Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1152 (KAR)

Sajjan Malleshi v. Registrar

2013-09-25

K.BHAKTHAVATSALA

body2013
ORDER K. Bhakthavatsala, J. 1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 1 - Gulbarga University to consider the petitioners' representation dated 02.08.2012, at Annexures-'U' and V. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petitions may be stated as under: The petitioners claim that they were provisionally admitted to Ph.D. course on 17.09.2009 and 24.05.2010 respectively, by respondent No. 1/University. Thereafter, they started their research studies under their guide/respondent No. 4. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 has submitted five progress reports during the period 17.09.2009 to 15.03.2012 to the University through respondent No. 4 and the sixth and last progress report of petitioner No. 1 was to be submitted on or before 17.09.2012 after the same is certified by his guide/respondent No. 4. 3. It is the case of petitioner No. 2 that he has submitted three progress reports during the period 23.05.2010 to 23.11.2011 to the University through his guide/respondent No. 4 and his fourth report is in progress. 4. In para-7 of the writ petition, it is pleaded that the respondent No. 2-Law University had written a letter dated 29.6.2010 at Annexure-N, to respondent No. 1-Gulbarga University to take action to withdraw respondent No. 4 from the Guideship. It is the case of the petitioners that since the petitioners were registered in Gulbarga University before the academic year 2009-2010 may be permitted to continue their research. In para-10 of the writ petition it is stated that the former Vice Chancellor of respondent No. 2 - Law University has given threat to their guide/respondent No. 4 to pursue his case with the Gulbarga University for his withdrawal from Guideship. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking direction to the respondent No. 1 - Gulbarga University to consider their representation at Annexures-'U' and 'V'. 5. Respondent No. 1 - Gulbarga University is in favour of the petitioners-students for continuance Guideship of respondent No. 4. As the enquiry committee of respondent No. 2 - Law University directed the respondent No. 4 to move the respondent No. 1 - University for withdrawal from Guideship, he has sought for withdrawal from the Guideship. 5. Respondent No. 1 - Gulbarga University is in favour of the petitioners-students for continuance Guideship of respondent No. 4. As the enquiry committee of respondent No. 2 - Law University directed the respondent No. 4 to move the respondent No. 1 - University for withdrawal from Guideship, he has sought for withdrawal from the Guideship. If the rules and regulations of the respondent No. 2 - Law University does not permit a person to be a guide for Ph.D. course, if he is not teaching for PG Course, such rule cannot be imposed on the respondent No. 4 who is guiding the students admitted to Gulbarga University for Ph.D programme during the year 2009/2010, respectively, as per his appointment by respondent No. 1 - University prior to the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Principal of a private Law College, which is affiliated to respondent No. 2 - Law University. 6. The Registrar of Law University, by his letter dated 29.06.2010 has addressed a letter to the Registrar of Gulbarga University (Annexure-N), stating that since the Karnataka State Law University has come into existence from 2009-10, all the Law Colleges of Karnataka State come under the jurisdiction of Karnataka State Law University, Hubli, and therefore directed the Gulbarga University to withdraw or discontinue the permission given to respondent No. 4 from the Ph.D. Guide ship. 7. The reason behind the letter addressed by Law University to Gulbarga University at Annexure-N is on the ground that according to the regulations of Law University, if a person to be a Guide for Ph.D course, he should be teaching for P.G. course. In the instant case, before the respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Principal of DPHPS Law College at Koppal, as per the Rules and Regulations of Gulbarga University, respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Guide for the petitioners for the Ph.D course. They were provisionally admitted to the said course on 17.9.2009 and 24.5.2010 respectively. Rules and Regulations of the Law University cannot be applied to the students, who are admitted to Gulbarga University, which is an autonomous body and there is no rationale in directing respondent No. 4 to withdraw from his Guide ship and also directing the Gulbarga University to withdraw or discontinue the permission of Ph.D Guideship. Rules and Regulations of the Law University cannot be applied to the students, who are admitted to Gulbarga University, which is an autonomous body and there is no rationale in directing respondent No. 4 to withdraw from his Guide ship and also directing the Gulbarga University to withdraw or discontinue the permission of Ph.D Guideship. Though the petitioners have not sought for quashing the letter dated 29.6.2010 of the Law University (the respondent No. 2) addressed to Gulbarga University (Respondent No. 1), at Annexure-N, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case to quash the same as the same is whimsical, baseless and arbitrary. 8. In the result, I pass the following order: The impugned communication dated 29.6.2010 of respondent No. 2-Law University addressed to respondent No. 1-University, at Annexure-N, is quashed. Respondent No. 1-University is directed to continue the Guide ship of respondent No. 4 for the petitioners for the course of Ph.D. Accordingly, Petitions are disposed off.