Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2107 (RAJ)

Hemant Kumar v. University Of Rajasthan

2022-07-25

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a student of Ph.D. challenging the orders dated 30.01.2016 and 02.01.2017 cancelling registration of the petitioner for doing Ph.D. Course from the respondent-University of Rajasthan (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the respondent-University"). The petitioner has also prayed in the writ petition that a direction may be issued to revive his Ph.D. registration and further permit the change of Guide for completing Ph.D. Degree. 2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner in his writ petition, are that the petitioner after acquiring the qualification of M.Phil. and Post Graduation in Philosophy & Political Science, qualified UGC-NET Examination for eligibility for Lectureship in Political Science. The petitioner appeared in the pre-Ph.D. Entrance Examination for undergoing Ph.D. Course in the year 2012 and cleared the said Examination. 3. The petitioner received his registration letter whereby he was informed by the respondent-University that he was to do his Ph.D. Degree under the supervision of Dr.Naresh Dadhich, Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the respondent No.4"). The petitioner has pleaded that he was pursing his research work but his Supervisor, the respondent No.4, showed his inability to continue as Supervisor of the petitioner due to his busy schedule and as such, the petitioner submitted an application on 29.06.2015 to change his Supervisor and Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal had given his consent to be the Supervisor of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that application of the petitioner dated 29.06.2015 was sent to the Deputy Registrar (Research) whereby the petitioner had made a request that permission may be granted to change the Guide and research work may be permitted to be undertaken under the supervision of Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan on 01.07.2015 had given his consent to permit the petitioner to undergo Ph.D. research work under him and the said consent letter was countersigned by the Head, Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan - the Supervisor of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4. 6. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that a letter dated 26.11.2015 was received by him whereby he was asked to submit his explanation within 30 days as why his registration may not be cancelled, as per the report submitted by the Supervisor of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that by the impugned letter/order dated 30.01.2016, the petitioner was informed that his registration of Ph.D. was cancelled, as was recommended by his Supervisor. 8. The petitioner submitted his representation on 09.02.2016, 02.05.2016 & 09.08.2016 and thereafter, the petitioner was communicated vide impugned order dated 02.01.2017 that his request for revival of Ph.D. registration, was not accepted by the respondent-University. 9. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders dated 30.01.2016 and 02.01.2017, has submitted that these orders have been passed in arbitrary manner and the petitioner was not at fault, as the earlier Guide was busy with his official work and he refused to continue as Guide of the petitioner and the petitioner had also sent the consent of the new Guide. 10. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent- University has passed a non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned as what was the basis for passing the impugned orders and as such, the University authorities have misused their powers to harass the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that revival of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner was not undertaken by keeping in mind the irrelevant factors and the University authorities have deprived the petitioner to pursue his career without any justification. 12. The respondent-University (respondent Nos.1 & 2) has filed reply to the writ petition and pleaded that it was communicated by the petitioner's Guide vide letter dated 21.11.2015 that work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not interested in pursuing Ph.D. and accordingly, the Supervisor & Head of the petitioner made recommendation for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of four candidates including the petitioner. 13. The respondent-University has pleaded that in pursuance of the letter, received from the Guide, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking for his explanation, before cancellation of Ph.D. registration. 13. The respondent-University has pleaded that in pursuance of the letter, received from the Guide, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking for his explanation, before cancellation of Ph.D. registration. However, the petitioner being served with the notice, did not appear either before the University authorities or his Guide and, as such, the matter, for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner, was placed before the Vice Chancellor of the respondent-University and thereafter, the petitioner was informed about cancellation of his Ph.D. registration. 14. The respondent-University has further pleaded that the application, said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 29.06.2015 and letter dated 01.07.2015, requesting for change of his Supervisor, were never received by them and the petitioner has submitted the said communications with his letter dated 09.02.2016, as an afterthought, in order to develop his case for re-registration of Ph.D. 15. The respondent-University has also pleaded that representation of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the Dean's Committee held on 04.03.2016 and it was found that since cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner was done, after following the proper procedure and the same had been approved by the Vice Chancellor, the request of petitioner could not be considered for revival of Ph.D. registration. 16. The respondent-University has further pleaded that after receipt of representation from the petitioner, the matter was re- considered by the Dean's Committee held on 18.11.2016 & 05.12.2016 whereby the request of the petitioner for revival of Ph.D. registration was considered and the same was not accepted. 17. The respondent-University has prayed that since due procedure was followed by them before cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner, as such, the writ petition filed by him may be dismissed by this Court. 18. The petitioner, during pendency of the writ petition, has filed an additional affidavit and the respondent No.4 Dr.Naresh Dadhich filed a counter to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and also filed an additional affidavit denying the allegations leveled against him. 19. The respondent No.4 has pleaded that academic conduct of the petitioner was not up to the mark and the same was pathetic and rife with plagiarism. The respondent No.4 has also pleaded that the letter dated 01.07.2015 was countersigned by him in good faith, upon request of the petitioner but the said letter was not submitted by the petitioner to the University authorities. 20. The respondent No.4 has also pleaded that the letter dated 01.07.2015 was countersigned by him in good faith, upon request of the petitioner but the said letter was not submitted by the petitioner to the University authorities. 20. The respondent No.4 has reiterated that due to poor academic performance of the petitioner and despite repeated reminders, the notice dated 26.11.2015 was issued to him, as the petitioner was not interested in pursuing Ph.D. 21. The respondent No.4 has pleaded that communication dated 02.05.2016 was only issued to save the petitioner's academic future and as such, considering the entire facts and unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner, the respondent-University had to take a decision for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner. 22. Counsel for the petitioner, while concluding his arguments, submitted that guidelines were issued by the respondent- University after a meeting of Syndicate held on 01.07.2019 and new amendments have been made in the University Ordinance to govern grant of M.Phil & Ph.D. Degrees. Counsel, on the strength of the said guidelines, submitted that if the work of a Research Scholar is unsatisfactory, the Research Advisory Committee shall record the reasons for the same and suggest corrective measures and if the Research Scholar fails to implement these corrective measures, the Research Advisory Committee may recommend to the Department Research Committee with specific reasons for cancellation of registration of the Research Scholar. 23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 24. The primary question for consideration before this Court is with regard to validity of orders passed by the respondent- University whereby Ph.D. registration of the petitioner has been cancelled. 25. This Court finds that registration of the petitioner for Ph.D. Course was done under the guidance and supervision of the respondent No.4 Dr.Naresh Dadhich and the Guide of the petitioner had written a letter to the Vice Chancellor on 23.11.2015, whereby research work of four persons including the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and all of them were found not interested in pursuing Ph.D. 26. This Court finds that after receiving letter from the Guide of the petitioner, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice, did not file any reply. 27. This Court finds that after receiving letter from the Guide of the petitioner, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice, did not file any reply. 27. This Court further finds that if the petitioner had any grievance against proposed cancellation of his Ph.D. registration, the proper course was to submit his response by narrating the complete facts as why the decision of the respondent-University was erroneous for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner. 28. This Court further finds that the case of the petitioner, after cancellation of his Ph.D. registration was examined by the University-Authorities on two occasions and the request of the petitioner and three other similarly situated candidates for revival of registration for Ph.D. degree, was rejected. 29. This Court finds that if the Guide of the petitioner had found that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not interested in pursuing his Ph.D., no inference can be drawn by this Court that Guide of the petitioner has acted in any mala-fide or discriminatory manner to deprive the petitioner from continuing with his Ph.D. Course. 30. This Court further finds that it was not the case of the petitioner alone but there were three other similarly situated candidates under the same Guide-Dr.Naresh Dadhich, who were not pursuing the Course in proper manner and as such recommendation of the Guide was kept in mind by the University- Authorities before cancellation of the Ph.D. registration and that too after serving a show cause notice to the person concerned before taking a final view in the matter. 31. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that a request was made by the petitioner to change his Guide and consent was also communicated by new Guide to permit the petitioner to have research work and as such reference of letters dated 29.06.2015 and 01.07.2015 are concerned, this Court finds that these letters have not been admitted by the respondent- University, as they never received these letters. 32. 32. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the University-Authorities have acted arbitrarily in cancelling the Ph.D. registration of the petitioner, this Court finds that if the petitioner was not pursuing his course in proper manner and even his Guide- respondent No.4 has given his report about poor performance of the petitioner and the same being reflected in the additional affidavit filed before this Court wherein remarks has also been given about poor performance of the petitioner, this Court cannot assume that the respondent No.4 in any manner acted in vindictive manner to deprive the petitioner to continue his Course. 33. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.2111 of 2013 [Jitender Kumar v. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.] dated 11.11.2013. This Court, on careful reading of the said judgment, finds that the Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation order of Ph.D. in that case on account of the petitioner not given proper show cause notice and opportunity of hearing with respect to the alleged poor performance and failure to submit six monthly progress report. The Delhi High Court found that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner in that case proposing cancellation of Ph.D. was on the ground that no faculty member was wiling to be appointed his Supervisor but the show cause notice was given for a different reason and as such the Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The said case has no application in the present matter, as in the present case, proper show cause notice was given to the petitioner and even he failed to file any reply to the said show cause notice. 34. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.