Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 26 (KAR)

GURUPAD K. HEGDE v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE

1987-01-28

M.RAMA JOIS

body1987
M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition an important question relating to the power of the Board of Studies and the procedure required to be followed in the matter of awarding certain Doctorate Degrees under the revised Regulations framed by the University of Mysore, arises for consideration. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : the petitioner possesses M. A. Degree in Sanskrit and has been a teacher in Sanskrit for the last 16 years. He had passed B. A. with Sanskrit as major subject in First Class in the year 1966, of the Karnataka University. He passed M. A. Degree in Sanskrit of the Karnataka University in the year 1968 in First Class, First Rank. He is working as Head of the Department of Sanskrit in Lal Bahadur and S. B. Solabanna Shetty Commerce College, Sagar. In accordance with the regulations for awarding Research Degrees in D. Litt/d. Sc/ D. E. /d. Ed. etc. , the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form praying for awarding the Doctorate Degree in D. Litt in Sanskrit. The Board of Studies of the Mysore University for Sanskrit considered the application of the petitioner and passed the following Resolution. "subject 2 : application of Sri Gurupad Krishnappa Hegde for Registration for D. Litt (Ref : Letter from the Controller of Examinations, University of Mysore, Mysore bearing No. Ex. GKH/d. Lit/82-83 dt. 14-10-1982, enclosing the said application ). I. The Board of Studies in Sanskrit (PG) went through the synopsis of the work 'pun in Sanskrit Literature' submitted by Sri Gurupad Krishnappa Hegde for Registration for D. Litt. It formed the opinion that the claims made by the candidate about his proposed achievements as mentioned in the synopsis are of such nature as cannot be substantiated or fulfilled with any amount of success. Moreover the candidate does not seem to be having a clear idea about what he wants to expound. His statement that "slesatattva" or the principle of pun is established in this work all pervasive soul in literature, fine art and the very life of man ultimately. In this thesis it is propounded that the Slesa theory pervades even those Vedic and mythological portions where all the existing theories have no place" is a highly sweeping generalisation which no research scholar can dare make. II. In this thesis it is propounded that the Slesa theory pervades even those Vedic and mythological portions where all the existing theories have no place" is a highly sweeping generalisation which no research scholar can dare make. II. In this connection, the Board also considered the following other books and articles submitted by the candidate : 1. Samskrita Vyakarana Dipika 2. Kavyadalli Dhvani 3. Kannada-Vanmaya-Vikase Samskratasya Prabhavah 4. Nayana's insight in recognising the characters of the Mahabharata 5. Girish Karnadara Yayati 6. Slesalankara with a special reference to Bhattodbhata 7. Avasthaslesa in literature. i) Of the above works, regarding No. 1, the Board of Studies was of the opinion that it is a mere text book as admitted by the candidate in his synopsis. ii) Regarding work No. 2, the Board formed the opinion that it is a booklet of 71 pages written for the benefit of lay readers. iii) In regard to items, 3, 4 and 5 above, the topics therein are of a superficial nature, vis-a-vis what is normally expected of material submitted for D. Litt. iv) As regards items 6 and 7 above, they are papers submitted to the different sessions of the All India Oriental Conference but they are already included in the work No. 1, viz. , Pun in Sanskrit Literature. Resolution-II in view of the reasons stated above, the Board of Studies in Sanskrit resolved that the application of Sri Gurupad Krishnappa Hegde for registration for D. Litt. cannot be recommended for registration and hence that there is no need for suggesting a panel of examiners for the same. "according to the Resolution, the Board of Studies was of the opinion that Research Papers and other books submitted by the petitioner did not merit consideration on merits and therefore there was no necessity to suggest a panel of examiners for the same. Based on the above Resolution, the Controller of Examinations sent the communication dt. 29-6-1983 (Annexure-T ). The relevant portion of it reads :"with reference to the above, I am directed to state that the Board of Studies in Sanskrit,. University of Mysore, Mysore, has not recommended for registration of your application for D. Litt. The original decree certificate and the Bank challan for Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) are refund herewith and you may claim refund of the registration fee from the Finance Officer, University of Mysore, Mysore. University of Mysore, Mysore, has not recommended for registration of your application for D. Litt. The original decree certificate and the Bank challan for Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) are refund herewith and you may claim refund of the registration fee from the Finance Officer, University of Mysore, Mysore. The other books submitted by you may kindly be collected from this office in person. "questioning the legality of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) SRI Udya Holla, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention that the decision was contrary to the regulations of the University, submitted as follows : According to the regulations, when an eligible candidate made an application and the matter is placed before the Board of Studies, the only course open to the Board war to send a panel of examiners consisting of 10 names and it was for the Committee of Academic Council or the Board of Appointment of Examiners, as the case may be, to select 5 examiners out of them, and it was for the 5 examiners to consider as to whether the applicant should be granted to Degree sought for or not and it was only when atleast 4 of the 5 examiners opined that the application deserves to, be granted, the further steps as prescribed under the regulation should be taken. In the present case, the Board of Studies instead of sending the panel of names of examiners to the Board of Appointment of Examiners, itself went into the research papers and other books produced by the petitioner and took a final decision as indicated in the Resolution extracted earlier. The Controller of Examinations has communicated the said decision of the Board of Studies and therefore the decision of Board of Studies as well as the communication of the Controller of Examinations are liable to be set aside and a direction should be issued to the University to follow the procedure prescribed under the regulations. The Controller of Examinations has communicated the said decision of the Board of Studies and therefore the decision of Board of Studies as well as the communication of the Controller of Examinations are liable to be set aside and a direction should be issued to the University to follow the procedure prescribed under the regulations. He also submitted that out of 5 persons, who constituted the Board of Studies, one of them was a Professor in Urdu and another a Professor of Philosophy and the third person was only a M. A. in Sanskrit without any Doctorate Degree and the regulation did not invest these persons with the power to decide as to whether the research papers and books of the petitioner in Sanskrit merited the grant of D. Litt. Degree or not. ( 4 ) THE stand taken by the University in the statement of objections is that the initial scrutiny of the material submitted by an applicant on the basis of which he seeks a Doctorate Degree, has to be made by the Board of Studies and if only the Board of Studies was of the opinion that it requires further examination, it becomes necessary for the Board to send a panel of 10 examiners to the Board of Appointment of Examiners, which in turn should select 5 persons out of them, who would consider the merit of the research papers or books prepared and produced by the applicant. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out the substance of the revised regulations. According to the revised regulations, a person becomes eligible to apply for a D. Litt. Degree after the lapse of 15 years after passing the Bachelor's Degree, or 12 years after passing Bachelor (Hons) Degree or 10 years after passing the Master's Degree. According to Regn-3, a candidate who is so eligible can apply for consideration for any of the Doctorate Degrees in any of the subjects and irrespective of the faculty or subject in which he has passed the qualifying degree examination after having done adequate work in the new subject or area of discipline. According to Regn-4, the degree might be conferred either on the basis of published research papers or on basis of a thesis specifically prepared for the purpose in conjunction with published research papers. According to Regn-4, the degree might be conferred either on the basis of published research papers or on basis of a thesis specifically prepared for the purpose in conjunction with published research papers. If the material submitted by an applicant seeking grant of Doctorate Degree consists of books, Regn-4 requires that there should be a declaration to the effect that they embody findings on research conducted by the applicant. Regn. 5 prescribes as to what should be the contents of and enclosures to that application seeking D. Litt. Degree. The answer to the question arising for consideration in this case depends upon the construction of Regns -6 to 11. Therefore, it is. necessary to re-produce them. They read : ( 6 ) THE University will decide the subject area and the Board of Studies/faculty under which the application along with the works submitted, is to be considered for the award of the Doctorate Degree in consultation with the Committee of the Academic Council where necessary, especially in case of doubt or in the case of inter-disciplinary works/publications. ( 7 ) THE Committee of the Academic Council shall, where consulted decide the Board (s) of Studies from which a panel of examiners/referees for examination of the works submitted has to be obtained. The relevant Board of Studies or a composite Board as set up by the Committee of Academic Council or more than one Board acting separately will be required to send up a panel of at least 10 suitable examiners, of reputation (The system of preliminary examination followed hitherto may be discontinued ). ( 8 ) THE Committee of Academic Council or Board of Appointment of examiners in the Faculties concerned will select 5 examiners to whom the works submitted may be referred for examination and specific judgement on the academic merits of the works submitted and their suitability for the award of the Degree. (Tentative selection may be made by the Vice-Chancellor and circulated among the Board concerned for concurrence/suggestions ). The appointment of examiners shall be communicated individually to all the examiners concerned. ( 9 ) THE works will be considered further for the award of the degree sought only if at least 4 out of the 5 examiners to whom the works submitted (are) recommend such an award. The appointment of examiners shall be communicated individually to all the examiners concerned. ( 9 ) THE works will be considered further for the award of the degree sought only if at least 4 out of the 5 examiners to whom the works submitted (are) recommend such an award. The reports of the five examiners shall be collected separately by the Controller of Examinations and put together for referral to a Co-ordinator/chairman to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from among the examiners or the members of the Board of Studies concerned. ( 10 ) THE Co-ordinator/chairman shall consolidate all the reports and conduct a viva-voce, with the help of another examiner or two. The Viva-Voce examination will be meant (a) to verify, collecting where necessary adjudicate (sic) evidence, if all the works have been composed by the candidate himself (b) to allow the candidate an opportunity to defend his thesis, answering all critical points or questions raised by the different examiners. ( 11 ) THE Chairman/co-ordinator will, after such Viva-Voce examination, forward to the Controller of examinations a consolidated report, along with the report on the viva-voce and the individual examiners' reports. The reports shall be considered by the Syndicate or by the Vice-Chancellor as authorised by the Sy6, the University has to decide, in appropriately. This decision will be final and unquestionable. " ( 12 ) ACCORDING to Regn-6, the University has to decide, in the first instance, the following two aspects. 1) The subject area under which the application fails and 2) the Board of Studies/faculty under which the application has to be considered. In doing so, according to the language of the said regulation, it is open to the University to consult the Committee of Academic Council. According to Regn-7, whenever the Committee of the Academic Council is consulted, that Committee has to decide the Board of Studies from which a panel of examiners should be obtained. The second part of Regn-7 underlined by me is of crucial importance. When the Board of Studies, to which the application should go is clear in view of there being no requirement of any clarification or when the Committee of Academic Council decides which of the Boards of Studies should consider a particular application, the function of the Board of Studies starts. The underlined portion of Regn. 7 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Board. The underlined portion of Regn. 7 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Board. The Board of Studies before whom the application is placed, is required to send a panel of 10 suitable examiners of reputation to the Board of appointment of examiners or the Committee of the Academic Council, as the case may be. It is significant to note, the last sentence of Regn-7, provides, the system of preliminary examination followed hitherto may be discontinued. After the Board of Studies sends a panel of suitable 10 examiners of reputation, the Committee of the Academic Council or the Board of Appointment of examiners, as the case may be, has to select 5 examiners, to whom the work submitted by the applicant has to be referred for examination and it is the responsibility of those 5 examiners to adjudge the merit of the academic work submitted by the applicant and their suitability for the award of the Degree. ( 13 ) THE condition prescribed by Regn-9 is stringent. Unless at least 4 out of 5 examiners, to whom the materials submitted by an applicant was referred, recommend the award of the degree, the application has got to be rejected. In other words, even if 3 examiners out of 5 certify that a particular applicant deserves the grant of Doctorate Degree applied for, the application has got to be rejected. If all the 5 examiners or at least 4 of them certify that an application deserves to be granted, then according to the Regulation the further steps have to commence. The reports of 4 or 5 examiners, as the case may be, have to be collected separately by the Controller of Examinations and have to be placed before a Co-ordinator/chairman. The Co-ordinator or Chairman has to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from among the examiners or the Board of Studies concerned. After the Co-ordinator/chairman is nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with Regn-9 the Coordinator/chairman has to consolidate all the reports and has to conduct a Viva-Voce with the help of another examiner or two examiners. The Co-ordinator or Chairman has to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor from among the examiners or the Board of Studies concerned. After the Co-ordinator/chairman is nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in accordance with Regn-9 the Coordinator/chairman has to consolidate all the reports and has to conduct a Viva-Voce with the help of another examiner or two examiners. In the course of Viva-Voce examination, the genuineness of the works submitted by the applicant has to be examined, in that, as to whether they are the result of his own research or re-production of any already published material and an opportunity has to be given to the applicant to defend himself and to prove that the works produced by him are as a result of his own research work. After the Viva-Voce is so conducted, the Co-ordinator/chairman has to forward his consolidated report to the Controller of Examinations. Such report has to be placed before the Syndicate or before the Vice-Chancellor, if he is so authorised by the Syndicate and the Syndicate or the Vicechancellor, as the case may be, before whom the report is placed, has to declare the result and that decision is given finality under Regn-11. ( 14 ) HAVING regard to the clear language in which the procedure is prescribed, it appears to me, that the Board of Studies is not given the authority to reject the application of an otherwise eligible candidate. who has made an application in conformity with Regn-5. It may be, if a person who is not at all eligible to make the application makes the application, the Board of Studies might reject the application in limine. But, when an eligible applicant makes the application, nowhere the regulation confers any power on the Board of Studies to make a preliminary examination of the research papers or research work submitted by an applicant and to decide as to whether a panel of suitable examiners should be sent to the Committee of Academic Council or the Board of Appointment of examiners. On the other hand, the last sentence in Regn- ( 15 ) WHICH reads : "the system of preliminary examination followed hitherto may be discontinued", gives the clearest indication that the application submitted by an eligible candidate has to be considered in the manner prescribed in Regns. 8 to 11. On the other hand, the last sentence in Regn- ( 15 ) WHICH reads : "the system of preliminary examination followed hitherto may be discontinued", gives the clearest indication that the application submitted by an eligible candidate has to be considered in the manner prescribed in Regns. 8 to 11. ( 16 ) SRI Deva Das, learned Standing Counsel for the University, however, submitted that Regn-6 itself authorises the Board to take such a decision. I am unable to agree. The two questions which are required to be decided under Regulation-6, as pointed out earlier, are to which of the subject area the research papers submitted fall, and before which of the Boards of Studies the application should be placed. This step is considered necessary, obviously for the reason that in certain cases the subject matter of research works on the basis of which degree is sought for by an applicant might cover one or more cognate subjects also. In such cases, in the first instance a decision has to be taken regarding not only the subject area of the research papers, but also the Board of Studies before which it should be placed. In taking such a decision the University is required to consult the Committee of the Academic Council. Once the subject area of the research papers, as also the appropriate Board of Studies which should consider the application is decided, the only course open to the Board of Studies before whom the application is placed under Regn-7, is to send a panel of at least 10 suitable examiners to the Committee of the Academic Council if it had been consulted or to the Board of Appointment of Examiners of the faculty concerned, in other cases. Therefore, I am of the view that the Board of Studies had no power, under the Regulations, to reject the application of the petitioner and that the procedure prescribed under the regulations, as indicated earlier ought to have been followed. ( 17 ) THERE is also considerable force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Regulations could not be regarded as having vested the power with the Board of Studies to take a final decision regarding the application as all the members of a Board of Studies would not be experts in the subject capable of evaluating the research work. In this case, the learned Counsel pointed out that 2 of the members of the Board of Studies were not having any qualification in Sanskrit language, one of them being a Professor in Urdu and another being a Professor in Philosophy. Further, one of the members, though he was holding a Master's Degree in Sanskrit, did not hold a Doctorate Degree. He submitted, these persons cannot be expected to adjudge the research papers in Sanskrit submitted by a person possessing eligibility to make the application. As I am agreeing with the first contention it is unnecessary to examine the above contention. ( 18 ) LEARNED Counsel next submitted that there were serious allegations of mala fides, made by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent and no statement of objections has been filed by him though he had been served with the notice. I declined to go into the merits of the allegation, for the reason, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on the ground of the interpretation of the Regulations. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the specific allegations levelled against respondent-3 which have not been controverted by him, a direction should be issued to the effect that he should not participate, at any stage, to decide the panel of names of examiners or the fate of the application of the petitioner. In this behalf, all that I need serve is that both the University and respondent-3 can be expected to take note of the allegations and take an appropriate decision. " ( 19 ) IN the result, I make the following order. I) The Writ Petition is allowed. II) The Resolution of the Board of Studies on Subject No. 2 in its Meeting held on 28-4-1983 is set aside and consequently the decision communicated by the Controller of Examinations by his letter dt. 29-6-1983 (Annexure-T) is also set aside. III) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus shall issue to the respondent-University to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the Regulations as interpreted in the course of this order. IV) The University is directed to go through the process most expeditiously. V) Prepare a carbon copy of this order and furnish it to the learned Counsel for the University. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .