.1 to 3 for completing her Ph.D. in time, but it was the respondent No.1 and the Research and Recognition Committee constituted by the respondent No.1 ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 24/30 which insisted for NOC for change of Guide in absence of any statute, norms or guidelines. The petitioner had not at any point of time shown her inability to complete the Ph.D. Clause 'X' of the Guidelines for faculty programme of UGC which is reproduced for better understanding and reference as under :
"If a teacher fellow fails to complete his/her Ph.D. programme and leaves it midway he/she has to refund the entire amount paid to him/her by UGC during his/her fellowship."
16. Admittedly, study leave was granted to the petitioner for two years i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007. The objective of the scheme is to provide an opportunity to the teachers of the Universities and Colleges to pursue their academic research activities leading the award of M.Phil/Ph.D. and that UGC provides assistance for award of teacher's fellowship for such Colleges which are included in the list maintained by UGC. Vide letter dated 21.8.2009 respondent No.3-College called status report from the petitioner mentioning that she was supposed to complete Ph.D. in 2007, ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 25/30 however, she had neither completed the same nor sent progress report. The petitioner had replied the said letter on 1.9.2009 mentioning all the facts. She had not only communicated to respondent No.3-College but also informed to respondent No.1-University, the circumstances under which she could not complete her Ph.D. Despite the facts well within knowledge of respondent No.3-College, the respondent No.3- College submitted report to respondent No.5-UGC mentioning that the petitioner had not communicated progress report. Therefore, respondent No.5-UGC vide letter dated 10.6.2011 claimed recovery of Rs.3,71,680/- along with interest from the petitioner. The question before us is whether respondent No.1 is entitled for such recovery. Admittedly, the petitioner was given study leave with salary and allowances etc. so as to enable her to complete the course. The petitioner had choice to select her Guide. There is no statutory provision, norm or guideline pointed out that a candidate would have to obtain NOC while changing the Guide. Another Professor P.K. Shende was allowed to change the Guide without NOC of earlier ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 26/30 Guide as there was absence or provision/guidelines. The purpose of granting study leave with salary and other benefits is for the interest of the institution and also the person concerned, so that once the candidate comes back and joins the institute, the students would be benefited by the knowledge and expertise acquired by person. Here in the present case, recovery of salary paid during the study leave is claimed by the respondent No.5/UGC. The letter of Deputy Secretary, Dr. G. Srinivasan of UGC respondent No.5 dated 19.12.2007 states about the norms pertaining to progress report of the research work. Clause (8) of the norms states the procedure for monitoring the progress report in the mid-month of the period for which the fellowship is awarded.
The progress report is to be forwarded by the Supervisor/Guide. In case of negative report given by the Supervisor/Guide, the awarded fellowship to the teacher fellow may be withdrawn by UGC. Thus, as per the above norms, it was the Supervisor who had to send progress report and not the candidate. Despite clear guidelines respondent ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 27/30 No.3-College submitted report to respondent No.5-UGC, therefore, respondent No.5-UGC claimed the amount from the petitioner. This communication by respondent No.3-College itself was incorrect being contrary to the norms. The norms nowhere state that the candidates have to send the progress report. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent No.3-College submitted incorrect report to respondent No.5-UGC and accordingly, UGC had claimed the said recovery.
17. As respondent No.5-UGC claimed the recovery which was illegal and arbitrary therefore petitioner had filed present writ petition. Subsequent to filing of writ petition, she was permitted to re-register for Ph.D in accordance with the order passed by this Court dated 9.8.2011. The respondent No.4-Dr. V.J. Shingnapure also passed Pursis dated 19.3.2012 and gave NOC to change her Guide. After re-registration petitioner had completed her Ph.D on 16.1.2014 under the able guidance of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni.
18. In the light of above facts and circumstance it is apparent that the petitioner was always willing to pursue her ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 28/30 Ph.D. but due to non-cooperation of respondent Nos.1 and 3 she could not complete thesis initially. She was called upon to obtain NOC in absence of any clear statutory provision/norms/ guidelines. It is apparent from the record that she had continuously made correspondence but could not get response from the respondent No.1-University, the Committee constituted by respondent No.1 i.e. Research and Recognition Committee. Due to such hurdles she could not complete Ph.D. initially for which she cannot be blamed. Subsequently, she had completed her Ph.D. also. Petitioner has submitted the documents on record on 21.4.2022 which shows that she had submitted her thesis on 16.1.2014 and completed her Ph.D. on 16.1.2014. The action on the part of the respondent No.1-University through its Committee i.e. Research and Recognition Committee of insisting for NOC is thus arbitrary and illegal since no such requirement has been pointed out. Even her representation was not considered after repeated correspondence with the respondent No.1. Likewise, respondent No.3-College though aware that the petitioner had ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 29/30 asked for NOC from earlier Guide and was unable to pursue Ph.D, submitted incorrect report contrary to the norms issued by the UGC-respondent No.5. Acting upon the said report filed by the respondent No.3-College, the action of respondent No.5-UGC without giving opportunity to petitioner claiming recovery was unjust, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice. The opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner. Therefore, communications of respondent No.3- College and respondent No.5-UGC dated 12.7.2011 and 10.6.2011 for recovery of amount towards availing study leave granted by respondent No.5-UGC are liable to be set aside.
19. As petitioner had already completed her Ph.D. in the year 2014 her prayer clauses (i) and (ii) have become redundant. She is entitled for the relief in terms of prayer clause (iii). Accordingly, the communication of respondent Nos.3 and 5 dated 10.6.2011 and 12.7.2011 for recovery of substitute teacher's salary for availing study leave granted by University Grants Commission is liable to be set aside. Hence, we proceed to pass following order :
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 ::: J-wp3780.11.odt 30/30
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The communication of respondent Nos.3 and 5 dated 12.7.2011 and 10.6.2011 for recovery of substitute teacher's salary for availing study leave granted by the University Grants Commission is hereby set aside.
(iii) Solvent surety furnished by petitioner as per order dated 9.8.2011 shall be discharged.
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A.S.Chandurkar, J.) okMksns ::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 :::