Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 403 (JHR)

Vinoba Bhave University v. Ram Yatan Prasad

2001-06-27

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
ORDER Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Heard. Opposite Party No. 1 is an University Professor of Chemistry in Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, Opposite party No. 3 is a Lecturer in the Chemistry department of St. Xaviers College, Ranchi. He got himself registered for his Ph.D. Degree, under the supervision of opposite party No. 2, who was the then Head of Post Graduate University Department in Chemistry. Earlier opposite party No. 3 had occasion to work with opposite party No. 1 and had also got papers published in 1992 from Indian Academy of Sciences, Allahabad. Opposite party No. 1 learnt that opposite party No. 3 has fraudulently incorporated in Chapters IV and V of his thesis, the screening content of d & f block elements and evaluation of Election Affinity of elements, which was done by him with opposite party No. 1, but not with opposite party No. 2 and by letter dated 13.9.1999 informed Registrar of the University. Petitioner No. 3, and requested not to allow to submit thesis, unless the same was removed first. 2. Ignoring the said protest. Vice Chancellor-cum-Chairman, Research Council of University, permitted Board was constituted with dean of Science as its Head, which found the allegations to be correct and suggested not to accept the thesis without modification in those Chapters. The thesis was sent to Dr. J.N. Chatterjee, an Emeritus Professor, Patna University, for examination/verification thereof Dr. Chatterjee affirmed report of Enquiry Board and observed that aforesaid two chapters were backbone of the thesis, wherein those matters were wrongly included. It was unjust, unscientific, unethical and a day-light robbery. In the aforesaid circumstances, Dr. Chatterjee suggested to include opposite party No. 1 also as co-guide in the thesis. His suggestion was accepted by the Examination Board. Name of opposite party No. 1 was included as co-guide to which opposite party No. 2 and 3 had no objection, opposite party No. 1 was also appointed as one of the examiners for evaluation of the thesis, who submitted his report to the Controller of Examination on 3.1.2001. 3. His suggestion was accepted by the Examination Board. Name of opposite party No. 1 was included as co-guide to which opposite party No. 2 and 3 had no objection, opposite party No. 1 was also appointed as one of the examiners for evaluation of the thesis, who submitted his report to the Controller of Examination on 3.1.2001. 3. However, in the meantime, Research Council resolved not to include the name of opposite party No. 1 as co-guide, which affected his right and so he filed Title Suit No. 15 of 2001 in the Court of Munsif for declaration that he was co-guide/ co- supervisor of the thesis, submitted by opposite party No. 2 and that decision taken by the Research Council on 13.12.2000 was illegal and void. Relief for granting permanent injunction restraining the University from executing and enforcing the said decision of the Research Council was also sought for. 4. On 17.2.2001. defendants- petitioners filed a petition under Sections 9, 21 and Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 80-A of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short) to reject the plaint, as the suit was barred under Section 80-A of the said Act. 5. By impugned order dated 8.3.2001. trial court rejected the said petition, Section 80-A of the said Act is reproduced herein-below :-- "80-A. Bar of law suits.--No law suits and proceedings shall lie in civil Courts . with respect to implementation of the provisions of this Act. Statutes. Ordinances or Regulations." From plain reading of Section 80-A of the Act it is clear that in respect of implementation of the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances or Regulations, no suits or proceedings shall He in civil Courts. 6. It is well settled that when legal right is infringed, suit would lie unless there was no bar against entertainment of such civil suits and the civil courts would take cognizance of it. Rule of law is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, except those of which cognizance is wither especially or by necessary implication excluded. Exclusion is. therefore, normally an exception. Rule of law is that civil Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, except those of which cognizance is wither especially or by necessary implication excluded. Exclusion is. therefore, normally an exception. Courts generally construe the provisions strictly, when jurisdiction of Civil Courts is claimed to be excluded to find out whether there was an express bar of jurisdiction of the courts, an examination of the scheme of particular Act to find the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant, but is not decisive to sustain the Jurisdiction of civil court. Therefore, each case requires examination whether the Statute provides right and remedy and whether the scheme of the Act is that procedure would be conclusive and thereby excludes Jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect thereof. 7. In the present case, opposite party No. 1 was aggrieved by Resolution of the Research Council dated 13.12.2000 whereby earlier decision taken by the Examination Board to appoint him as Co-guide/Co-supervisor for the thesis in question, on the suggestion of the expert, namely. Dr. Chatter-jee. was ignored, and he was removed from co-guide. 8. It is true that bar created by the relevant provisions of the Statute excluding jurisdiction of civil Courts may not operate in cases where plea raised before the civil Courts goes to the root of the matter, and would, if upheld, lead to the conclusion that impugned order was a nullity. In the present case under the provisions of the Act. the decision/resolution of the Research Council was not final and was subject to scrutiny and finality of the superior authorities, at the instance of the aggrieved party. 9. In my opinion, now for such internal administrative matters of the University, its authorities were fully empowered to hear the grievances and finally decide the matter in controversy. 10. On reading of the plaint and provisions of the Act and on understanding the controversy, I am of the view that the grievance of opposite party No. 1. who is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 15 of 2001 can very well be redressed internally under Section 9 of the Act by the Chancellor. 11. I. therefore, hold that the present suit is barred under Section 80-A of the Act. who is plaintiff in Title Suit No. 15 of 2001 can very well be redressed internally under Section 9 of the Act by the Chancellor. 11. I. therefore, hold that the present suit is barred under Section 80-A of the Act. Consequently, the plaint of the suit stands rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code and even now opposite party No. 1 is at liberty to approach the Chancellor under the Act for redressal of his grievance, which may be considered and disposed of after hearing him on its own merit and in accordance with law. 12. This civil revision application is. accordingly, disposed of. 13. Revision disposed of accordingly.