Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The sixth respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows:-

He satisfied the necessary qualification prescribed by the UGC. Having a Ph.D. Degree in Education is not irrelevant even as per the UGC Regulations 2010. The thesis submitted by the sixth respondent was "Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through Computer Assisted Instruction". Based on the above thesis, the sixth respondent was awarded the degree of Ph.D. In pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the second respondent intimated through letter dated 25.2.2013 that the educational qualification of the sixth respondent is in conformity with the UGC Regulations 2010. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with ulterior motives. The draft statement of API scores compiled by the petitioner himself in the typed set of papers is absolutely arbitrary and utterly baseless. The sixth respondent has got a score of 427 as API score which is more than the prescribed one.

14. Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.E.V.N. Siva, learned counsel, both appearing for the petitioner in this writ petition, have submitted as follows:-

The dispute is with regard to clause (ii) clause (iv) of Para 4.2.0 of UGC Regulations 2010. The American College did not have a course in Education. The sixth respondent obtained the Ph.D degree in Education only and therefore, the petitioner is not satisfying the qualification as required under clause (ii) of Para 4.2.0 of the above said regulations Equally the sixth respondent has boosted API scores to cross the minimum marks required. The impugned order granting qualification approval to the sixth respondent was made without following the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos. 965, 966 and 989 of 2012. The second respondent University did not have the consultation with the UGC as directed by the Division Bench before granting the qualification approval. Getting oral instruction over phone is not to be considered as a consultation with UGC. The interdisciplinary disciplinary degree awarded by the Alagappa University was subsequently withdrawn. The second respondent University has erroneously come to the conclusion that the petitioner has specialisation in Mathematics without having any materials. Ph.D in Education is the qualification for appointment at B.Ed colleges and therefore such degree obtained by the sixth respondent is not the relevant qualification. The sixth respondent did not have Guide on the Mathematics subject. Since the appointment of the sixth respondent is subject to the grant of approval by the second respondent university, the petitioner need not challenge the appointment separately. UGC has also not given any clear cut view on the qualification of the sixth respondent. The term Ph.D degree in "concerned/allied/relevant discipline(s)" has to be considered and applied by taking note of the institution to which such appointment is to be made and not to be considered independently. The sixth respondent boosted his API score while making self assessment by awarding marks twice in respect of participation and presentation of research papers in International conference, National, Regional/ State level. API score was not scrutinised properly. 90 marks have been boosted . Therefore, the 6th respondent is not having the minimum of 400 marks as required under the regulations. The letters given by the Guides have to be ignored as they are not competent to do so . In support of the above submissions, the following decisions are relied.

17. Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai learned counsel appearing for the second respondent University submitted as follows:-

The sixth respondent is having Ph.D in Education with Mathematics as interdisciplinary. Therefore, this Ph.D degree will fall under relevant discipline, as required under para 4.2.0 of the said regulations. The second respondent sought for opinion from UGC which in turn orally informed the second respondent University over phone intimating that the qualification of the sixth respondent was in accordance with the UGC Regulations 2010 and the Doctorate conferred on the sixth respondent in Education with Mathematics as specialisation can be construed as a relevant discipline . The job of the Principal is more administrative in nature. Ph.D was assigned as qualification only to see that the candidate possess the same qualification as Professor/ Head of the Department. API score is given based on self assessment . The University accepted the self assessment made by the sixth respondent and acted on the same which is in accordance with law.

35. As I am fully satisfied that the above impugned proceedings in W.P.(MD)No.13724 of 2012 have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that those impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the first respondent University for reconsideration of the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

W.P.(MD)No. 12786 of 2013 - Finding and Conclusion

36. Since the impugned orders in W.P(MD)No.13724 of 2012 are liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the Alagappa University, there is no necessity for this Court, at this stage, to go into the rival contentions and submissions made by the respective parties in this writ petition in respect of the qualification approval granted by the Madurai Kamaraj University in favour of the petitioner. No doubt the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No. 12786 of 2013 who is the contesting respondent in the other writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 13724 of 2012 has raised certain points stating that the Ph.D in Interdisciplinary also is not the requisite qualification and that the API score awarded to the petitioner was self boosted. However, I am of the view that such contentions need not be gone into at this stage in view of the fact that both parties are entitled to agitate the matter afresh once again after the Alagappa University takes a decision on the matter and pass fresh orders in respect of the Ph.D degree awarded to the petitioner, after due notice and hearing him. Needless to say that the out come of such proceedings will certainly give a fresh cause of action to the respective parties. Therefore, I am of the view that the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 12786 of 2013 can be closed for the time being without expressing any view on the merits and the contentions raised by the parties therein. As I am not going into the merits and the contentions in the other writ petition and as I am giving liberty to the respective parties to agitate the matter afresh subsequent to the decision to be made by the Alagappa University, I am not discussing various case laws cited by the respective parties. I make it further clear that once an order is made by the Alagappa University, the Madurai Kamaraj University shall get the view of the University Grants Commission in writing about the degree obtained by the petitioner and pass fresh orders. Needless to to say that University Grants Commission has to give a clear cut view on this issue instead of giving an evasive or non committal answer.