Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The petitioner who, with a view to securing the degree of Doctorate in Philosophy in Arts had registered himself in the Utkal University and had submitted a thesis and appeared in the viva voce test, has filed this writ application with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to publish the result of his examination within a period of time to be specified and to quash any order or direction issued by the Chancellor in this behalf.

2. Petitioner has alleged that he had passed his M.A. Examination in Oriya in 1st Class from Utkal University in the year 1979 and had registered himself in Utkal University in December, 1981 to prepare a thesis on "A Comparative Study on Hawthorn the American Novelist and Fakir Mohan, an Oriya Novelist", with Dr. Gopal Chandra Misra, M.A.,D. Litt. Professor and Head of the Post-Graduate Department of Oriya, Sambatpur University, as his guide. According to the provisions contained in Regn. 7 of Chapt. IX, Utkal University Regulations, the thesis which was submitted by the petitioner, was referred by the Syndicate to the Board of three Examiners and after the thesis was approved by the Board, the petitioner was informed by the Controller of Examination of the j University that the viva voce part of the Ph. D. Degree Examination will be held at 11.00 a.m. on 15-3-85 at the residence of Dr. G.C. Misra, the guide. The Syndicate under Statute 203 of the Utkal University Statutes (hereinafter called the "Statutes") considered and approved the recommendation of the Board of Examiners for publication of the results by Resolution No. 545 dt. 24-3-85 vide Annexure-3. In usual course of business the result of the examination was to be published by the University and as a matter of fact the result of four other candidates mentioned in the Resolution (Annexure-3) was published, but not the result of the petitioner. Not knowing the reason for which the petitioner's result was not published, he submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 12-4-85 (Annexure-4). The petitioner came to know thereafter that the Chancellor had directed the University not to publish the result of the petitioner which according to the petitioner is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Chancellor, The petitioner having failed in all his attempts to have the result of his examination published by the University, has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to be issued by this Court to the opposite parties to publish his result as decided by the Syndicate is resolution No. 545 dt. 24-3-85 (Annexure-3) within a specified time.

3. In the reply the opposite parties denied all the allegations of the petitioner and contended that he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The stand of the opposite parties in a nutshell is that the Chancellor of the Utkal University in exercise of his powers under Section 5(7), Utkal University Act (hereinafter called the "Act") has annulled the resolution of the Syndicate appointing the Board of Examiners to examine the thesis paper of the petitioner and, therefore, all the subsequent resolutions of the Syndicate are null and void. According to them, the examination in question having been conducted by a Board of Examiners, the constitution of which was itself invalid, is void ab initio and, therefore, the subsequent resolution of the Syndicate resolving to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the said invalid Board of Examiners is also void. It was further contended that the Chancellor's jurisdiction was invoked by way of a complaint alleging various irregularities committed in the matter of appointment of examiners and in conducting the viva voce test. The Chancellor in exercise of his powers under the Act passed an interim order of stay pending full enquiry into the matter and on a consideration of all reports and materials received by him, the Chancellor by a reasoned order dt. 22-5-85 annulled the resolution of the Syndicate and directed the Syndicate to constitute a fresh Board of Examiners and to conduct a fresh viva voce test after restoring the status quo ante in the matter. According to the opposite parties the Chancellor is vested with the jurisdiction to annul any proceeding of the senate, syndicate or any other authority if it, in his opinion, is not in conformity with the Act and the Statutes. In the present case the Chancellor being the Head of the University was entitled to examine the resolution of the syndicate appointing the Board of Examiners which for the reasons recorded by him was in violation of the express provisions of the Act and the Statutes and the action taken by the Chancellor was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though an objection was taken in the counter-affidavit that the Governor of the State who happens to be the Chancellor of the University is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the same was not seriously pressed at the hearing.

6. Before going into the legal questions urged for consideration in this case, we would set out the facts which emerge out of the writ petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder to the counter-affidavit and the original records submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2. Petitioner registered himself for Ph. D. Examination under the Utkal University and submitted a thesis the subject being "Amerikiya Oupanyasik Hatharn (Oriya Oupanyasik Fakirmohan Eka Tulanatmak Addhyayan" (In Oriya). The Utkal University by its communication dated 5-11-84 requested the Board of Studies to recommend a panel of examiners to examine the thesis submitted by the petitioner for a Ph. D. degree in Oriya. The Board of studies recommended 12 names which were placed before the Examination Committee on 19-11-84. The Examination Committee selected 2 names, i.e., Dr. N. Satpathy and Dr. A. Patnaik appearing against SI. Nos. 3 and 7. Their names were tick marked in red and countersigned by the Vice Chanceller Dr. S. Sahoo and Sri B.S. Das, a member of the said Committee but the signature of Sri B.S. Das and the tick mark against the name of Dr. N. Satpathy have been scored through. The name of Dr. Banshidhar Sarangi has been tick marked both in red and black, but has been countersigned by Sri B.S. Das alone and not by the Vice Chancellor. According to the opposite parties the tick mark against serial No. 10 Dr. Bansidhar Sarangi was a subsequent interpolation not backed by any authority of the Examination Committee. The minutes of the resolution of the Examination Committee held on 19-11-84, which appears to have been signed by the Controller of Examinations on 24-11-84, merely state that it be recommended to the syndicate that the recommendations of the Board of Studies in the matter of appointment of examiners be accepted and appointment of examiners be made as suggested. The resolution did not mention the names of the examiners selected by the Examination Committee which according to the opposite parties was taken advantage of. As already stated, it appears from the list of persons recommended for the purpose that the tick mark in red as well as the signature of Sri B.S. Das have been scored through and instead a tick mark has been put against serial No. 10 in the list with the signature of Sri B.S. Das alone against the said name, It may be noted that the signature of the Vice-Chancellor (Sic) against serial No. 10 (Dr. Banshidhar Sarangi). On 6-12-84 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University, stating that he did not have any cordial relationship with Dr. N. Satpathy, Reader in Oriya and that the latter having expressed his keen interest to be appointed as the examiner of his thesis he was apprehensive for which reason he requested for appointment of any other lecturer in Oriya as his Ph.D. thesis examiner except Dr. Nityananda Satpathy. On 15-12-84 the syndicate approved and appointed the examiners as per the recommendation of the Examination Committee in its meeting held on 19-11-84. On receipt of the approval of the syndicate in the matter of appointment of examiners, the Controller of Examinations issued letters to the Board of Examiners for examining the thesis of the petitioner. The Controller of Examinations issued the aforesaid letter to Dr. A. Patnaik (Sl. No. 7) and Dr. Banshidhar Sarangi (Sl. No. 10), besides to Prof, Dr. Gopal Ch. Misra, who was the guide of the petitioner and was necessarily a member of the Board of Examiners. No communication was made to Dr. N. Satpathy (Sl. No. 3) in this behalf. The Controller of Examinations sent a copy of the thesis submitted by the petitioner along with the other necessary papers to each of the aforesaid examiners. The Controller of Examinations requested Prof. G.C. Misra to fix a suitable date for conducting viva voce test of the Ph. D. Examination of the petitioner in consultation with the other two examiners, namely, Dr. A. Patnaik and Dr. B.D. Sarangi in response to which Dr. Misra wrote back fixing 15-3-85 for holding the viva voce test and further requested that the viva voce test be held at his residence at Madhupatna as he was suffering from leg injury caused in a bus accident and was unable to move. The Controller of Examinations in the notification dt. 12-2-85 fixed the viva voce part of the Ph. D. examination of the petitioner to be held on 15-3-85 at 11.00 a.m. in the residence of Dr. G.C. Misra at Madhupatna, Cuttack. According to the opposite parties it is the Syndicate who had to decide the venue of the examination and not the Controller of Examinations who unauthorisedly fixed the residence of Prof. G.C. Misra for the purpose. In the viva voce test held on 15-3-85 at the residence of Prof. G.C. Misra the petitioner appeared and the Board of Examiners unanimously recommended that the Ph. D. Degree be awarded to the petitioner by the Utkal University. The said report of the Board of Examiners was placed before the Syndicate on 24-3-1985 along with their report in respect of other candidates in other subjects and the Syndicate considered the recommendation of the Board of Examiners and approved the results for publication. In the meantime a complaint dt. 20-3-85 from Dr. N. Satpathy was received by the Chancellor alleging that there has been a foul play examining the thesis of the petitioner and in conducting his viva voce test and bringing to his notice the illegalities and manipulations made at the instance of interested persons with the mala fide intention to interfere in the examination system of the University. He alleged that though the Examination Committee had selected him to be one of the examiners, his name was changed and various other illegalities were committed affecting the examination system itself. He further alleged that the attempt of the candidates to change and choose examiners of their choice would paralyse the examination system for which reason intervention of the Chancellor in the matter was solicited. On receipt of the said letter the Chancellor sought for a report from the Vice-Chancellor and ordered that as the Ph.D. degree has not been awarded to the petitioner by that time the same, may be stopped till full enquiry is made. In compliance to the above, the Vice-Chancellor reported that Dr. N. Satpathy's, name was recommended by the Examination Committee on 19-11-84 for appointment as an examiner to evaluate the thesis of the petitioner, but before the appointment and approval of the Board of Examiners was made by the Syndicate Sri Sarangi (Petitioner) reported to the Vice-Chancellor that his thesis may be examined by any other examiner except Dr. Satpathy, as he suspected that Dr. Satpathy would try to harm him intentionally. The said letter of the petitioner was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting on 8-12-84 and while considering the proceeding of the meeting of the Examination Committee held on 19-11-84 the Syndicate decided to appoint Dr. B. Sarangi whose name was included in the panel of examiners recommended by the Board of Studies in Oriya in place of Dr. Satpathy. The Vice-Chancellor also reported that in the changed circumstances appointment was given to Dr. B. Sarangi to evaluate the thesis of the petitioner and after favourable reports were received from all the three examiners, viva voce test was held on 15-3-85. The petitioner having qualified himself in the viva voce test, the syndicate in its meeting held on 24-3-85 approved the result of the petitioner for publication. It may be mentioned here that Sri M. N. Das was the Vice-Chancellor who submitted the aforesaid report to the Chancellor though he was not the Vice-Chancellor at the time who the examiners were selected on 19-11-84. On receipt of the said report of the Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor was satisfied that this was a fit matter for his interference and issued a show cause notice to the, Syndicate of the Utkal University under Section 5(7), Utkal University Act, to show cause by 30th April, 1985 as to why the resolution dt. 8-12-84 of the syndicate changing the examinership of Dr. N. Satpathy shall not be annulled and a set of fresh examiners be not appointed. The show cause of the Vice Chancellor was submitted on 29- 4-85 stating that nothing improper or irregular has been done in the matter of conducting evaluation of the thesis and viva voce examination of the petitioner. He stated that on the representation made by the petitioner the then Vice Chancellor Dr. S. Sahoo placed it before the Syndicate on 15-4-84 (though in his earlier report dt. 11-4-84 to the Chancellor he had stated that it was placed before the Syndicate in its meeting dt. 8-12-84) when the matter was discussed by the Syndicate and it was decided that Dr. B. Sarangi whose name also occurred in the panel be appointed to evaluate the said thesis of the petitioner. The show cause further reveals that the application of Prof. Dr. G.C. Misra requesting for holding the viva voce test at his residence on 15-3-85 was placed by the Controller before him (Vice-

11. We could next proceed to examine the contention of Dr. Dash that there were no materials before the Chancellor to annul the proceedings of the Syndicate by which the examiners were appointed for this particular examination. This Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not go into merits of the decision of the Chancellor unless it suffers from any manifest error of law or considers the decision of the Chancellor to be otherwise manifestly unjust. This Court can also interfere in the matter, if the Chancellor has assumed jurisdiction otherwise not existing in law. We have already held that the Chancellor is possessed of the authority to examine and annul any of the proceedings of the Syndicate which is not in conformity with the Act or the Statutes. We have gone through the text of the order passed by the Chancellor which takes into consideration all the relevant facts and we must express that the Chancellor has approached the matter judiciously keeping in view the problems which the educational institutions are now facing from time to time. There is no error or misconstruction of law apparent on the record justifying interference with the conclusion reached by the Chancellor. According to the Chancellor the Syndicate did not apply its mind and there was absence of valid reasons which should have been reflected in the resolution passed by the Syndicate for substituting the name of Dr. N. Satpathy by Dr. B.D. Sarangi for the purpose of evaluation of the thesis of the petitioner. He is of the view that there was no proper enquiry as to the allegations against Dr. N. Satpathy being in the Board of Examiners and the Syndicate should have handled the problem with utmost pare, caution and circumspection before reaching any conclusion. We have already referred to the selection of the examiners made by the Syndicate on 19-11-84 in which against the names of Dr. N. Satpathy and Dr. A. Patnaik there were tick marks in red and signatures of the Vice-Chancellor and Mr. B. Das were there in the list prepared and recommended by the Board of Studies. We have also noticed that the signature of Mr. B. Das along with the date has been scored through in the said list and his signature alone appears against the name of Dr. B. Sarangi who was in item No. 10 in the list. Admittedly Dr. B. Sarangi was not selected as an examiner on 19-11-84 and inclusion of his name in a subsequent meeting of the Syndicate does not explain as to how Mr. B. Das signed against his name on 19-11-84. It has also not been explained as to why the Vice-Chancellor has not put his signature against the name of Dr. B. Sarangi if the Syndicate decided to substitute him in place of Dr. N. Satpathy. There appears to be discrepancy as to the date of the meeting of the Syndicate when Dr. N. Satpathy was substituted by Dr. B. Sarangi by the Board of Examiners. In some communications by the Vice-Chancellor it was stated that the Syndicate in its meeting dt. 8-12-84 considered the representation of the petitioner that his thesis may be examined by any examiner except Dr. Satpathy when the Syndicate decided to appoint Dr. B. Sarangi in place of Dr. N. Satpathy in the panel of examiners. In the show cause submitted by the Vice-Chancellor to the notice issued under Section 5(7) of the Act it has been stated that on representation made by the petitioner the Vice-Chancellor Dr. S. Sahoo placed the matter before the Syndicate on 15-12-84 when the matter was discussed and it was decided that Dr. B. Sarangi whose name also appeared in the panel be appointed to examine the thesis of the petitioner in place of Dr. N. Satpathy. In matters relating to the conduct of examination every thing should be above board and clean. In the facts and circumstances of this case the Chancellor in our view has taken an appropriate decision by annulling the proceeding of the Syndicate and directing for reconstitution of the Board of Examiners and for conducting fresh viva voce test. We do not feel it necessary to go into other question as to the venue of the viva voce test, which under some circumstances was held in the residence of Dr. G.C. Misra, as according to the Chancellor it should have been better postponed to a latter date when Dr. Misra would have been in a better position to conduct the test. This direction of the Chancellor is consequential to the annulment of the proceedings of the Syndicate the effect of which is that the petitioner's thesis was evaluated by the Board of Examiners not properly constituted.