Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The petitioners contended that the respondent no.8 did not meet the requirement of minimum 5 post Ph.D. publications under clause 5. Based on the affidavit of Professor Dr. Neeraj Hatekar, Professor of Econometrics in Mumbai University, the petitioners urged that the so called research publications included by the respondent no. 8 in his bio-data were problems meant for under graduate students and not research jt-pil-92-96 & wp-1901-10-os--f.doc publications. .

40. The petitioners have alleged that seven out of twelve publications listed by the respondent no. 8 in his bio data did not fulfill the criteria of post Ph.D publication, as required under clause 3 of Part A. It is urged that the three out of remaining five publications are not research publications but are problems and hence, do not meet the requirement of clause 3. The petitioners have urged that the publications listed in the bio-data are not published in peer/reviewed/referred international research journal, which is one of the essential qualifications stipulated jt-pil-92-96 & wp-1901-10-os--f.doc under Clause 3 of Part A. Thus according to the petitioners the Respondent no.8 was not qualified to be appointed as a vice chancellor.

67. Relying upon the affidavit of Dr. Neeraj Hatekar, Professor of Econometrics in Mumbai University, the petitioners have contended that the publications at Sr. No.3 relates to Ph.D. and same is not based on Post Ph.D. Research. Hence, the said publication does not meet the requirement of Clause 3 of Part A. The petitioners have further urged that the publications at Sr. Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 are not research publications in peer review journals but are problems which do not qualify as research publications. The petitioners have also disputed that the respondent no.8 has co-authored the solutions to the problem no.11033 along with Mr. Richard Strong. The petitioners have claimed that as per the policy of the publisher i.e. Mathematical Association of America, the solution was to be sent along with proposed problem. The petitioners claim that the jt-pil-92-96 & wp-1901-10-os--f.doc problem was published in 2003, therefore, the solution was obviously given in 2003, itself i.e. prior to Ph.D. The petitioners have further contended that the problem on lucas number appearing at Sr. no.7 and result of Fibonacci number at Sr. no.8 are the same, except for change of alphabet "L" to alphabet "F". The petitioners, therefore, claim that the remaining 5 publications do not fulfill the criteria of Clause 3 of Part A.

68. Though in vain, the learned Counsels for the petitioners and the respondents have tried to highlight the difference between publication of problems and research publication, Mathematical Journals and Peer reviewed Journals and have further sought to explain to us the intricacies and complexities of the 'problems' and 'solutions'. However, we with our limited ability and expertise in the academic field are unable to answer the points raised by the petitioners and decide whether the said 5 publications at Sr. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8, meet the requirements stipulated by Clause 3 of Part A. In our view, it is within the domain of the Selection Committee, an expert body in academic field, to assess and review these publications and determine whether these publications meet the requirement of Clause 3 of Part A. jt-pil-92-96 & wp-1901-10-os--f.doc