Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Neha Jain vs Chancellor And Ors on 13 March, 2018
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23669/2017)
Neha Jain D/o Sh. Jayant Kumar Jain aged about 35 years, Resident of Akhyagarh Building,
Mohalla Khetan, Post Box No.29, Jhunjhuu, Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chancellor, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Vidyanagri, Churu
Road Post Churela, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. The Vice Chancellor, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Vidyanagri,
Churu Road, Post Churela, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. The Registrar, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Vidyanagri, Churu Road
Post Churela, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. The Ph.D. Department Research Coordinator, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala
University, Vidyanagri, Churu Road Post Churela, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Date of Order: March 13th, 2018.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Bharat Saini, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anoop Dhand, for respondents.
BY THE COURT:
Under challenge is the order dated 30-11-2017 passed by the Registrar, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Vidyanagri, Churu Road Post Churela, Jhunjhunu, 2 Rajasthan (hereafter `the University') terminating the petitioner's admission as Research Scholar and issuing migration certificate. It has also been prayed that the University be directed to provide a guide to the petitioner enrolled as a Ph.D. student as per UGC norms for her two years regular research course commencing April, 2016. Other myriad directions have also been sought, some related to the main prayer others not so.
The petitioner was admitted to the Ph.D. course under the two years regular scheme as research scholar in the management department of the University through an entrance examination and formally registered on 25-4-2016 effective 17-4-2016. Dr. M.L. Dhani was appointed guide/ Supervisor and Dr. Manak Chand Soni as co-guide/ co- supervisor on 2-5-2016 as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner was required to submit her synopsis of the topic in which she sought the Ph.D. degree and ensure attendance of course work classes as scheduled in the department. The petitioner's case is that Dr. M.L. Dhani was reluctant to act as guide on the ground that he lived at Mumbai and not in 3 Jhunjhunu, was not a regular member of the faculty of the University and hence was not competent for appointment as Supervisor/ Guide of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she was thus compelled to do her research work for her Ph.D. under the supervision of co-guide Dr. Manak Chand Soni, who signed all her research work. It has been submitted that during the period the petitioner attended the required course work and classes as testified to vide letter dated 19-5- 2017 issued by the Coordinator Ph.D. Research department of the University. It has been submitted that the requisite research work was completed, the petitioner wrote all subjects examination and also submitted subject assignment as per UGC norms. Thereafter the petitioner claims to have submitted the summary of her research work on 20-4-2017. The petitioner's research work was sent for plagiarism evaluation, wherein on software checking it was first to have 20% plagiarism. On subsequent check on 13-11-2017 the petitioner's thesis was found with 14% plagiarism which the petitioner submits is acceptable in terms of prescribed norms. It has been submitted that the petitioner thereupon took further requisite steps as warranted by the operating 4 procedure of the respondent university for grant of Ph. D. and completed all documentation. Her pre-thesis/ evaluation was done by the panel constituted for the purpose on or about 14- 11-2017.
The petitioner's case is that despite discharge of her all obligations as a Ph.D. scholar she is still unable to successfully complete her Ph.D. programme in view of the fact that no regular scholar/ guide for the Ph.D. was provided to her as per UGC norms. And resultantly the petitioner's right to grant of a Ph.D. degree is being stalled. The petitioner submits that under the UGC minimum standards and procedure for award pf M.Phil/ Ph.D. Degree Regulations 2009 (hereafter 'Regulations of 2009') for grant of Ph.D., the research guide/ supervisor appointed should be a member of the regular faculty of the University, in the instant case, in the Management department with MBA and minimum work experience of ten years, besides publication of books, research paper articles, etc. Dr. M.C. Soni is yet not so qualified and hence not eligible to be the petitioner's guide/ supervisor. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been seeking appointment of an appropriate Guide/ Supervisor 5 other than Dr. M.C. Soni who does not have the requisite qualification as per UGC norms. But to no avail. It has been submitted that instead the petitioner is being coerced into depositing of a sum of Rs.3 lac odd under pain of her research work on the Ph,.D. in management being brought to a naught. It has been submitted that piqued by the petitioner asserting appointment of her Guide/ Supervisor as per UGC norms, her migration certificate was arbitrarily and malafidely issued by the University on 30-11-2017 without any just cause or even a bare compliance with on principles of natural justice. Hence this petition with the reliefs prayed for.
On service, the respondent University has filed a reply objecting in the first instance to the very maintainability of the petition on the ground that this court exercising its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction would loath to address disputed question of fact, complex in nature, as evidently arise on assertion of facts which are denied. On the allegations of non appointment of appropriate Guide/ Supervisor for the petitioner's Ph.D. as per the Regulations of 2009, it has been submitted that Dr. M.C.Soni was appointed 6 as the guide of the petitioner and as per the petitioner's own averments she carried on research work under his stewardship without any demur for about a year and half. It has been submitted that only when the petitioner's submission of her pre-thesis was not found suitable for reason of plagiarism and she was advised to make requisite corrections she has, as an afterthought, questioned the eligibility of Dr.M.C. Soni to be her research guide. And without any good cause. It has been submitted that Dr. M.C. Soni is a member of the regular faculty of the University and has been working as Associate Professor in its department of Commerce and Management since 17-8-2016 prior to the DRC approval for the petitioner's topic of research on 16-11-2016 and confirmation of her permanent Registration effective 15-10- 2016. Dr. M.C. Soni has specialization in Marketing Management and has requisite qualification warranted under the Regulations of 2009 to supervise a Ph.D. scholar in department of commerce and Management. The petitioner following her enrollment as a Ph.D. student having conducted all her research under the supervision of Dr. M.C. Soni is now estopped from laying a challenge, to his eligibility. In fact 7 Dr.M.C. Soni has signed the yellow book maintained by the petitioner as a Ph.D. scholar to show weekly progress report. It has been submitted that Dr. M.C. Soni was appointed as Supervisor/ guide of the petitioner for her Ph.D. course as per UGC Regulations 2009, para 12 whereof states that allocation of the supervisor for a selected Ph.D. student shall be decided by the Doctoral Research Committee (DRC) with reference to the available specialization amongst the faculty member, the number of Ph.D. students and then research interest disclosed during the interview. The allotment/ allocation of supervisor can not be left to the individual student or teacher preferences nor a change subsequently sought whimsically. It has been submitted that the petition also deserves dismissal for reason of averment of false facts, inasmuch as the petitioner has wrongly alleged appointment of Dr.M.L. Dhani as her guide/ supervisor alongwith Dr.M. C. Soni under letter dated 2-5-2016 just to mislead the court, Dr. M.L. Dhani never was. The letter relied on for the purpose is forged. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has also suppressed the fact of her working in the University's management department purely on casual basis to meet with urgent work. 8 During her work in the aforesaid capacity her behavior was unacceptable vis-à-vis the staff and her performance on the job also not upto the mark. Resultantly on complaints received the University relieved her from the assignment vide letter dated 29-11-2017. It has been submitted that even though the writ petition was filed on 19-12-2017 after the petitioner was relieved from her casual assignment on 29-11-2017, she did not disclose this fact which lies at the root of her dispute with the respondent University. Therefore, the petition deserves dismissal on this count alone. It has been further submitted as another preliminary objection to the writ's being maintainable is that grant of Ph.D. to a student is quite evidently an academic function on evaluation of the concerned student by the competent authority which alone has the requisite domain expertise. And this court lacks. It in exercise of its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction cannot, as held by the Apex Court and this court in innumerable cases cannot interfere with the said domain expertise to grant or not grant a Ph.D. and substitute its view over that of the competent authority.
On the merits of the petition it has been submitted that 9 the Regulations of 2009 deal with course work, evaluation and assessment methods inter alia for Ph.Ds. being granted. As per clause of 15 of Regulations 2009 the student is to make pre Ph.D. presentation in the department to be open to all faculty members for getting their feedback and comments, of which some may be suitably incorporation into the draft thesis under the advice of the Supervisor. The respondent University has also prescribed certain standard procedures for perusing Ph.D. as per the Regulations of 2009, which its students are bound to follow. It has been submitted that UGC has also constituted a Committee of experts to look into the issue of plagiarism in research work submitted and commended institutional mechanism to eliminate this menace in the higher education system. For this purpose the UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2017 (hereafter 'Regulations of 2017') have been promulgated. The objective of Regulations of 2017 is to promote genuine academic research and deterrence from plagiarism by a developing systems of Core Area and Non Core Area to detect plagiarism. As per Regulations 2017 thesis 10 work of Ph.D. is divided into two parts i.e. Core Area and Non-core Area. There is zero tolerance for plagiarism in the core area and upto 10% tolerance in non-core area.
It has been submitted that the petitioner was registered with the respondent University for the doctoral course on a topic "To study the Consumer Behaviour Towards Online shopping with special reference to flipkart in Jhunjhunu District". The registration itself contains the condition that if anything was found false the admission would stand cancelled. The thesis work of the petitioner falls within the core-area. About 145 of 352 pages of the petitioner's thesis were found on checking of her submission to be copied from elsewhere and not genuine, emanating not from her industry and effort. On software test for plagiarism the petitioner's thesis work is large measure was not found original and such act of the petitioner is misconduct liable to be visited with penalty under the Regulations of 2017. It has been submitted one Ajim Farid Shaikh was awarded Ph.D. by the University on the topic "An Empirical study of Consumer Buying Behaviour Towards online shopping with Special Reference to 11 Pune City". Therefrom the petitioner subsequently copied various aspects as was found when the petitioner's pre-thesis was sent to external experts Dr. K. Patni and Dr. S.K. Jain. It was also so found by her own research guide Prof. Dr. M.C. Soni. The petitioner has accordingly been advised by external experts to make recommended amends. Instead of so doing, she has rushed to this Court.
The respondent University's defence to the petition is that annoyed with her being relieved from her part time assignment on 29-11-2017 due to her unacceptable behavior with the staff, and the deficiencies found by her guide and other outside experts in her pre-thesis, the petitioner instead of submitting details in response to the respondent University's letter dated 30-11-2017 and making amends approached the University along with her father to issue her a migration certificate immediately. On her request the University issued the migration certificate online. Vide letter dated 30-11-2017 it was made clear that the hard copy thereof would be issued on the petitioner fulfilling various requirements of the University. It has been submitted that yet 12 the petitioner's status as a registered PH.D. scholar with the University stands presently undisturbed as the hard copy of migration certificate has not been issued, and the petitioner is free to pursue her Ph.D. compliant with the Regulations of 2009/ 2017 and the advise for making necessary corrections/ modifications in her pre-thesis. On the aforesaid defence, it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Heard counsel for the parties. Considered.
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed against the contravention/ breach of legal and fundamental rights or failure of a statutory authority to discharge its statutory duty to a citizen despite a demand for justice.
A perusal of prayer clause of the petition indicates that it seeks all manner of reliefs, unrelated to the aforesaid formulation, in respect of which this court in exercise of its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction would be very circumspect. As far as prayer for appointment of a Ph.D. guide as per Regulations of 2009 is concerned, I am of the 13 considered view that the petitioner on her own facts stated in the petition accepted Dr.M.C. Soni was her guide/ supervisor and in fact conducted her research work under his supervision which is also established by the fact that he signed the petitioner's yellow book, which is maintained by a Ph.D. scholar to show the weekly progress report. As such the petitioner is estopped from challenging the appointment of Dr. M.C. Soni as her Guide/ Supervisor, subsequent to his finding lacuna in petitioner's pre-thesis. Even otherwise the qualification of Dr. M.C. Soni as Supervisor/ Guide has not been questioned. Further in the additional affidavit filed by the respondent University through Dr. Chiranjilal Sharma, Registrar of the University, it has been submitted that Dr. M.C. Soni was a regular faculty of the University having the requisite experience of ten years in the department of commerce and Management. This affidavit has not been controverted. This court cannot issue any direction with regard to appointment of a fresh guide/ supervisor for the petitioner's Ph.d. for which she was registered with the respondent University as early as on 17-4-2016, also for the reason that to so do is the function of the respondent 14 university itself as per the operating Regulations/ Guidelines.
Other relief claimed by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent University to allow the petitioner to complete her Ph.D. and be granted the Ph.D. degree. In terms of the reply filed by the University it has been categorically stated that the petitioner's pre-thesis suffers deficiencies found by her Guide/ Supervisors and external experts aside of it suffering plagiarism whereupon she has been advised to make requisite modifications. That is a matter of pure academic evaluation. This court cannot usurp this academic function of the respondent university. To so do would be rash and in the cross hair of the well settled legal position that in academic matters falling in the domain of experts the court give due respect and keep their hands of. The Apex Court in the case of University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) [(2013)10 SCC 519] has held that in academic unless there is clear violation of statutory provisions, regulations or notification issued, the court should not interfere, since those issues fall within the domain of experts. A similar view has been taken in the case of Dental 15 Council of India vs. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, Hingoli [(2017)13 SCC 115].
The allegation of demanding bribe against unnamed officers of the respondent University is quite baseless and in any event a disputed question of fact. Further it relates to commission of officers more appropriately a matter of criminal investigation on a FIR being filed from which a cognizable offence is made out.
The relief of compensation for reason of harassment as alleged is putting the cart before the horse. That relief can be granted only in civil suit after finding of fortuitous act on evidence laid to the trial court's satisfaction and not in writ proceedings. From the facts averred in the petition, I am prima facie unable to find any harassment of the petitioner. The respondent University and the petitioner's Ph.D. guide has the right to seek improvement of the petitioner's pre-thesis as has also been required by the external experts.
In the facts of the case, I therefore find no force in the 16 petition. The petitioner will however be entitled to continue with her Ph.D. with the respondent University as has been stated in the reply to the petition. The on-line migration certificate issued to the petitioner would stand set aside.
Petition stands accordingly disposed of.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 17 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.