Bombay High Court
Ku. Vandana D/O Balkrishna ... vs The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 8 July, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
J-wp3780.11.odt 1/30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.3780 OF 2011
Ku. Vandana d/o. Balkrishna Mahatme,
Aged about 53 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. P-11, Chintaman Nagar,
Wardha Road,
Nagpur-440 025. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur,
Represented through its Vice Chancellor.
2. Deputy Registrar (Ph.D Cell),
The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur.
3. Shri B.P. National Institute of Social Work,
Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur,
Represented through its Principal,
Dr. L.S. Tulankar.
4. Dr. V.J. Shingnapure,
Reader, Tirpude College of Social Work,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. University Grants Commission,
Western Regional Office, Ganesh Khind,
Pune-411 007, Represented through its
Joint Secretary,
Dr. G. Srinivas. : RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 08/07/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2022 09:28:33 :::
J-wp3780.11.odt 2/30
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri P.S. Sadavarte, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondents No.3.
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
None for Respondent No.5.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 17/06/2022.
JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED ON : 08/07/2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
1. The petitioner has challenged the communication
issued by the respondent No.5-University Grants Commission
dated 10.6.2011 by which the respondent No.5 directed the
respondent No.3-National Institute of Social Work to recover
substitute teacher's salary from the petitioner for availing
study leave granted by the University Grants Commission and
has prayed to restrain them permanently from recovering the
said amount from the petitioner.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present proceeding are
as under :
The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Social
J-wp3780.11.odt 3/30
Work on 21.11.1984 in respondent No.3-Shri B.P. National
Institute of Social Work, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur. In January
2002 she applied for registration of her name for Ph.D. degree
through respondent No.3-College. She has also suggested the
name of respondent No.4 Dr. V.J. Shingnapure as her Guide.
The respondent No.4 has also given his consent to act as a
Guide. The Assistant Registrar (Academic) of the respondent
No.1 University vide its letter No.Acad/Research/1588, dated
25th November, 2003 informed the petitioner that the
Research and Recognition Committee has accepted the
application for registration for Ph.D. degree. The respondent
No.1-University approved topic of research "Role of Urban
Working Women in Nagpur University and its affiliated
colleges with special reference to economical and Socio-
Psychological dimensions: An analytical Study" and also
approved Guide Dr. V.J. Shingnapure, Reader of Tirpude
College of Social Work-respondent No.4. As per the approval
she had to complete her thesis within five years from the date
of registration. On 20.12.2007 petitioner applied for change
J-wp3780.11.odt 4/30
of Guide by suggesting the name of Dr. S. Katarni, as she had
some differences with the respondent No.4. As per her
contention she was harassed by the earlier Guide and,
therefore, she was constrained to file an application to change
the Guide. Said request letter was received by respondent
No.1 on the same day i.e. 20.12.2007. As she had to complete
her thesis on or before 9th October, 2008, she made various
correspondence with respondent No.1, but she had not
received any response from respondent No.2 regarding the
letter dated 20.12.2007. She alleged that she was humiliated
with extremity, due to which she could not complete her
thesis within stipulated period on or before 9th October, 2008.
3. As per the rules and regulations of University
re-registration form for Ph.D degree is required to be
submitted only twice in a year i.e. 15th January or 15th July
every year. She suggested the name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni,
who was Principal, Matru-Seva Sangh, Insitute of Social Work.
She had also attached the consent form of suggested Guide
which was forwarded to respondent No.1-University on 12th
J-wp3780.11.odt 5/30
January, 2009. The Research and Recognition Committee in a
meeting held on 28.5.2008 and considered her application
dated 20.12.2007. The said Committee directed the petitioner
to submit NOC of her earlier Guide i.e. respondent No.4. The
petitioner again on 26.9.2008 by issuing letter to the
respondent No.2 requested to review its decision and grant
permission to change the Guide. However, the respondent
No.2 vide its letter dated 26.11.2008 addressed a letter to the
petitioner and informed that the decision of Research and
Recognition Committee for change of Guide vide letter
21.8.2008 has been already communicated to her. It has been
further informed that under the provisions i.e. para 10 of the
Ph.D. Ordinance No.43, it is necessary to submit the thesis
within a period of five years and she was directed to deposit
the balance Retention Fee of previous year of Rs.3,600/-. It
was further informed to her that if any candidate fails to
submit the thesis within specific period of five years from the
date of re-registration then the name would be removed.
Thereafter, she applied under the Right to Information Act,
J-wp3780.11.odt 6/30
2005 to get the information regarding the rule under which
she was asked to obtain the NOC of earlier Guide. Her
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was
rejected on 15.10.2008. She had filed an appeal against the
same but no speaking order was passed. Therefore, she filed
an appeal before the State Information Commission. The
State Information Commission, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur vide its
order dated 18.8.2009 held that Information Officer as well as
Appellate Authority both had deliberately avoided to give
information to the petitioner and thereby directed to supply
the information to the petitioner. The documents received by
her under the Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed to her
that the notice of the meeting to consider agenda dated
8.5.2008 was given to four members. Meeting was held on
15.5.2008, but no decision was taken on that day regarding
her application for change of Guide. Thereafter, her
application was placed before the said Committee in the
meeting dated 28.5.2008 and a decision was taken as to
obtain the NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure, the earlier Guide. In
J-wp3780.11.odt 7/30
pursuance of the said decision respondent No.2 had sent a
letter to her on 21.8.2008. It is the contention of the
petitioner that the decision of the Research and Recognition
Committee is illegal and without any justification. She further
contended that neither the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
nor in the Statute framed under the provisions of the said Act
or any other Notification issued by the University in pursuance
of execution of the provisions of the said Act, a demand that
the NOC of earlier Guide is required to change the Guide. In
fact, when the Guide was initially selected by her and
thereafter during the day to day experience of the said Guide
she was harassed at the hands of the said Guide and,
therefore, she filed an application. She further contended that
the Committee established under Section 36-A of the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 do not empower to
consider over the said matter for change of Guide only. In
absence of any provision under the said Act or any Statute
Rules and Regulations or Notification, Committee has no right
to direct the petitioner to submit NOC of her Guide for
J-wp3780.11.odt 8/30
replacement by appointing another Guide. Thus, the
directions of the Committee asking her to furnish No
Objection Certificate from the earlier Guide is without any
jurisdiction of the Research and Recognition Committee.
4. It is further alleged by her that the question of
change of Guide arose due to the reason that the respondent
No.4 was not behaving properly with her, but she had not
disclose this fact except in the writ petition. She further
contended that the respondent No.2 vide its letter dated
5.8.2009 informed the petitioner that her Ph.D. re-registration
is rejected for the reason that the NOC of the original Guide
i.e. from the respondent No.4 was not produced and the
direction of the Committee had not been followed. After
continuous persuasion she received the information and after
going through the said information it revealed to her that her
re-registration was rejected by the Committee. She submitted
the fresh registration form on 12.1.2010 along with payment
of registration fee which was again placed before the
Committee on 28.4.2010. She received a letter dated
J-wp3780.11.odt 9/30
20.11.2010 from the Deputy Registrar of the respondent No.1-
University that unless and until the subject of Ph.D. degree is
changed, fresh registration cannot be granted. Thus, in the
above facts and circumstances no permission was granted to
her for registering herself for the Ph.D. degree.
5. It is further her contention that the Principal of
respondent No.3-College where the petitioner was serving was
well aware of the fact that the dispute of the change of Guide
and re-registration had not yet resolved either by University or
by Chancellor or by the Court, but the respondent No.3-
College with malafide intention and only to harass the
petitioner had deliberately made a representation before the
respondent No.5 on 14.5.2011 for recovery of substitute
teacher's salary of Rs.3,61,680/- and contingency grant for
teacher fellow of Rs.10,000/- i.e. total Rs.3,71,680/- towards
two years salary paid by UGC by recording reasons that, "if a
teacher fellow fails to complete her Ph.D. programme and
leave the midway, she has to refund the entire amount paid to
her by UGC during her teacher's fellowship" and thereby
J-wp3780.11.odt 10/30
misguided the respondent No.5 by referring the untruthful
facts to the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 without
issuing notice to her and without giving an opportunity of
hearing passed order for recovery of the amount allegedly
claimed. The respondent No.3, vide its communication dated
14.6.2011, informed the petitioner the said order on
12.7.2011 and called upon the petitioner to submit her
explanation in this regard within five days. It is alleged by her
that the Principal of respondent No.3-College had deliberately
made a reference to the respondent No.5-University Grants
Commission for recovery of two years salary of substitute
teacher because leave was granted to her for completing her
research over the subject and submitted the same to the
respondent No.1-University within time. She contended that
the University Grants Commission without following the
principles of natural justice and without calling any
explanation from the petitioner and without giving
opportunity of hearing passed the order for recovery of the
amount which was illegal. She contended that she was
J-wp3780.11.odt 11/30
continuously trying to get re-registration for her Ph.D. degree
under able guidance of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni. She made
correspondence continuously with the respondent Nos.1 and 2
but only because of non-response of respondent Nos.1 and 2
she could not re-register herself for Ph.D. and hence she has
filed this writ petition.
6. Due to the indulgence of this Court by passing order
on 19th March, 2012 the respondent No.1-University was
directed to re-register the petitioner for Ph.D. in the subject.
Accordingly, she was registered. She has completed her thesis
and submitted on 16.1.2014 on the same subject under the
able guidance of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni. She contended that
she could not complete her thesis earlier as without any
authority respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 directed her
to submit NOC which is unjust and unfair and, therefore, she
is not liable to pay the amount which is claimed by the
respondent No.5.
7. In response to the notice issued the respondent No.1
and 2 resisted the writ petition on the ground that there was
J-wp3780.11.odt 12/30
no dispute that the candidate has right to select his or her
supervisor for the research work. From last more than 25
years the requirement of no objection certificate of original
Guide is insisted for in the event candidate seeks change in
Guide or for re-registration on the same topic of research.
Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to obtain the NOC. It
is the contention of the respondent No.1 that as the petitioner
was inclined to complete her thesis on very same topic under
the supervision of another Guide and, therefore, No Objection
Certificate from the earlier supervisor is insisted for. It is
contended by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the direction of
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to obtain the NOC was not illegal
and unjust and, therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. The respondent No.3 also resisted the writ petition
on the ground that the petitioner is presently working as a
Lecturer in respondent No.3-College. As per the scheme of
respondent No.5 she filed an application for registration for
Ph.D. degree in January 2002 and Research and Recognition
Committee approved her application on 10.10.2003. She
J-wp3780.11.odt 13/30
applied under Teacher Fellowship of Faculty Improvement
Programme and availed paid leave from 1.4.2005 to
31.3.2007. However, as per the University Regulation it was
mandatory to submit thesis within a period of five years from
the date of registration and petitioner failed to submit the
same. As per the rules and regulations i.e. as per the Faculty
Improvement Programme and particularly in view of clause
(8.3) if a Teacher Fellow fails to complete her Ph.D.
programme and leaves it midway, she has to refund entire
amount paid to her by UGC during her Teacher Fellowship.
As the petitioner failed to complete the programme, therefore,
the amount was claimed from her. No cause of action arose to
the petitioner to claim the relief against the respondent No.3
and hence petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard Shri P.S. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the
petitioner. He reiterated the contentions as per the writ
petition. In support of his contentions he submitted that the
Research and Recognition Committee has accepted the
application of petitioner for registration for Ph.D. degree on
J-wp3780.11.odt 14/30
10.10.2003. The petitioner addressed a letter to the
respondent No.2 with a request for change of respondent No.4
as a Guide for Ph.D. due to fundamental differences on
important aspects of research work and the problems of
communication feedback. The respondent No.2 addressed a
letter to the petitioner informing her that she should obtain
NOC of respondent No.4 to change the Guide. There were no
rules and regulations nor any provision in the Statute to
obtain said NOC, but the Committee i.e. respondent No.2
insisted for the said NOC. Though the petitioner had made
communication repeatedly, said order was not reviewed by
the Committee. On the contrary, the respondent No.1 had
sent a letter to the petitioner on the subject of change of Guide
to deposit Rs.3,600/- towards balance Retention Fee. The
Principal of respondent No.3-College wrote a letter to the
petitioner and claimed the recovery of the substitute teacher's
salary and contingency grant for Teacher Fellow total
amounting to Rs.3,71,680/-. Said order was passed by the
respondent No.5 without giving an opportunity of hearing to
J-wp3780.11.odt 15/30
the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of
the respondent No.2 and attitude of the inferior officers in
conducting the affairs of respondent No.1-University and there
being no provision under the said Act and Rules framed
thereunder to obtain NOC, the direction of respondent No.1
for obtaining the NOC was illegal and unconstitutional.
10. In support of his contention he relied upon various
documents. Annexure-I is the letter addressed to the
petitioner by the Additional Registrar, Nagpur University
dated 22nd November, 2003 by which she was informed that
Research and Recognition Committee held on 10.10.2003 has
accepted her application for registration for Ph.D. degree for
the subject Role of Urban Working Women in Nagpur
University and its affiliated colleges with special reference to
economical and Socio-Psychological dimensions: An analytical
Study. Annexure II is the letter issued by the petitioner to the
Deputy Registrar, Nagpur University for requesting to consider
her request of change of her Guide Dr. V.J. Shingnapure to
Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni along with the consent letter of Dr.
J-wp3780.11.odt 16/30
(Mrs.) S. Katarni. By letter dated dated 21.8.2008, the Deputy
Registrar, Nagpur University informed her that her application
dated 28.12.2007 for change of Guide she had to obtain the
NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure, Reader, Tirpude College of
Social Work, Nagpur. After receipt of the said communication
from the University she again applied to the Deputy Registrar,
Nagpur University requesting that she was asked to obtain the
NOC from Dr. V.J. Shingnapure and she requested to review
the order of directing to obtain the NOC. Again on
26.11.2008 she received the communication from the Deputy
Registrar, Nagpur University informing her that she had to pay
balance Retention Fee of previous year of Rs.3,600/- and also
informed her that if the candidate failed to submit the thesis
within the specific period of five years from the registration in
the University then the name is removed from the register of
research students and if she wanted to re-register, in that case
the subject offered at the time of re-registration must be the
same as before. After re-registration the thesis could be
submitted even before the completion of period of two years
J-wp3780.11.odt 17/30
but in no case after a further maximum period of five years. It
also appears from the record that she filed an application with
the Information Officer dated 15th October, 2008 but her
application was rejected. Thereafter, she filed an appeal
before the Appellate Authority, it was also rejected.
Therefore, she filed an appeal before the State Information
Commission, Nagpur which was allowed and the Information
Officer of respondent No.1-University was directed to furnish
the information to her. From the said information it revealed
to her that there is no Rule or Statute to obtain NOC as per
the Ordinance prescribing eligibility criteria and procedure for
registration of candidates, selection of guides and research
topic, thesis submission and its evaluation for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in the faculty of Arts & Social Science.
There is no Rule or Statute that candidate has to obtain the
NOC in case of change of Guide. One Professor P.K. Shende
also obtained information from the University and respondent
No.1 informed to him vide letter dated 14.9.2009 that there is
no such Rule in a written form stating that while changing
J-wp3780.11.odt 18/30
Guide, the no objection of earlier Guide is to be obtained.
11. Learned counsel Shri Sadavarte submitted that this
fact clarifies that there is no Rule or Statute to obtain the NOC
for changing the Guide. Thus, the correspondence on record
sufficiently shows that when she applied for change of Guide
on 20.12.2007 there was no response for two years. Vide
communication dated 1st September, 2009 she had issued a
letter to the Principal B.P. National Institute of Social Work -
respondent No.3 mentioning that study leave was granted to
her for two years on 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007. The objective of
the scheme was to provide an opportunity to the teachers of
the Universities and Colleges to pursue their academic
research activities leading to the award of M.Phil/Ph.D degree
and that UGC provides assistance for award of Teacher
Fellowship for such Colleges which are included in the list
maintained by UGC. Under the said scheme a teacher is
entitled to receive full salary from the parent institution and
college during the period of Teacher Fellowship. She had also
made correspondence with the Chancellor and Governor of
J-wp3780.11.odt 19/30
Maharashtra regarding the said issue. It appears from the
record that despite continuous follow up, she was not
re-registered to complete her Ph.D. On the contrary, the
recovery was claimed from her against the salary which was
given by respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 has passed
an order without giving an opportunity to her of hearing for
recovery of amount of Rs.3,71,680/- illegally. Therefore, she
knocked the door of this Court by filing this writ petition.
12. It is submitted by the learned counsel Shri
Sadavarte for the petitioner that pursuant to the order passed
by this Court in the present writ petition by which University
was directed to re-register her for Ph.D. in the subject, the
petitioner was registered and she had completed her thesis
within two years. She could not complete her thesis earlier
due to the adamant approach of respondent No.1-University as
well as respondent No.3-College. When there was no
provision to obtain the NOC, the NOC was insisted for and
therefore she could not complete her Ph.D. The petitioner
cannot be blamed for non-completion of her Ph.D within five
J-wp3780.11.odt 20/30
years in the above said facts and circumstances. There is
substance in the submission.
13. After hearing learned counsel Shri Sadavarte for the
petitioner, learned counsel for Shri P.D. Meghe, for the
respondent No.3 and Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, learned
counsel for the respondent No.4, it is apparent that the
petitioner had submitted application for registration of her
name for Ph.D. degree through responded No.3-College along
with name of Guide i.e. respondent No.4-Dr. V.J.
Shingnapure. The respondent No.1-University communicated
to her on 22/25th November, 2003 that the Research and
Recognition Committee in its meeting on 10.10.2003 had
approved her application. As per approval she has to complete
her thesis within five years from the date of registration. On
20.12.2007 the petitioner applied for change of Guide by
suggesting name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni as petitioner had
some differences with her earlier Guide respondent No.4- Dr.
V.J. Shingnapure. The petitioner had alleged that there were
certain fundamental differences between her and respondent
J-wp3780.11.odt 21/30
No.4 on important aspects of research process which reached
at extremity. She was insulted by respondent No.4-Dr. V.J.
Shingnapure. It is her further contention that as per the rules
and regulations of University re-registration form for Ph.D.
degree is required to be submitted only twice in a year i.e. 15 th
January or 15th July. She applied for change of Guide by
suggesting name of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni along with her
consent letter. The contention of the petitioner is supported by
Annexure-II which is a communication by her to the Deputy
Registrar, Nagpur University dated 20.12.2007 along with
consent letter of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni.
14. It further revealed from the record that after eight
months respondent No.1-University informed her that she has
to obtain NOC of Dr. V.J. Shingnapure i.e. respondent No.4
vide letter dated 21.8.2008. Immediately she made a
representation to the responded No.1-University to review the
decision of direction to obtain NOC. But her representation
was not considered by the respondent No.1-University. On the
contrary, it was informed to her that the decision of the
J-wp3780.11.odt 22/30
Research and Recognition Committee was already
communicated to her and she has to complete her thesis
within five years. The documents received by her under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 revealed that in meeting dated
28.5.2008 Research and Recognition Committee had taken
decision that the petitioner has to obtain NOC of Dr. V.J.
Shingnapure. It is pertinent to note that her averments in
para No.6 that the decision of the Research and Recognition
Committee is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction are
not denied by the respondents. To buttress her contention she
relied on the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
guidelines/norms issued by University for candidates who
registered for Ph.D. and M.Phil. Admittedly, neither the
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 nor any statute framed
under the provisions of the said Act, any norms framed by the
University shows NOC is required to change the Guide. It is
apparent from the record that one Professor, namely, Shri P.K.
Shende obtained information and it was informed to him vide
letter dated 14.9.2009 by respondent No.1-University that
J-wp3780.11.odt 23/30
there is no rule in written form stating that while changing
Guide the no objection of earlier Guide is required. Professor
P.K. Shende was allowed to change Guide without NOC.
These facts substantiate the contention of the petitioner that in
absence of any statutory provision, norms formed by
University, she was directed to obtain NOC which was illegal
and arbitrary. Thus, the correspondence on record sufficiently
shows she applied for change of Guide on 20.12.2007 but she
did not receive any response for two years. Her representation
for review of direction issued by Research and Recognition
Committee was also not considered.
15. The record further shows that her application for
re-registration was also not considered on the ground that
unless and until the subject of Ph.D degree is changed, fresh
registration cannot be granted. Thus, it is apparent from
record that the petitioner has continuously pursued the matter
with respondent No.1 to 3 for completing her Ph.D. in time,
but it was the respondent No.1 and the Research and
Recognition Committee constituted by the respondent No.1
J-wp3780.11.odt 24/30
which insisted for NOC for change of Guide in absence of any
statute, norms or guidelines. The petitioner had not at any
point of time shown her inability to complete the Ph.D. Clause
'X' of the Guidelines for faculty programme of UGC which is
reproduced for better understanding and reference as under :
"If a teacher fellow fails to
complete his/her Ph.D. programme and
leaves it midway he/she has to refund the
entire amount paid to him/her by UGC
during his/her fellowship."
16. Admittedly, study leave was granted to the
petitioner for two years i.e. from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2007. The
objective of the scheme is to provide an opportunity to the
teachers of the Universities and Colleges to pursue their
academic research activities leading the award of M.Phil/Ph.D.
and that UGC provides assistance for award of teacher's
fellowship for such Colleges which are included in the list
maintained by UGC. Vide letter dated 21.8.2009 respondent
No.3-College called status report from the petitioner
mentioning that she was supposed to complete Ph.D. in 2007,
J-wp3780.11.odt 25/30
however, she had neither completed the same nor sent
progress report. The petitioner had replied the said letter on
1.9.2009 mentioning all the facts. She had not only
communicated to respondent No.3-College but also informed
to respondent No.1-University, the circumstances under which
she could not complete her Ph.D. Despite the facts well within
knowledge of respondent No.3-College, the respondent No.3-
College submitted report to respondent No.5-UGC mentioning
that the petitioner had not communicated progress report.
Therefore, respondent No.5-UGC vide letter dated 10.6.2011
claimed recovery of Rs.3,71,680/- along with interest from the
petitioner. The question before us is whether respondent No.1
is entitled for such recovery. Admittedly, the petitioner was
given study leave with salary and allowances etc. so as to
enable her to complete the course. The petitioner had choice
to select her Guide. There is no statutory provision, norm or
guideline pointed out that a candidate would have to obtain
NOC while changing the Guide. Another Professor P.K. Shende
was allowed to change the Guide without NOC of earlier
J-wp3780.11.odt 26/30
Guide as there was absence or provision/guidelines. The
purpose of granting study leave with salary and other benefits
is for the interest of the institution and also the person
concerned, so that once the candidate comes back and joins
the institute, the students would be benefited by the
knowledge and expertise acquired by person. Here in the
present case, recovery of salary paid during the study leave is
claimed by the respondent No.5/UGC. The letter of Deputy
Secretary, Dr. G. Srinivasan of UGC respondent No.5 dated
19.12.2007 states about the norms pertaining to progress
report of the research work. Clause (8) of the norms states
the procedure for monitoring the progress report in the
mid-month of the period for which the fellowship is awarded.
The progress report is to be forwarded by the
Supervisor/Guide. In case of negative report given by the
Supervisor/Guide, the awarded fellowship to the teacher
fellow may be withdrawn by UGC. Thus, as per the above
norms, it was the Supervisor who had to send progress report
and not the candidate. Despite clear guidelines respondent
J-wp3780.11.odt 27/30
No.3-College submitted report to respondent No.5-UGC,
therefore, respondent No.5-UGC claimed the amount from the
petitioner. This communication by respondent No.3-College
itself was incorrect being contrary to the norms. The norms
nowhere state that the candidates have to send the progress
report. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent No.3-College
submitted incorrect report to respondent No.5-UGC and
accordingly, UGC had claimed the said recovery.
17. As respondent No.5-UGC claimed the recovery
which was illegal and arbitrary therefore petitioner had filed
present writ petition. Subsequent to filing of writ petition, she
was permitted to re-register for Ph.D in accordance with the
order passed by this Court dated 9.8.2011. The respondent
No.4-Dr. V.J. Shingnapure also passed Pursis dated 19.3.2012
and gave NOC to change her Guide. After re-registration
petitioner had completed her Ph.D on 16.1.2014 under the
able guidance of Dr. (Mrs.) S. Katarni.
18. In the light of above facts and circumstance it is
apparent that the petitioner was always willing to pursue her
J-wp3780.11.odt 28/30
Ph.D. but due to non-cooperation of respondent Nos.1 and 3
she could not complete thesis initially. She was called upon to
obtain NOC in absence of any clear statutory
provision/norms/ guidelines. It is apparent from the record
that she had continuously made correspondence but could not
get response from the respondent No.1-University, the
Committee constituted by respondent No.1 i.e. Research and
Recognition Committee. Due to such hurdles she could not
complete Ph.D. initially for which she cannot be blamed.
Subsequently, she had completed her Ph.D. also. Petitioner
has submitted the documents on record on 21.4.2022 which
shows that she had submitted her thesis on 16.1.2014 and
completed her Ph.D. on 16.1.2014. The action on the part of
the respondent No.1-University through its Committee i.e.
Research and Recognition Committee of insisting for NOC is
thus arbitrary and illegal since no such requirement has been
pointed out. Even her representation was not considered after
repeated correspondence with the respondent No.1. Likewise,
respondent No.3-College though aware that the petitioner had
J-wp3780.11.odt 29/30
asked for NOC from earlier Guide and was unable to pursue
Ph.D, submitted incorrect report contrary to the norms issued
by the UGC-respondent No.5. Acting upon the said report
filed by the respondent No.3-College, the action of respondent
No.5-UGC without giving opportunity to petitioner claiming
recovery was unjust, arbitrary and against principles of natural
justice. The opportunity of hearing was not granted to the
petitioner. Therefore, communications of respondent No.3-
College and respondent No.5-UGC dated 12.7.2011 and
10.6.2011 for recovery of amount towards availing study leave
granted by respondent No.5-UGC are liable to be set aside.
19. As petitioner had already completed her Ph.D. in the
year 2014 her prayer clauses (i) and (ii) have become
redundant. She is entitled for the relief in terms of prayer
clause (iii). Accordingly, the communication of respondent
Nos.3 and 5 dated 10.6.2011 and 12.7.2011 for recovery of
substitute teacher's salary for availing study leave granted by
University Grants Commission is liable to be set aside. Hence,
we proceed to pass following order :
J-wp3780.11.odt 30/30
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The communication of respondent Nos.3 and 5
dated 12.7.2011 and 10.6.2011 for recovery
of substitute teacher's salary for availing
study leave granted by the University Grants
Commission is hereby set aside.
(iii) Solvent surety furnished by petitioner as per
order dated 9.8.2011 shall be discharged.
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs.
(Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.) (A.S.Chandurkar, J.)
okMksns
