Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:-

3.1. Under Regulation 5.1. of the Alagappa University Regulation which deals with the procedure for Ph.D Registration , the petitioner made an application and paid the prescribed fee for Ph.D by clearly stating the subject of research is only 'Education'. Having registered under the Department of Education for research in the field of 'Education'', he has misled this Court as though he made research in the interdisciplinary. The petitioner has suppressed the said fact and misleads this Court by filing false affidavit. The petitioner has done research in the discipline of Education under the guide of Dr.P.Jeyachandran Gaberial, Professor, Department of Education, Madurai Kamaraj University and with the co-guide Dr.S.Mohan, Professor and Head of Department of Education, Alagappa University. 3.2. As per Regulation 8, the writ petitioner submitted the thesis on the discipline of education only and paid the prescribed fee for the discipline of education in the prescribed form. Having submitted the thesis in the discipline of Education, he is not entitled to get Ph.D Degree in Education and Mathematics. The Indian and foreign examiners and the Research supervisor had evaluated the thesis and submitted their reports by clearly mentioning the discipline and the subject as "Education". The petitioner has re-submitted the thesis on 5.6.2007 under the discipline "Education"

24. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the communication of the first respondent dated 4.10.2012 wherein and whereby the Ph.D degree certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in Education (Interdisciplinary) (Education - Mathematics) has been withdrawn by a resolution of the syndicate of Alagappa University and consequently the petitioner was directed to surrender the said certificate for the purpose of issuing a revised certificate in Education.

25. Let me consider certain admitted facts in this case. The petitioner has applied before the Alagappa University through his application for registration for the Degree of Ph.D by indicating the faculty as Education in which the petitioner desired to pursue the research. Further, in the said application, the petitioner has also stated, at Sl.No. 11, the subject proposed for investigation with title of the thesis as " Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through CAI". Under clause (c) of Sl.No.11, he has also specifically stated Mathematics as the inter-disciplinary subject title of the thesis. He has also referred two names of the Professors as his Guides at Sl.No.17 and both of them belong to Department of Education. These are all admitted facts. It is seen that the petitioner has submitted the thesis papers during the month of March 2006 by titling the same as " Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through Computer Assisted Instruction". The said paper also referred that the said thesis was submitted for the award of of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education .

26. The said thesis received by the University was returned for re- submission on certain reasons. Accordingly, the petitioner resubmitted the thesis papers in the month of June 2007 , again by quoting the topic as "Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through Computer Assisted Instruction". However, this time he has referred that the thesis was submitted for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education (Interdisciplinary - Education and Mathematics). The said thesis paper was accepted by the University without any protest or objection. This is also an admitted fact. A viva-voce exam was conducted on 28.7.2007 . The minutes of the Viva-Voce exam also shows that the petitioner has submitted the thesis titling "Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through Computer Assisted Instruction". However, the examiners recommended to the University for awarding Ph.D in Education. But the fact remains that the petitioner was not awarded the Ph.D in Education and on the other hand he was awarded with the Ph.D in Education (Interdisciplinary - Education and Mathematics). The said degree was awarded as early as in the year 2007. Based on the said degree the petitioner was also selected and appointed as the Principal in the American College. While that being the factual position, after nearly five years, the Algappa University has chosen to pass the present impugned orders to withdraw the Ph.D degree certificate issued already in favour of the petitioner and to reissue a revised certificate in Education. These proceedings are challenged in this writ petition both on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and also on several grounds on merits. Insofar as the ground viz., the violation of principles of natural justice is concerned , it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not put on notice before passing the impugned order. On the other hand, in the very impugned proceedings itself, it is stated that there was no need to call for explanation from the petitioner since all the relevant records pertaining to the award of Ph.D degree were available in the office of the University and those records were sufficient enough to arrive at a decision.

29. I am of the view that answer to the above said question is to be given only in favour of the petitioner. In other words, it is to be held that the University is not entitled to unilaterally withdraw or cancel the certificate already issued to the petitioner without affording him an opportunity of hearing. No doubt, the University has stated that such decision was made based on the records available . But a perusal of the documents placed before this Court, which undoubtedly form part of those records, would also show that the petitioner, though referred the faculty as Education in his application, has also specifically stated the title of the thesis and inter-disciplinary subject as "Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through CAI" and "Mathematics" respectively. The University has not rejected the said application. It is also seen that the petitioner has submitted the thesis with the title "Concept Mapping on Mathematics Education through Computer Assisted Instruction". Further, the revised thesis submitted by the petitioner also specifically referred that the said thesis was submitted for the award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education (Interdisciplinary : Education and Mathematics). The University has not rejected the said thesis. Likewise, the recommendation made by the viva voce examiners also shows that the petitioner has submitted the thesis on the above subject only. Apart from all those things, it is also an undisputed fact that, based on the above thesis papers only, the Alagappa University has granted the Ph.D degree to the petitioner with interdisciplinary subject. After having granted the said degree, based on the above materials, if the University wants to withdraw or cancel the same on some other reason viz., Guide and Co-guide were not from the Mathematics Department and that the petitioner has submitted his application only for registering his name for Ph.D programme in Education subject only, it should have certainly put the petitioner on notice and sought his objection or explanation, before taking a decision. Undoubtedly such exercise is very much essential as the proposed action affects the civil right of the petitioner. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the Alagappa University relied on the decisions reported in 2011 (12) SCC 172 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Bharat Bijlee Limited) ; 2010 (2) CTC 489 (Santosh Vs. Jagat Ram and Another) and 2008 (1) CTC 230 (M.Kandasamy Vs. The District Collector and others) to contend that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and that the University has jurisdiction to correct the error when the mistake is apparent on the face of the records. I fail to understand where is the suppression. The learned counsel also relied on 2012 (1) SCC 157 (Sanchit Bansal and Another Vs. Joint Admission Board and Others) to contend that the role of the Court in academic matters is a limited one. There is no quarrel about these propositions. However going by the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be contended that the petitioner has suppressed any material facts either before the Alagappa University or before this Court. Further, when the materials placed before this Court suggest that the University is not entitled to take a unilateral decision to withdraw the degree, as discussed supra, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice.