Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1692 (KER)

A. A. Gopi v. Mahatma Gandhi University

2024-12-20

N.NAGARESH

body2024
JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner, a Research Scholar, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 and to direct the respondents to restore the registration of the petitioner cancelled as per Ext.P1. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor of Department of Philosophy of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady. The petitioner states that he is a Research Scholar. He obtained registration (2020 Admission) for Ph.D Degree at the School of Gandhian Thought and Development Studies in Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. 3. The petitioner states that he was doing research studies diligently and seriously. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 order dated 31.10.2022 cancelling the Ph.D registration of the petitioner alleging lack of regular attendance in research activities. 4. The petitioner states that Ext.P1 order was issued without any show-cause notice regarding the alleged unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P2 representation with the 2nd respondent-Vice Chancellor. The petitioner had undergone treatment for post traumatic pain (neck and upper back) and was advised to avoid strenuous work and long distance travelling. 5. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 memo informing that there are no prevailing rules enabling to revive the cancelled research registration. The petitioner submits that Ext.P1 order is issued in violation of Ext.P5 Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016. To cancel the registration, a Doctoral Committee / Research Advisory Committee shall record reasons and suggest corrective measures. The petitioner was never intimated of the lack of attendance / unsatisfactory performance by the Doctoral Committee / Research Advisory Committee. 6. The petitioner had genuine medical problems during the period. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.11255/2023 in which, in similar circumstances, the High Court had held that cancellation of Ph.D registration of the petitioner therein was not done in the manner envisaged by Clause 10(b) of Ordinance IX of the Ordinances of the JMI. 7. The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that UGC Regulations and its amendments from time to time are framed by the UGC after detailed deliberations. The Regulations cannot be overlooked at any stage. All Universities / Institutions / Colleges have to strictly comply with the Regulations. 8. 7. The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that UGC Regulations and its amendments from time to time are framed by the UGC after detailed deliberations. The Regulations cannot be overlooked at any stage. All Universities / Institutions / Colleges have to strictly comply with the Regulations. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that as per Clause 32.2 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016, the Vice Chancellor can cancel registration of any research student for unsatisfactory progress in research or conduct of the scholar, on recommendations of the research supervising teacher. Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the research centre has not sent any intimation regarding the absence of the Research Scholar. In the first spell of the Ph.D Course work (i.e., from 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022), the petitioner attended the class from 11.05.2022 to 06.06.2022. The petitioner did not attend Ph.D Course work classes in the second semester from 01.01.2023 to 30.06.2023. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 10. The registration of the petitioner to do the research work stands cancelled as per Ext.P1. Ext.P1 would indicate that the petitioner was granted registration for research under the supervision of Dr. Abhilash G. Nath at School of Gandhian Thought and Development Studies. On 12.08.2022, the research guide requested to cancel the Ph.D registration of the petitioner and two others, for the reason that they lacked regular attendance in research activities. Ext.P1 order would indicate that the cancellation of registration was effected as per Regulation 32.2 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016. 11. The petitioner relies on Regulation 24.3 of the Regulations, 2016 which reads as follows: 24.3 In case the progress of the research scholar is unsatisfactory, the Doctoral Committee/Research Advisory Committee of the concerned University Department/Approved Research Centre shall record the reasons for the same and suggest corrective measures. If the research scholar fails to implement these corrective measures the Doctoral Committee/ Research Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Vice-Chancellor with specific reasons for cancellation of registration of the research scholar. The petitioner would submit that the Doctoral Committee / Research Advisory Committee has not made any enquiry or recorded reason to come to a conclusion that the progress of the research of the petitioner is unsatisfactory. Therefore, Ext.P4 is unsustainable. 12. The petitioner would submit that the Doctoral Committee / Research Advisory Committee has not made any enquiry or recorded reason to come to a conclusion that the progress of the research of the petitioner is unsatisfactory. Therefore, Ext.P4 is unsustainable. 12. In fact, Ext.P4 has been issued invoking Regulation 32.2 which provides that the Vice Chancellor shall cancel the registration of any research student for unsatisfactory progress in research or conduct of the Scholar, on recommendation of the Research Supervising Teacher. 13. The Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations, 2016 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26(1) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Minimum Standards and Procedure for the Award of M.Phil / Ph.D Degrees) Regulations, 2016. 14. Both Regulation 24.3 and Regulation 32.2 provide for cancellation of registration of Research Scholars. These provisions are intended to apply in different circumstances. Regulation 24.3 enables cancellation of registration when the progress of a Research Scholar is unsatisfactory. To assess whether the progress of research is unsatisfactory, Doctoral Committee / Research Advisory Committee are formed. These Committees are required to record the reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the progress of Research Scholar is unsatisfactory. The Committees are obligated to suggest corrective measures and only if the Research Scholar fails to implement the corrective measures, the Doctoral Committee / Research Advisory Committee can recommend to the Vice Chancellor cancellation of registration of a Research Scholar. 15. On the other hand, Regulation 32.2 gives a superior authority to the Research Supervising Teacher to make recommendation to the Vice Chancellor for cancellation of registration of any research student under him. A Research Supervising Teacher can make recommendation to cancel registration of a Research Scholar if the research progress is unsatisfactory or if the conduct of the Scholar is not as desired. 16. As research students are to work constantly under the supervision of Research Supervising Teachers, a separate mechanism of Doctoral Committee and of recording of reasons are dispensed with under Regulation 32.2. For the very same reason, the requirement of suggesting corrective measures to the research students is also not made a condition for cancellation of registration under Regulation 32.2. 17. As research students are to work constantly under the supervision of Research Supervising Teachers, a separate mechanism of Doctoral Committee and of recording of reasons are dispensed with under Regulation 32.2. For the very same reason, the requirement of suggesting corrective measures to the research students is also not made a condition for cancellation of registration under Regulation 32.2. 17. The Research Supervising Teacher of the petitioner has made a recommendation to the Vice Chancellor to cancel the registration of the petitioner for unsatisfactory progress in research and conduct of the petitioner. It is clear from the statement filed by respondents 1 and 2 that in the first spell of Ph.D Course work from 01.01.2022 to 30.06.2022, the petitioner attended the class from 11.05.2022 to 06.06.2022 only. In the afore circumstances, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P1 decision to cancel the Ph.D registration granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is hence dismissed.