Judgment :- The petitioner started his career as Science Graduate in Electronics after passing B.Sc., of Honours in the year 1984 from Osmania University. Thereafter, he obtained B.Tech Degree in Computer Science Engineering from Hyderabad Central University in 1988. His specialisation was Bio-Medical Engineering. The petitioner states that he wanted to pursue his career in Bio-Medical Engineering, since his sister suffered from Epilepsy due to mental shock. He did his M.Tech in Computer Science Engineering from JNTU, New Delhi, and M.S in Computer Science from University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. Here again, the specialisation was Bio-Medical Engineering. He also did M.Phil in University of Leicester, England. He is said to have undertaken certain projects with the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), and worked as Reader in Osmania University for two years, between 1998 and 1999. Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences is a teaching hospital where research facility is also available. The petitioner got himself registered in the year 1998 for Ph.D with the respondent under the guidance and supervision of Dr.Roopam Borgohain, the then Head of Department. Dr. Mohan Das is said to have been designated as co-guide. The topic chosen by, and allotted him is ‘A study of Multi-channel Electromyography in Writer’s Cramp’. The petitioner submitted his thesis, and the same was cleared by the concerned authorities of the respondent. It was sent for evaluation to three experts, one from Canada, second from AIIMS, New Delhi, and the third one from NIMHANS, Bangalore. The reports from the experts came between 2004 and 2006. The experts suggested that the research work needs to be re-organised. The petitioner contends that due to ill-health of his father, he did not concentrate much on the subject for some time and ultimately, he submitted his revised thesis in the year 2009, by remitting a sum of Rs.82,000/-, to meet the travel and other expenses of the experts as required by the respondent. It is stated that the experts to whom the revised theses was circulated, expressed their satisfaction about the work and a meeting was scheduled on 08-05-2010 for viva-voce/public defence. It is also stated that the viva-voce was held with the participation of the experts, by name, 1) Dr.Madhuri Behari, Professor and Head, Department of Neurology, AIIMS, 2) Dr.Virendra Mustare, Professor and Head, Department of Neurology of NIMHANS, 3) Dr. Blin, an expert Neurologist from United States, 4) Dr. It is also stated that the viva-voce was held with the participation of the experts, by name, 1) Dr.Madhuri Behari, Professor and Head, Department of Neurology, AIIMS, 2) Dr.Virendra Mustare, Professor and Head, Department of Neurology of NIMHANS, 3) Dr. Blin, an expert Neurologist from United States, 4) Dr. Mohan Das, the then Chief of Neurology, KIMS, Hyderabad, 5) Dr. Veera Raghava Reddy, an expert Neurologist. According to the petitioner, the experts found his work to be satisfactory. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the viva-voce is successfully held, the respondent has not declared the results. He states that several representations have been made in this regard, but no response has emerged. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Executive Registrar of the respondent-Institution. He has narrated in detail, the developments that have taken place ever since the petitioner was registered for research programme. The fact that the internal as well as international experts required the petitioner to revise the theses in the year 2003 is mentioned. Certain allegations are made against the supervisor of the petitioner, by name, Dr.Roopam Borgohain, Professor of Neurology. According to the respondent, the supervisor proceeded with the public defense and viva voce on 15-09-2010, despite the orders of the Director, to the contrary. It is ultimately stated that since the proposed viva-voce to be held on 15-09-2010 was postponed, the performance thereat cannot lead to conferment of Ph.D. The counter-affidavit further states that an enquiry was ordered and Sri B. Rajanna, a Retired District Judge was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Copies of various documents, including the report of enquiry, conducted against the supervisor of the petitioner; are also filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. From the academic background of the petitioner, it is evident that he was very much interested in undertaking specialised studies on certain intricate subjects. After registration with the respondent and allotment of supervisor to him, the petitioner has undertaken research work and submitted his thesis in the year 2003. As required under the relevant provisions of law, the thesis was circulated to experts within and outside the country. The thesis was not rejected, but suggestions were made to restructure it. On account of domestic problems, the petitioner did not complete restructuring the thesis within the stipulated time. As required under the relevant provisions of law, the thesis was circulated to experts within and outside the country. The thesis was not rejected, but suggestions were made to restructure it. On account of domestic problems, the petitioner did not complete restructuring the thesis within the stipulated time. It was only in the year 2009, that the revised thesis was submitted. The same was found to be in order and with the approval of the Dean of the Faculty, the public defense and viva voce was arranged on 15-09-2010. The petitioner was also required to deposit Rs.82,000/-to meet the expenditure, that would be incurred for travelling of the experts. It appears that the relationship between the supervisor of the petitioner and the then Director was not that cordial. The trouble started when an indent for a sum of about Rs.40,000/-was submitted by the Supervisor to the Director. Hardly few hours before the viva voce was to take place, the Director has made attempts to stop it. However, since the experts came from long distances, and all of them attended it by foregoing their important other pre-occupations, they have proceeded to conduct the viva voce. The Director has gone to the extent of suspecting the attendance in the viva voce, and got verified the attendance registers. The matter did not stop at that. An enquiry by a retired District Judge was ordered to examine the acts and omissions alleged against the supervisor of the petitioner. Sri Rajanna, a former District Judge, who was appointed as an Enquiry Officer has resigned. In his place, another retired District Judge, by name, Syed Abdullah was appointed. He submitted a report as recently as on 24-05-2012. A perusal of the same discloses that the stand taken by the then Director against the petitioner and his supervisor lacked any basis. Two charges that were enquired into. They are, 1) Whether Mr. P. Rama Raju, student in Ph.D. programme has fulfilled the conditions of Ph.D. guidelines and modifications from time to time for his eligibility of open viva voce. 2) Permission to conduct open viva voce of Mr.P. Rama Raju and the incidence occurred on 14th & 15th September, 2010. Two charges that were enquired into. They are, 1) Whether Mr. P. Rama Raju, student in Ph.D. programme has fulfilled the conditions of Ph.D. guidelines and modifications from time to time for his eligibility of open viva voce. 2) Permission to conduct open viva voce of Mr.P. Rama Raju and the incidence occurred on 14th & 15th September, 2010. On the first charge, the enquiry officer held that the unilateral action of the Director to cancel the viva vice at the last minute, that too, without consulting the Dean, or the Ph.D Committee, was unjustified and that there was nothing on record to suggest that the attendance sheets, log books, work sheets, etc., were tampered by the Professor. The second charge is in a way, nothing but another facet of the first charge. The enquiry officer found that there is nothing on record to suggest that the supervisor has resorted to any irregularity or illegality. He concluded his report with the following observations: “On an over all consideration of the evidence on record and preponderance of circumstances, it is viewed that it is improbable to hold that that charged officer by his act or omission had committed any irregularity/misconduct as alleged. So he is entitled to be exonerated of the charges levelled against him”. It is not uncommon that in the institutes of higher learning personality clashes among the higher authorities adversely effect the students and research scholars. Many a time, likes and dislikes or ego problems overshadow the impartial or dispassionate assessment of merit. The case of the petitioner appears to be one such. The then Director wanted to exhibit his superiority and did not even ponder that the dignity of the institution was at stake. The professors of high reputation, who attended the institute, on a specific, invitation were given very rough and undesirable treatment. The Director did not realise that the impression that may be carried by those professors about the institution would be very poor, and that he did, lot of disservice to it. The entire episode is not at all in good taste. Even now the Director can take into account, the proceedings in the viva voce, that took place on 15-09-2010, and the report of the enquiry officer, and pass appropriate orders. The entire episode is not at all in good taste. Even now the Director can take into account, the proceedings in the viva voce, that took place on 15-09-2010, and the report of the enquiry officer, and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the evaluation made at viva voce held on 15-09-2010, as well as the report of the enquiry officer dated 24-05-2012 shall be taken into account and appropriate orders be passed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.