Bombay High Court
Narayanam Narsimha Murthy S/O ... vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 19 April, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
WP5445.16.odt 1/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5445 OF 2016
PETITIONER: Narayanam Narsimha Murthy S/o
Narayanam Srinivasa Charyulu, Aged
about 52 years, R/o 5-B, Corporation
Colony, Opp. Bhagwati Hospital, Near
L.A.D. College, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University Maharaj Bag Road, Nagpur,
through its Registrar;
2 The Deputy Registrar, Ph.D. Cell,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University LIT Campus, Amaravati
Road, Nagpur.
3 The Controller of Examination,
'Pariksha Bhavan' Rashtrasant Tukdoji
Maharaj Nagpur University LIT
Campus, Amaravati Road, Nagpur.
4 The Research & Recognition
Committee Rashtrasant Tukdoji
Maharaj Nagpur University, LIT
Campus, Amaravati Road, Nagpur
through its Chairman.
5 The Board of Examinations,
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2017 23:41:41 :::
WP5445.16.odt 2/13
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, through its Member
Secretary, having its office at LIT
Campus, Amaravati Road, Nagpur.
6 The Hon'ble Vice Chancellor,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur
University, having its office at
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj
Administrative Premises Ravindranath
Tagore Marg Nagpur-440001.
Shri H. V. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri N. S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND A.S.CHANDURKAR,JJ.
DATED: 19TH APRIL, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner principally
seeks a declaration that he would be entitled to claim
the date of his Ph.D. registration as 2-8-2012 on which
date his Ph.D. registration application was accepted by
the Research and Recognition Committee.
2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the writ
petition are that the petitioner being qualified for
WP5445.16.odt 3/13
being registered as a research student for Doctorate of
Philosophy (Ph.D.) in the faculty of commerce with
the respondent No.1 - University sought registration of
his research topic on 14-01-2011. When this
application was made, it is the case of the petitioner
that the field was governed by the provisions of
Ordinance No.33 of 2008 framed by the University. As
per clause 11(a) of the said Ordinance, a candidate
was required to submit his thesis within a period of
five years from the date on which his application was
approved by the Research & Recognition Committee
(RRC). In the meanwhile, on 18-04-2011, the Vice
Chancellor of the University issued direction No.7 of
2011 by which the eligibility criteria and procedure for
registration of candidates for obtaining Ph.D. came to
be prescribed. Yet again on 17-07-2011, Direction
No.10 of 2011 came to be issued with regard to the
same subject matter by which conduct of Ph.D.
entrance test (PET) was mandated. The petitioner
appeared for the said entrance test and cleared the
same on 28-12-2011. Thereafter in October 2012,
Direction No.10 of 2011 was repealed and it was
WP5445.16.odt 4/13
replaced by Direction No.29 of 2012. On 22-10-2012,
the petitioner was informed by the University that the
RRC in its meeting held on 02-08-2012 had accepted
his application for registration of Ph.D. Degree. The
petitioner's date of registration was treated as
15-01-2011. The petitioner thereafter commenced his
research work under the impression that the research
period of five years for submitting his thesis would
commence from the date when his application was
approved by the RRC. Hence, on 12-08-2016 he
moved an application to the Controller of
Examinations for correcting the date of his Ph.D.
registration as 02-08-2012 instead of 15-01-2011. By
the communication received on 20-08-2016 the
petitioner was informed that no extension could be
granted for submitting his thesis and that the period
for doing the same expired on 14-01-2016 which was
five years from the date of his application for
registration as a research student. Being aggrieved, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Shri H. V. Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the University was not
WP5445.16.odt 5/13
justified in holding that the date of the petitioner's
Ph.D. registration was 15-01-2011 when he had
applied for registration and in fact it should have been
held that the petitioner was liable to submit his thesis
within a period of five years from 02-08-2012 when
his application was approved by the RRC. According
to him when on 14-01-2011 the petitioner had applied
for being registered as a Ph.D. student, the provisions
of Ordinance No.33 of 2008 were in operation and as
per Clause 11(a) of said Ordinance a candidate was
required to submit his thesis within a period of five
years from the date on which his application was
approved by the RRC. By moving such application on
14-01-2011 which was received by the University on
15-01-2011, a vested right accrued in favour of the
petitioner under Clause 11(a) of Ordinance No.33 of
2008. The subsequent repealing of Ordinance No.33
of 2008 by direction No.7 of 2011 would not adversely
affect the case of the petitioner inasmuch as
applications for registration received by the University
before 18-04-2011 had been saved. He further
submitted that for the same reason Direction No.10 of
WP5445.16.odt 6/13
2011 which came into effect on 17-07-2011 would
also not have the effect of placing the petitioner in a
disadvantageous position. Clause-8(b)(i) of Direction
No.10 of 2011 would also not apply to the case of the
petitioner. He then submitted that even otherwise the
PET prescribed by Direction No.10 of 2011 was
cleared by the petitioner on 28-12-2011. As the RRC
had accepted the petitioner's application form for
registration on 02-08-2012, the period of five years
was required to be reckoned from that date. Though
the petitioner had sought extension of a period of
twelve months, this was on the assumption that the
thesis was to be submitted within a period of five years
from 15-01-2011. He then referred to various
provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 to
urge that any subsequent modification or introduction
of a new Ordinance could not be applied
retrospectively to the prejudice of the petitioner. He
therefore submitted that the date 02-08-2012 be
taken as the date from which the period of five years
would commence as on said date his application was
approved by the RRC.
WP5445.16.odt 7/13
4. Per contra, Shri N. S. Khubalkar, learned
counsel for the respondents justified the stand taken
by the University that 15-01-2011 was the appropriate
date for reckoning the period of five years for
submission of the petitioner's thesis. According to him
during period when Ordinance No.33 of 2008 was
holding the field, the petitioner's application for
registration dated 14-01-2011 had not been placed
before the RRC and only on 02-08-2012 was the
meeting of the RRC held at which point of time
Direction No.10 of 2011 was holding the field. He
submitted that the petitioner's case would therefore
governed by the provisions of Direction No.10 of 2011.
He then submitted that in the meeting of the Deans
held on 18-10-2006 it had been resolved that the
effective date of registration for Ph.D. was to be the
date on which the application for registration was
submitted. In the meeting of the Board of
Examinations held on 13-11-2006 this decision was
approved. He therefore submitted that even on this
basis, 15-01-2011 was the date on which the petitioner
had made an application for registration and therefore
WP5445.16.odt 8/13
the period of five years would commence from the said
date. He further relied upon the Notification dated
02-07-2011 to urge that 15-01-2011 was the correct
date from which the period of five years would
commence. He further justified the action of the
University in refusing to grant extension for
completing the research work as the extension was not
sought prior to three months from the period of expiry
of five years as reckoned from 15-01-2011. He
therefore submitted that viewed from any angle, it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to have completed his
research work within a period of five years from
15-01-2011. According to him the writ petition was
liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at length and we have perused the documents
filed on record. We have also given due consideration
to their respective submissions.
6. It is not in dispute that on 14-01-2011 the
petitioner had applied to the Controller of
Examinations for being registered as a research
student in Ph.D. This application was received by the
WP5445.16.odt 9/13
University on 15-01-2011. On the day when the
petitioner had submitted his application, the field was
governed by Ordinance No.33 of 2008 which came
into effect from 18-10-2008. As per Clause 6 of said
Ordinance, every application for registration was
required to be placed for consideration before the
RRC. The RRC could either accept, reject or suggest
necessary modifications in the same. Said clause then
stipulates that after the application of a candidate is
accepted by the RRC, the registration of such
candidate would be considered to be final. Clause
11(a) of the said Ordinance requires a candidate to
submit his thesis within a period of five years from the
date on which his application is approved by the RRC.
Clause 23 of said Ordinance states that the provisions
of that Ordinance would be prospective in nature.
7. Ordinance No.33 of 2008 came to be
repealed on 18-04-2011 on account of introduction of
Direction No.7 of 2011. As per Clause 2 of this
Direction, it came into force with effect from the date
of its issuance which was 18-04-2011. Ordinance
No.33 of 2008 was repealed as per Clause No.16
WP5445.16.odt 10/13
thereof. It is relevant to note that as per Clause No.17
of Direction No.7 of 2011, it was clarified that the
applications for registration received by the University
as well as all pending cases in which registration had
been granted would be governed by the respective
Ordinances even though repealed. Clause 17 reads
thus:
"17. Saving clause: Notwithstanding the
to 35 of 2008 it is clarified that the
applications for registration received by
the University as well as all pending cases
in which registration has been already
granted will continue to be governed by
the respective Ordinances even if
repealed with effect from issuance of this
Direction."
From the aforesaid, it is crystal clear that
despite repeal of Ordinance No.33 of 2008, the
applications for registration that were received by the
University were to be governed by the repealed
Ordinances. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's
application for registration was received by the
University on 15-01-2011 when Ordinance No.33 of
2008 was holding the field. In view of this specific
saving clause, the submission made on behalf of the
respondents that the case of the petitioner would be
WP5445.16.odt 11/13
governed by Direction No.10 of 2011 as his
registration application was placed before the RRC on
02-08-2012 therefore cannot be accepted. Upholding
said submission made on behalf of the respondents
would render the saving clause of Direction No.7 of
2011 nugatory.
8. Much emphasis was sought to be placed by the
learned Counsel for the respondents on the
notification dated 02-07-2011 issued by the Controller
of Examinations. As per this notification, Clause 8(b)
of Direction No.10 of 2011 was sought to be amended
and the date of submission of the Ph.D. registration
form was to be considered as the date of registration
after approval of the RRC. As we have held that the
applications for registration that were already received
when Ordinance No.33 of 2008 was in vogue would be
saved and the provisions of Direction No.7 of 2011
would not apply, there is no question of further
application of Direction No.10 of 2011 or amended
Clause 8(b) thereof. For said reason, we do not find it
necessary to go into the question whether Clause 8(b)
of Direction No.10 of 2011 could have been amended
WP5445.16.odt 12/13
by issuing a notification by the Controller of
Examinations.
9. The matter can be viewed from another
angle. Though the application for registration made
by the petitioner was received by the University on 15-
01-2011, the same was placed before the RRC only on
02-08-2012. This delay cannot be attributed to the
petitioner and it is the University which alone is
responsible for the same. The petitioner having
applied when Ordinance No.33 of 2008 was holding
the field and while repealing said Ordinance, it was
categorically stated that pending applications would
be governed by that Ordinance, the University is not
justified in taking a stand that the period of five years
for completing thesis work would commence from 15-
01-2011 by relying upon the provisions of Direction
No.10 of 2011. In any event, the petitioner has also
cleared the PET on 30-12-2011 though this was not
the requirement under Ordinance No.33 of 2008.
Merely because the petitioner had sought extension of
time to complete his thesis cannot be a factor that can
be held against the petitioner when it has been found
WP5445.16.odt 13/13
that his case is governed by Ordinance No.33 of 2008.
We therefore find that the petitioner is entitled for
relief in that regard.
10. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is held
and declared that the petitioner's case would be
governed by Ordinance No.33 of 2008 which was
holding field on the date on which the petitioner made
his application for Ph.D. registration that is
14-01-2011 and consequently in view of Clause-11(a),
the petitioner would be entitled to submit his thesis
within period of five years from the date on which his
application was approved by the RRC that is from
02-08-2012.
11. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
