Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mohan Kumar N.. Mathad vs Dr.I.Sharatbabu on 27 June, 2019
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27 T H DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
W.P.NO.108807/2018 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR N.MATHAD,
AGE: 30 YEARS ,
OCC: PART- TIME LECTURER,
R/O: SIDDAGANGA, 2 N D MAIN,
1 S T CROSS, MANJU NATH COLONY ,
SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580003.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S.PA TIL, ADV.)
AND:
1. DR. I. SHARA TBABU
CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY ,
SIR S IDDAPPA KAMBLI LAW
COLLEGE CAMPUS,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580003.
3. THE KARNA TAKA UNIVERSITY
DHARWAD. REP. BY
THE REGIS TRAR
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580003.
2
4. THE KARNA TAKA UNIVERSITY
DHARWAD, REP. BY
THE REGIS TRAR
PAVATE NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADV. FOR R-1
SRI MALLIKARJUN.S.HIREMA TH, ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITU TION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NA TU RE O F CERTIORARI O R
ANY OTHER APPROPRIA TE OR DIRECTION QUASHING
THE ORDER DA TED 14.12.2018 BEARING NO.Ka Vi
Vi/EXAM (CONFIDENTIAL) 2018/NIL PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION CO MING ON FOR HEARING ON IA
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FO LLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs;
(a) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate or direction quashing the order dated 14.12.2018 bearing No.Ka Vi Vi/Exam (Confidential) 2018/nil passed by respondent no.4 Annexure-A. 3
(b) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondent No.2 and 3 to conduct the entrance examination for Ph.D studies in law for the academic year 2018 afresh.
(c) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No.2 to 4 to hold any enquiry in respect of complaint dated 21.11.2018 Annexure- B against the respondent No.1 and punish him in accordance with law.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the respondent-University by notification dated 11.10.2018, invited applications for admission to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in the prescribed form, from the eligible candidates for the academic year 2018-19. The last date for submitting the application was 30.10.2018. The petitioner being eligible had applied for admission to Ph.D. in Law. The law faculty had six vacancies for Ph.D. course. The method of 4 selection was by entrance test followed by interview. The selection of candidates was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test and marks obtained in the qualifying examination in the ratio of 50:50. However, the notification makes it clear that the candidate has to secure minimum 50% marks in the entrance test to qualify for further participation. The entrance test for Ph.D. course in law was conducted on 19.11.2018 and on 20.11.2018 the interview was conducted. On 21.11.2018, the petitioner herein field a complaint before the Registrar (Evaluation) of respondent No.3-University, complaining that the Chairman of Law Department, i.e. respondent No.1, has assigned the work of setting Ph.D. question papers to his colleagues knowing well that his son Sri Sachin Carrey is a candidate for Ph.D. course. It is alleged that 5 the first respondent with an intention to help his son to clear the entrance examination entrusted the work to his colleagues. The University by letter dated 14.12.2018, rejected the complaint of the petitioner stating that the first respondent was not entrusted with the preparation of question papers for the Ph.D. entrance test for the academic year 2018-19. Aggrieved by the letter by which the complaint of the petitioner was rejected, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
3. On issuance of notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsels. The University filed its statement contending that the first respondent has not participated in the preparation of question papers, valuation of answer sheets or in the interview conducted by the University for the selection of candidates for 6 Ph.D. course in law. The first respondent has also filed statement of objections stating that, being Head of the Department of Law of the respondent-University, he entrusted the preparation of question papers to one Dr. S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor, since his son was a candidate in the entrance test for admission to Ph.D. in law.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner being eligible to apply for Ph.D. course in law, applied in pursuance to notification dated 11.10.2018. He submits that the son of the first respondent was also one of the candidate for entrance examination of admission to Ph.D. course in law. The first respondent is the Chairman of Department of 7 Law. Hence, he ought to have informed the University to make alternate arrangements. The University by letter dated 23.10.2018, addressed to Head of various Departments directed them to prepare question papers for the entrance examination in two sets and to forward the same to Registrar (Evaluation). On receipt of the said letter, instead of informing the University, he himself appointed his Department faculty members to prepare the question papers by notice dated 05.11.2018. Subsequently, by letter dated 07.11.2018, addressed to Dr. S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor, Department of Law, placed her in-charge Ph.D. admissions in law for the academic year 2018, on the ground that his son Sachin Carrey, is one of the applicant for the said program. Further, the learned counsel contends that the first respondent could not have appointed Dr. 8 S.R.Manjula, who is not the second senior most in the Department of Law. The second senior most in the Department of Law, ought to have been appointed as in-charge Chairman for admission to Ph.D. course. Thus, he submits that the first respondent acted in total bias in the selection of students for Ph.D. course for the academic year 2018-19.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-University submits that the first respondent who is the Chairman of the Department of Law, has not participated in either preparing the question papers or valuation of answer sheets or in conducting the interview. The first respondent appointed one Dr.S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor as in-charge for Ph.D. admissions. The first respondent also entrusted the preparation of question papers to 9 his colleagues in the Department on the ground that his son is an aspirant to Ph.D. program. The learned counsel invites attention of this Court to the regulations 2.9, 2.10 and 2.13 of the Regulations Governing The Doctoral Degree Programme (Ph.D.) And General Guidelines, to contend that Dr. S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor was competent to discharge the duties of in- charge of Ph.D. admissions.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, adopted the submission of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and further added that the first respondent has not acted on bias. He further submits that in view of participation of his son in the Ph.D. programme, he entrusted the preparation of question paper and to conduct admission to one Dr. S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor. It is also submitted that the 10 petitioner failed to qualify in the entrance test having secured only 49.52% of marks and having not qualified in the entrance test, he is before this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which requires consideration is; whether the respondent University is justified in rejecting petitioner complaint?
9. The petitioner was one of the applicant for admission to the Degree of Ph.D. for the academic year 2018-19. The son of respondent No.1 was also one of the applicant for admission to Ph.D. for the academic year 2018-19. The selection of candidates was by entrance test, interview and the marks obtained in qualifying examination. The merit list is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test 11 and marks obtained in the qualifying examination in the ratio of 50:50, but it is mandatory to secure minimum of 50% marks in the entrance test to qualify. The contention of the petitioner is that assignment of the duties of in-charge of Ph.D. admission in law to Dr. S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor, is not proper and she is not the second senior most in the Department, since only the second senior most has to be appointed as in-charge for Ph.D. admissions. The same cannot be accepted in view of the Regulations 2.9, which reads as follows;
2.9. The Departmental council shall prepare two sets of question paper and submit the same to the Registrar (Evaluation).
The definition of Departmental Council is defined under definition clause 9, which reads as follows;
12
9. Department Council means the Council comprising the teachers of the University Department who possess the Ph.D degree.
10. It is not in dispute that Dr. S.R.Manjula, Asst. Professor possesses the qualification of Ph.D. and she is a teaching faculty in the University, Department of Law. Therefore, she is competent to perform the duties of in-charge Examiner and to prepare question papers. Therefore, the contention of petitioner that second senior most ought to have been appointed fails. Any lecturer of the Department or any teacher of the Department could be assigned with duties of preparing question papers, who holds qualification of Ph.D. The petitioner has not pointed any regulation which contemplates appointment of second senior most 13 in the Department to be incharge of Ph.D. admissions.
11. The next contention that the petitioner's complaint was rejected without enquiry is also liable to be rejected. The petitioner's allegation is that the first respondent participated in the selection process wherein the son was also one of the participant in the entrance test which amounts to bias. The University has categorically stated that the first respondent has not participated in the preparation of question papers, valuation of answer papers and conducting of interview. When such being the case, no enquiry as sought for by the petitioner is necessary. It is not the case of the petitioner that the son of first respondent is less meritorious or his academic carrier is not good. The petitioner has made it clear in his writ 14 petition that the petitioner does not have any grievance against the successful candidate Sri. Sachin Carrey. The petitioner alleges bias against respondent No.1. Bias may be generally known as partiality or preference. There must be sufficient material available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was bias, which ultimately resulted in injustice to the petitioner. It should not be a mere apprehension of bias. One should be able to show bias on facts and material on record. From the conduct of a person, one may point out that he has acted in a bias manner. Therefore, bias depends entirely upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, the petitioner merely because, respondent No.1 appointed faculty members of his department to prepare question papers and Dr. Manjula, Asst. Professor, as head to conduct 15 admission to Ph.D course, alleges bias. Mere entrusting of preparation of question papers to department faculty members and appointing Dr. Manjual, Asst. Professor, as head of admission to Ph.D. Course would not amount to bias. The petitioner contention that senior most Asst. Professor is to be appointed as head of admission process cannot be accepted in view of Regulation 2.9 and 9 of Regulation, which has been discussed in detail supra. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 has participated in the process of preparation of question papers, valuation of answer script and interview of candidates. The petitioner has not produced any material to indicate remote chance of respondent No.1 participating in the process of selection of candidates for Ph.D. course. Moreover, petitioner himself could not qualify in the written examination to participate in the 16 interview. The petitioner in the writ petition has made a categorical statement that he does not have any grievance against the successful candidate, but manner and procedure adopted by the respondent No.1 in assigning setting of question paper. The respondent No.1 rightly in accordance with regulation assigned work of setting question paper to Asst. Professors of Law Department and entrusted admission supervision to Dr. Manjula, Asst. Professor, who was competent as per Regulation of the University. The petitioner after participating in the selection process and having failed to qualify, after completion of interview process, made compliant to the respondent-University. After participation in the selection process and having failed to qualify, the petitioner could not have made complaint with regard to selection of candidates to Ph.D. Course. Further, the 17 petitioner has not made any of the selected candidates party to the present writ petition. In the absence of selected candidates, the petitioner could not have sought prayer for conduct of entrance test afresh.
For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and writ petition is dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, IA.Nos.2/2019 and 3/2019 would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE ms r