Bombay High Court
Roshan Mahadeorao Moon vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj ... on 10 November, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
2023:BHC-NAG:16442-DB
WP-1077-2023(J).odt 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1077 OF 2023
Roshan Mahadeorao Moon,
Aged about 33 years, Occu. : Service
R/o. C/o Giridhar Dharampuriward, Sai Layout,
Parshioni, Tal. Parshioni, District Nagpur. ..... PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University
Nagpur, through its Registrar,
Jamnalal Bajaj Administrative Building,
Near University Campus, Campus-Ambazari Road,
Nagpur-440 033.
2. The Deputy Registrar, Ph.D.Cell,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University
Pariksha Bhawan, LIT Campus,
Amravati Road, Nagpur-440 010. ....... RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B.G.Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.S.Godbole, Advocate for respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : 20th SEPTEMBER, 2023
JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED ON : 10th NOVEMBER, 2023
JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
In view of notice for final disposal issued earlier, the learned
counsel for the parties have been heard by issuing Rule and making the same
returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner being desirous of acquiring Ph. D. submitted an
application for grant of such registration on 10.03.2015 to the first
WP-1077-2023(J).odt 2/6
respondent - Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (for short, the
University). The consideration of the petitioner's application was governed
by the provisions of Direction No.29 of 2012 framed by the University. In the
meeting of the Research and Recognition Committee that was held on
02.06.2015 the petitioner's application for registration was resolved to be
accepted. On 08.10.2015 the petitioner was informed of the acceptance of
the said application by the Deputy Registrar of the University. In accordance
therewith, the petitioner commenced his thesis and other ancillary activities
with a view to obtain Ph.D. qualification on 10.10.2015. On 01.06.2022 the
petitioner moved an application seeking permission to submit the thesis in
that regard. He was informed on 14.06.2022 that as per Clause 10 of
Direction No. 29 of 2012, it was necessary for the petitioner to have applied
for registration prior to 09.12.2019. On this count, the request made by the
petitioner on 01.06.2022 was not accepted. On 16.06.2022 the petitioner
issued another communication to the Vice-Chancellor of the University
stating therein that as per the public notice issued by the University Grants
Commission on 17.05.2022 an extension of six months had been granted to
submit the thesis. It was thus requested that the petitioner's application
seeking permission to submit the thesis be considered accordingly. On
01.07.2022 the petitioner was informed that as he had not sought extension
of time to submit the thesis prior to 09.12.2019 and the benefit of exclusion
of period during the pandemic commencing from 20.03.2020 was not
WP-1077-2023(J).odt 3/6
admissible, his request could not be considered. Being aggrieved the
petitioner has challenged the communications dated 14.06.2022 and
01.07.2022 in the present writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the University and we have also perused the relevant
material on record. It is to be noted that as per Direction No.29 of 2012 the
procedure for admission/registration for acquiring Ph. D. has been
prescribed by Clause 9 and the tenure of registration is indicated by Clause
10. The date of submission of an application form seeking admission to
Ph. D. programme is considered as the date of registration subject to
approval of the Research and Recognition Committee. It is only after
acceptance of such application by the Committee that a candidate is treated
as registered Ph.D. candidate. Meeting of the Research and Recognition
Committee is required to be convened within sixty days from the last date of
the application for registration of the Ph.D. The dates indicated are
15th January and 15th July of every calendar year. After approval of an
application by the Research and Recognition Committee, the particulars of a
candidate with other details have to be displayed on the website of the
University within one month as far as possible. As per Clause 10 of Direction
No.29 of 2012, the registration of a candidate would be valid and would
remain in force for a period of five years from the date of registration. An
application for extension of the period of registration could be submitted
WP-1077-2023(J).odt 4/6
at-least three months prior to the expiry of the registration.
The aforesaid is the scheme prescribed under Direction No.29 of
2012.
4. We find from the material on record that the petitioner had applied
for registration on 10.03.2015 and the meeting of the Research and
Recognition Committee was held on 02.06.2015. This was intimated to the
petitioner on 08.10.2015. The aforesaid dates would indicate that the time
prescribed by Clause 9 of Direction No.29 of 2012 was not shown to be
scrupulously followed by the University. It has not been indicated that the
meeting of the Research and Recognition Committee was held within sixty
days from the last date of applications for registration of Ph. D. Similarly,
though the name of the petitioner was approved by the Research and
Recognition Committee on 02.06.2015, the intimation in that regard was
given after about four months and six days on 08.10.2015. It is on this basis,
the petitioner commenced his work on the thesis on 10.10.2015.
On 17.05.2022 the University Grants Commission issued a public
notice granting extension upto six months beyond 30.06.2022. Such
extension was to be granted on case-to-case basis based on review of student
work by the Advisory Committee.
5. The petitioner in his application dated 16.06.2022 sought to bring
to the notice of the Vice Chancellor the aforesaid public notice dated
WP-1077-2023(J).odt 5/6
17.05.2022 and seek benefit thereof. The same has however not been taken
into consideration in the communication dated 01.07.2022 on the premise
that the application for extension of the period of registration ought to have
been made by 09.12.2019 but the petitioner had made the same
subsequently.
The issue that requires consideration is if the University itself did
not abide by the time frame prescribed by Clause 9 of Direction No.29 of
2012 whether benefit in the facts of the present case of public notice dated
17.05.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission could be extended
to the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the date of submission of the
application form is to be considered as date of registration of its approval by
the Research and Recognition Committee. However, as indicated above
when the time frame prescribed therein was not be adhered to by the
University, whether it was justified in insisting for such compliance from the
petitioner. We find that in the facts of the present case, it would be necessary
for the University to consider whether the benefit of the public notice dated
17.05.2022 issued by the University Grants Commission can be extended to
the petitioner. This public notice was brought to the notice of the Vice
Chancellor but the same has not been taken into consideration while refusing
to extend the time to submit the thesis.
6. In aforesaid facts, we find that the petitioner's request for
extension of time to submit the Ph. D. thesis requires re-consideration at the
WP-1077-2023(J).odt 6/6
hands of the University in the light of the observations made hereinabove
and after taking into consideration the public notice dated 17.05.2022 issued
by the University Grants Commission. The said public notice itself requires
examination on case-to-case basis and we are of the view that the petitioner's
case also deserves examination in this context.
7. For aforesaid reasons, with a view to enable the University to re-
consider the petitioner's request for extension of time to submit the Ph. D.
thesis, the communications dated 14.06.2022 and 01.07.2022 are set aside.
The University is directed to re-consider the petitioner's request for extension
of time to submit the Ph. D. thesis in the light of the observations made
hereinabove as well as the public notice dated 17.05.2022. The necessary
exercise be undertaken within a period of four weeks of receiving copy of
this judgment in accordance with law.
8 Rule stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)
Andurkar..
Signed by: Jayant S. Andurkar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/11/2023 15:43:22
