Bombay High Court
Harshal S/O Avinash Fegade And ... vs Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj ... on 17 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp197.16.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.197/2016
PETITIONERS: 1. Harshal s/o Avinash Fegade
aged about 28 years, Occupation : Student,
(Research Scholar) r/o K-7 (B),
W.H.C. Road, Laxminagar, Nagpur.
2. Ms. Meenal Prabhakar Ullewar,
aged about 34 years, Occupation :
ig Student (Research Scholar), r/o Sant Tajeshwar
Nagar, Hudkeshwar Naka Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University,
Nagpur, through its Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners
Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 17.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel
for the parties.
By this petition, the petitioners challenge the decision of the
respondent - University of cancelling the extension to the tenure of
registration for Ph.D., by the impugned order dated 23.10.2015. The
petitioners seek a direction to the respondent - University to restore the
wp197.16.odt
extension of Ph.D. registration by a period of one year.
Few facts giving rise to the petition are stated thus :-
Both the petitioners were desirous of completing their Ph.D.
and therefore they got themselves registered for Ph.D. on 15.7.2010 as
per the provisions of Direction No.10/2011. As per Clause 14 of Direction
No.10, the registration of a candidate is valid only for a period of five
years and the same stands cancelled automatically on expiry of five years.
The proviso to Clause 14 however stipulates that an extension of the
tenure of registration by a period of 12 months could be granted if an
application is made by the concerned candidate before three months from
the date of the expiry of the registration and the case of the candidate is
recommended by the Guide and Head of the Place of research.
Admittedly, the tenure of five years of registration in respect of the
petitioners was to expire on 14.7.2015. The petitioners had not made the
applications for extension of the registration period by 12 months before
three months from the date of the expiry i.e. 14.7.2015 but had made it
on 23.4.2015, thereby delaying the applications by about a week. The
applications made by the petitioners were submitted with the
recommendation of the Guide and Head of the Place of research and the
Research and the Recognition Committee of the University considered the
applications of the petitioners and by the order dated 23.9.2015 granted
wp197.16.odt
extension to the tenure of registration by a period of 12 months. It is the
case of the petitioners that without any notice to the petitioners, the
orders extending the tenure of registration, dated 23.9.2015 were
cancelled by the respondent - University, by the order dated 23.10.2015.
The order, dated 23.10.2015 is impugned in the instant petition.
Shri Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that though the petitioners had admittedly caused a delay of
about a week in making the applications for extension of the tenure of
registration, by the order dated 23.9.2015, the tenure was extended by a
period of 12 months. It is stated that in the circumstances of the case, this
Court may take a sympathetic view of the matter and quash and set aside
the impugned order, specially when the petitioners had not misled the
authorities by making any statement in the applications that the
applications were made within time. It is stated that though the
applications were made a little belatedly, the respondent - University had
decided the applications on their merit and the tenure of registration in
respect of the petitioners was extended. It is submitted that after securing
the order of extension of tenure of registration, dated 23.9.2015, the
petitioners expected that they would complete their Ph.D. within the
extended period and proceeded to complete the thesis. It is stated that by
taking a lenient view, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court
wp197.16.odt
may quash and set aside the impugned order thereby restoring the order
dated 23.9.2015 granting extension of the tenure of registration.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the respondent -
University supported the order dated 23.10.2015 and submitted that the
impugned order cannot be quashed as the order dated 23.9.2015,
extending the tenure of registration was passed by the concerned
authorities under a mistake. It is stated that inadvertently and mistakenly
the order dated 23.9.2015 was passed. It is stated that when the
University realized that the applications were not made by the petitioners
before three months from the date of expiry of the registration, the
University has rightly cancelled the order extending the tenure of
registration by the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioners
cannot take advantage of the inadvertent mistake committed by the
University and this Court may dismiss the petition in the circumstances of
the case.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the relief sought by the petitioners needs to be granted in the
peculiar circumstances of the case. No doubt there was a short delay on
the part of the petitioners in making the applications for extension of the
tenure of registration. The University however did not notice the delay
and as the petitioners were otherwise eligible for extension of tenure of
wp197.16.odt
registration on merits, the tenure of registration was extended. If the
University may not have extended the tenure of registration on the
ground that the applications were delayed, we may not have taken the
view that we are taking in this writ petition, but since the University had
extended the tenure of registration by the order dated 23.9.2015, in our
view, the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside. As rightly
submitted on behalf of the petitioners, we are inclined to take a lenient
view of the matter in the peculiar circumstances of this case, specially
when the petitioners have worked on their Ph.D. thesis after 23.9.2015.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 23.10.2015 is quashed and set aside.
Though we were inclined to grant a period of 12 months from this date,
the learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly states that the thesis of the
petitioners is almost ready and the petitioners would submit the same to
the respondent - University on or before 23.09.2016. The University is,
therefore, directed to accept the thesis, if it is otherwise in order and
submitted on or before the said date.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
