Delhi High Court
Jitender Kumar vs Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors on 11 November, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11.11.2013
+ WP (C) No.2111 of 2013
JITENDER KUMAR .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Mr. Chetan Sharma
Mr. Mohan Lal, Ms. Ruchika Sharma &
Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advs.
Versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jaya Goyal & Mr. Rohit Gandhi,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGEMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
Vide offer letter dated 22.3.2010 issued by the respondent, Jamia
Millia Islamia, the petitioner was informed that the Board of Studies of the
Department of Economics had considered his research proposal and
recommended his registration for the Ph.D Course under the supervision of
Dr. Bathula Srinivas. In continuation of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner
was informed, vide letter dated 8.4.2010, that he had been provisionally
admitted to the Ph.D. Programme under the supervision of the aforesaid
supervisor. He was required to submit his progress report after every six
months through proper channel and was further informed that in case of
failure, his admission would be cancelled. Vide communication dated
24.8.2010, the petitioner was found eligible for grant of Non-Net
Fellowship. The petitioner sought some modification in the topic assigned
to him and the said modification was granted by the University in due
course.
A certificate dated 15.3.2011 was issued to the petitioner by his
supervisor certifying that his performance had been satisfactory and the
research work was in progress. He also recommended fellowship so that
the petitioner could complete the research. The petitioner also cleared the
examination held in the year 2011 and his result was declared on
10.8.2011.
2. Vide letter dated 27.9.2011, the petitioner alleging problem of
conversation between him and his supervisor, Dr. Bathula Srinivas, sought
change of the Supervisor at an early date. This request was reiterated by
the petitioner vide his letter dated 23.3.2012 whereupon an endorsement
was made that the present Guide, Dr. Srinivas, would continue till some
final decision was taken on his request.
3. Vide notice dated 13.9.2012 the respondent-University informed the
petitioner that none of the faculty members was willing to supervise him
and in these circumstances the Board of Studies had no choice left but to
recommend cancellation of his Ph.D. registration due to non-availability of
supervisor. The petitioner was given a notice to show cause why his Ph.D.
registration should not be cancelled. Thus, the only ground given in the
show cause notice for proposing cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the
petitioner was the unwillingness of any of the faculty members to be his
supervisor. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice and vide letter
dated 17.12.2012, the University conveyed the minutes of the Board of
Studies meeting held on 17.12.2012 to all the members of the said
Committee. A perusal of the aforesaid minutes would show that Dr.
Bathula Srinivas, reiterated that the performance of the six monthly
progress of the candidate was not satisfactory and despite repeated
encouragement, instructions and reminders to improve his performance he
had submitted an application for change of supervisor. The minutes would
further show that an attempt was made by the Board of Studies to identify
a supervisor to replace Dr. Bathula but no faculty member was willing to
be his supervisor and it was for this reason that a show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner proposing cancellation of his Ph.D. registration.
The Board of Studies recommended cancellation of the registration of the
petitioner on the following grounds:
"In the light of the relevant ordinances, and in view of the
facts that: 1) unsatisfactory performance reported by Supervisor;
2) with no other Faculty is willing to supervise from the
department, and also; 3) the reply of the show cause being
unconvincing, and incorrect factually, the BoS unanimously
recommended the cancellation of PhD registration of Mr. Jitender
Kumar with immediate effect."
Based on the aforesaid recommendations the registration of the
petitioner for Ph.D. course was cancelled vide order dated 17.12.2012.
This is also the grievance of the petitioner that Non-Net fellowship which
was granted to him under the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST
Candidates for the year 2010-2011 has also been denied to him since May,
2011. He is, therefore, before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) allow the present writ petition of the petitioner:;
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) against the Respondent(s) thereby
directing the Respondent(s) to revoke/set-aside/quash the
impugned office order dated 17.12.2012 passed by the
Respondent No. 2 on the basis of a meeting of Board of Studies
of Respondent No. 1 held on 12.12.2012, whereby the
registration of the Petitioner in an on-going Ph.D. Course
(Economics) has been cancelled with immediate effect in an
anticipation of approval of Faculty Committee with immediate
effect;
(iii) direct the Respondents to re-admit/re-enroll the
Petitioner in his Ph. D. (Economics) Course at its original
number i.e. Enrolment No. 10-7762 allotted to the Petitioner at
the time of his admission in the year 2010;
(iv) direct the Respondents to provide an alternative proper
supervisor or co-supervisor to the Petitioner to supervise him in
his studies enabling him to complete his Ph.D. Course in time;
(v) direct the Respondent(s) to receive/accept the thesis
of the Petitioner prepared by him for the period already due i.e.
30th April 2010 onwards after resuming his studies;
(vi) direct the Respondents to extend the period of
completion of Ph.D. Course of Petitioner being wasted by the
Respondents in the manner stated in the petition by cancelling the
registration of the Petitioner;
(vii) direct the Respondents to resume the scholarship of
the Petitioner which has been withheld by the Respondents from
July 2011 illegally and also to pay the arrears of scholarship
w.e.f. July 2011 onwards till date;
4. In its counter affidavit, the respondent-University has taken the
stand that the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory by
his supervisor and he had also failed to submit 4 th & 5th six monthly
progress report which was one of the essential requirements for successful
continuation of the Ph.D. course in terms of Ordinance 9 (8) (vi)
(academic) of the University.
The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that since every
faculty member has adequate Ph.D. registrants under his supervision, it is
not possible for the University to assign the petitioner to another
supervisor.
5. As would be seen from the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner, the only ground given in the said notice while proposing
cancellation of his Ph.D. registration was that no faculty member was
willing to be appointed as his supervisor. This was not the ground in the
show cause notice that the performance of the petitioner was not found to
be satisfactory or that he had failed to submit 4th & 5th six monthly
progress reports. As a result the petitioner got no opportunity to place his
case with respect to the alleged non-satisfactory performance and failure to
submit 4th & 5th half monthly progress reports before the University.
Without giving show cause notice and opportunity of hearing with respect
to the alleged poor performance and failure to submit the six monthly
progress reports, the University could not have cancelled the registration of
the petitioner.
6. Moreover, no report of the supervisor, reporting non-satisfactory
performance of the petitioner, has been filed by the respondent. As regards
change of Supervisor, it is not obligatory for the University to accede to the
request made by student unless the University found merit in the
representation made by him in this regard. I am in agreement with the
learned counsel for the respondent-University that the alleged
communication gap between the petitioner and his Guide could not have
been a bona fide reason for seeking change of the supervisor. The
petitioner continued his research under the same supervisor for about one
and a half years and that supervisor also gave a satisfactory performance
report to him. Had there been a communication gap between the petitioner
and his supervisor he would have sought change of supervisor soon after
he got enrolled and started working under him. The University in these
circumstances ought to have rejected the request of the petitioner seeking
change of the Supervisor instead of cancelling his registration for the Ph.D.
course.
7. As regards non-availability of supervisor pleaded by the learned
counsel for the respondents, it is for the University to find out a supervisor
for the students, who have been enrolled by it for the Ph.D. course. As
noted earlier, the University would be justified in rejecting the request of
the petitioner seeking change of supervisor, the request being without any
reasonable basis. Therefore, if the University so decides it may continue
with the same supervisor.
8. As regards discontinuance of fellowship the learned counsel for the
petitioner does not press for any relief in this writ petition but reserves his
right to seek an appropriate remedy in this regard by way of making
representation to the University or by way of an independent proceedings.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated
17.12.2012 is hereby set aside and the respondent University is directed to
permit the petitioner to resume his Ph.D. course. It is also made clear that
the time spent between 17.12.2012 and today shall not be counted for the
purpose of completion of the Ph.D. course by the petitioner. It is also
made clear that this order does not come in the way of the University
initiating fresh steps for cancellation of the registration on the ground of
the alleged unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner, in case the
University is so advised.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
NOVEMBER 11, 2013 V.K.JAIN, J
b'nesh
