Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. However, the Assistant Registrar of the University sent a latter (Annexure 1) on 19th June, 1981 in which it was pointed out that the Research Board has decided that the candidate be asked to incorporate the suggestions of the examiner in 2 Chapters of thesis in the light of the comments given by one of the examiner. Extracts of the report of the Examiner was annexed with this letter, which is a part of Annexure 1.

6. According to the extracts the Examiner was very appreciative of all the points taken by the candidate in preparing this thesis and he had all praise. However, as a passing comment he observed that he would be failing in his duty if he would not invite the attention to certain desirable changes and improvements in case the candidate chooses to publish his work. There after the following suggestions were made;:

8. It in, therefore, not in doubt that the third Examiner was clear and Categorical in recommanding the thesis for the award of Ph. D. degree in Political Science and this recommendation was not conditional.

9. I have come to the above conclusion because not only earlier he has prefaced the above comments by saying that the changes are desirable & the improvement may be made if he chose to publish. But in order to remove any doubt about his opinion that the thesis was worth granting of degree of Ph. D. he after making the above comments made it specific, when he observed in the last 2 paragraphs that inspite of the above theoritical short comings the Researcher has done commendable work and he recommends the thesis or awarding the degree for Ph.D.

15. In particular after thesis is submitted the process of examination commences from Ordinance No. 215-C. It would be obvious from a close of these study Ordinances that various tests, checks and process of evaluation and examination have been provided.

16. Ordinance 216-C has become very relevant for the purpose of this consideration. Ordinance 216 Clause (C) provides that examiner has got three options in making recommendations:

(a) The thesis be accepted.

(b) The thesis be rejected.

(c) The candidate be allowed to present his thesis in revised from. The form also contains these three recommendations.

17. It is common ground that the third Examiner in the present case has given detailed report and in the concluding portion of the report he has opined that thesis should be accepted. In other words he has made the recommendation for acceptance of the thesis and not for directing the candidate to re-present his thesis in the revised form as required in Clause (c) of Ordinance 216-C.

18. In the above situation, in my opinion it was necessary for the University to hold Viva Voce test as required by Ordinance 216 D and Order 216E. It is only after this Viva Voce test that Ordinance 218 and 219 would have come into play.