Karnataka High Court
Dr.Mahadevaiah vs The Registrar on 13 January, 2017
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION Nos.7905 & 9011 OF 2016 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DR.MAHADEVAIAH
S/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND COURSE COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN SUGAR TECHNOLOGY
SIR.M.VISVESWARAIAH POST GRADUATE CENTER
TUBINAKERE
MANDYA - 571 402
R/AT NO.65, 6TH CROSS,
BAPUJI LAYOUT, BOGADI,
MYSORE - 560 026.
2. SRI.M.P.MANOHAR
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SUGAR TECHNOLOGY
SIR.M.VISVESWARAIAH POST GRADUATE
CENTER TUBINAKERE,
MANDYA - 571 402
R/AT NO.408, 6TH MAIN,
H BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 022. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VENKATESHA T S, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. THE REGISTRAR
MYSORE UNIVERSITY
CRAWFORD HALL
MYSORE - 570 005.
2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION)
MYSORE UNIVERSITY
CRAWFORD HALL,
MYSORE - 570 005.
3. SRI.S.CHANDRAJU
PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF SUGAR TECHNOLOGY
SIR.M.VISVESWARAIAH POST GRADUATE
CENTER TUBINAKERE
MANDYA - 571 402
4. THE CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF STUDIES (BOS) IN SUGAR TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
SRI M.VISVESWARAIAH POST GRADUATE CENTER
TUBINAKERE,
MANDYA - 571 402.
5. THE COORDINATOR
DEPARTMENT OF SUGAR (DOS) IN SUGAR TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE
SIR.M.VISVESWARAIAH POST GRADUATE CENTER
TUBINAKERE
MANDYA-571 402
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;)
R4 & R5 ARE SERVED)
3
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DT.18.12.2015 ANNX-A ISSUED BY R-2.
CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT OR DIRECTIONS TO EVALUATE THE THESIS OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER BY THE PANEL OF EXAMINER LIST IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE GUIDE AND APPROVED BY
CONCERNED BOARD OF STUDIES AS STIPULATED UNDER
REGULATIONS 7.8. OF REGULATIONS GOVERNING AWARD OF
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PH.D.) 2004 ANNEX-G.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The second petitioner has made application to the respondent-University for according permission to do research for the purpose of Doctoral Studies of Sugar Technology for award of Doctor of Philosophy. The Board of Studies in Sugar Technology, University of Mysore, by its meeting held on 29th August 2008 resolved to permit the second petitioner to carry out research work under the guidance of the first petitioner. The second petitioner was permitted to complete the research within five years with effect from 9th September 2008. The subject selected by the petitioner for submission of thesis was "Effect of some non-sucrose constituent of sugarcane on sugar 4 manufacturing process and quality of sugar". The Pre- registration Colloquium Committee, unanimously agreed for registration of the proposed research work of the second petitioner by its meeting held on 9th August, 2009.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under University of Mysore, Regulations Governing Award of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) 2004, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) the Registrar has to forward the thesis of the second petitioner to the external examiners. Accordingly, the thesis submitted by the second petitioner has been forwarded to two external examiners and after valuating the same, one of the examiners recommended the thesis for Doctoral Committee to review or reject the thesis; and the another examiner has stated that the thesis of the second petitioner is not acceptable on quality and quantity-wise. The learned counsel submits that as per Regulation 7.8(c) of the Regulations, the thesis shall be evaluated by a Board with the Guide as Internal examiner and Chairperson and two external examiners. The Vice-Chancellor 5 shall choose the external examiners; and the Guide who is the Internal Examiner, acts as the Chairman of the Board for adjudication of the thesis. The first petitioner, who is the guide of the second petitioner, is the Chairman of the Board of adjudication. The Regulations further permits that in case if the external examiner rejects or recommends for review, then he has to forward the same to fourth examiner under Regulation 7.12 of the Regulations. Accordingly, the thesis of the second petitioner was referred to the fourth examiner; and the fourth examiner by its report dated 28th July 2015 has appreciated the work of the second petitioner and recommended for acceptance of his thesis submitted for award of Doctoral degree. Out of four examiners, two examiners held in favour of the second petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth examiner instead of forwarding the thesis to the first petitioner has directly forwarded the same to the Registrar of University, which is in contravention of Regulation 7.8 and 7.12 of the Regulations. He further submits that the Registrar of University, instead of forwarding the report to the first petitioner for compliance of Regulation 7.10 of the Regulations, has 6 accepted the report and rejected the thesis submitted by the second petitioner. Hence, he prays for a direction to the respondent-Registrar of University to forward it to the fourth respondent. The learned counsel further prays that the communication to the first respondent in rejecting the thesis submitted to by the second petitioner is to be set aside.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University files statement of objections. He submits that with regard to the facts narrated by the petitioner and as far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. However, it is stated in the objections that two examiners have rejected the thesis of the second petitioner and it was forwarded to the fourth examiner. The fourth examiner has appreciated the thesis and has recommended for award of Doctoral degree to the petitioner. Since two examiners have rejected and the third examiner has recommended and considering the whole case on hand, on application of mind, the Registrar who is the competent authority under Regulation 7.12 of the Regulations, is just in 7 communicating the decision to the second petitioner. Hence he submits to reject the petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the petition papers.
The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent- University that the external examiners have rejected the thesis of the second petitioner cannot be accepted. It is borne out from the documents that the first petitioner, who is the Internal Examiner, acts as the Chairman of the Board for Adjudication of the thesis, has forwarded the thesis of the second petitioner to external examiners, of which one has rejected and the other examiner has recommended to review or reject the thesis. When the opinion of the examiner is either to review or reject, then it is for the first petitioner to review it or reject it, the same was to be given to the second petitioner to rectify the same or to improvise, since the second examiner has expressed his opinion either to review or to reject. Instead the first petitioner has forwarded the same to the fourth examiner. The fourth examiner has appreciated the work of the second petitioner and 8 recommended for its acceptance and for awarding doctoral degree to the second petitioner. It is pertinent here to refer to Regulation 7.8 of the Regulations, which reads thus:
7.8. The thesis shall be evaluated by a Board of Examiners as follows:
(a) The Guide who is the Internal Examiner, acts as the Chairman of the Board for adjudication of thesis;
(b) The Chairman of the concerned Board of Studies shall submit a panel of minimum twelve examiners (Indian or overseas). Such panels shall be finalized in consultation with the Guide and approved by the concerned Board of Studies. This process has to be completed by the Board of Studies within one month of the receipt of the synopsis of the Ph.D. thesis from the university.
(c) The thesis shall be evaluated by a Board with the Guide as Internal examiner and Chairperson and two external examines. The Vice-Chancellor shall choose the external examiners.
5. As per the said Regulation, the first petitioner is the Chairman of the Board for adjudication of the thesis, and he has got more responsibility as a guide as well as the Chairman. It is the contribution of the Guide which he would be guiding the student is to be considered. When the first petitioner has taken five years to guide the second petitioner and submitted the thesis to two examiners, which is permissible, the 9 results/recommendation of the two examiners also counts. No doubt the first examiner has rejected and the second examiner has expressed his opinion either near to rejection but has not rejected and expressed to review or to reject. Then it is up to the first petitioner who has got power either to review or to reject. The first petitioner has not rejected and has forwarded the same to the fourth examiner and the fourth examiner, his report, has observed thus:
"After studying this thesis in detail, it is found that an extensive research work in laboratory as well as field work (in sugar mill) is carried out by research scholar. The data found original and nicely presented in the said thesis. A good work is done for Indian Sugar Industry. Hence, I appreciate work of Mr. Manohar M.P., Research Scholar and recommend for acceptance of this thesis submitted for the award of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy."
6. Out of these three examiners, one has, in unequivocal terms, recommended for awarding doctoral degree to the second petitioner whereas one has rejected and one has expressed his opinion either to review or to reject. 10
7. Regulations 7.10 and 7.13 of the Regulations, read thus:
"7.10. The Examiners of the thesis shall get a copy of the thesis along with a copy of the registered synopsis and the examiners have to examine whether the candidate has achieved the objectives mentioned in the synopsis which was submitted at the time of registration. The External examiners shall send the evaluation report to the Chairperson (the Guide) of the thesis examination board with a copy to the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University only. Apart from the adjudication report, each examiner is required to submit a short report in the prescribed Proforma (Appendix-'A').
7.13. If any one of the examiner's answer is YES to 5(C) of Appendix-'A', then the candidate shall revise the thesis based on the suggestions made by the examiner and submit the revised thesis, duly certified by the guide and with the payment of the prescribed fees to the Registrar (Evaluation) of the University through the Chairperson/Head of the Institution. The Registrar (Evaluation) shall send the revised thesis within fifteen days to the same examiner."
8. It is pertinent to state that the external examiner have committed an error by forwarding their report directly to the Registrar of the University instead of forwarding it to the 11 Chairman of Adjudication Committee as per Regulations. Had the external examiners forwarded their report to the first petitioner, the first petitioner could have provided an opportunity to the second petitioner as per Regulation 7.13 to revise the thesis and based on the suggestions made by the examiner and would have submitted his revised thesis. Both the first petitioner and the second petitioner have spent their valuable five years of their lifetime in conducting research. When such being the case, consideration should be given with some piousness and with all respects. In the instant case what is demonstrated is that the Registrar has committed a grave error in not forwarding the report received by the external examiners to the Chairman for adjudication, but conceded and officially rejected the thesis of the second petitioner is an error on his part in issuing Annexure-A. Under these circumstances, without hesitation, I hold that the Registrar of the University has committed a grave error and has acted contrary to the Regulations of the University. The action of the Registrar is a colorable exercise of power. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. GAJAPATHI NARAYAN DEO AND OTHERS v. STATE OF ORISSA 12 reported in AIR 1953 SC 375 has observed that if an action is done contrary to the statutory provision or for the purpose for which it has been enacted, then it is colourable exercise of power. Under the circumstance, I hold that the impugned order Annexure-A dated 18th December 2015 passed by University is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the first petitioner has been debarred from acting as a guide for a period of five years from 9th February 2016 and as per Regulations, the Vice-Chancellor may nominate a member from the panel of examiners to act as the Chairperson, Board of Examiners to adjudicate the thesis and to conduct the viva-voce examination. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is the Vice-Chancellor who has to exercise his power to do the needful to appoint the Chairman. Regulation 7.18 of the Regulations reads thus:
"7.18. In case of death/disability/non-availability of the Guide, the Vice-Chancellor may nominate a member from the panel of examiners to act as the Chairperson, 13 Board of Examiners to adjudicate the thesis and to conduct the Viva-Voce examination."
10. The Vice-Chancellor is directed to comply with the said Regulation 7.18 of the Regulations within a period of three weeks.
11. It is also pertinent here to note Regulation 8 of the Regulations which provide for Change of Guide/Title. Regulation 8.3 of the Regulations reads thus:
"8.3. Generally change of Guide is not permissible. It may be permitted only under extreme conditions such as a death of the Guide or disability or other medical condition or any other legal actions on the Guide by the administration. However, if there is any conflict between the Guide and the Student, it has to be immediately referred to the Doctoral committee, whose decision has to be placed before Vice-Chancellor for final decision."
12. In the instant case, first petitioner, who is the Chairman who was acting as Guide to the second petitioner, has been debarred from acting as a Guide for a period of five years from 9th February 2016. This aspect has to be taken in its proper perspective. In the present case, the first petitioner who 14 is the Guide of the second petitioner is very much alive; and it is also to be viewed that the displacement of the first petitioner is made prospectively and not with retrospective effect, which means that, the debarring of the first petitioner from acting as Guide is not applicable to the case of the second petitioner. In this regard, the Vice-Chancellor has to take a decision in the right perspective. It is also to be observed that Thesis may not be considered in the way it is to be considered when the same is in the hands of a person who has not dealt with the subject for five years. Keeping in view the effort that petitioner has put in for the past five years for doing research and submitting the thesis, the Vice-Chancellor has to appoint the Guide according to Regulation 7.18 of the Regulations.
With these observations, these petitions stand allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn