Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar Khurana vs University Of Delhi And Ors. on 9 September, 2014
R-1
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8360/2011
VINOD KUMAR KHURANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravinder S. Garia, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for
University of Delhi.
% Date of Decision : 9th September, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been seeking the following prayers:
a. that the respondents be directed to grant
permission for submission of thesis for Ph.D.
and accept the thesis.
b. any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit in the interest of justice.
2. In the present writ petition, it has been averred that one of the
conditions for submission of Ph.D. thesis is that the teacher should
continue in service, but as the petitioner is due to retire on 30th November,
2011 any delay in submission of thesis would deprive him of the
opportunity to submit his thesis as provided in Clause 7 of Ordinance VI-
B. The relevant portion of Clause 7 of Ordinance VI-B reads as under:-
"7.......Moreover no student shall be permitted to be
on the Ph.D. rolls for a period exceeding five years,
provided, however, the Vice-Chancellor may on the
individual merits of each case and on the
recommendation of the Board of Research Studies
concerned, grant extension of time for submission of
thesis to the extent he may deem necessary. The
teachers of the University, Colleges, if they continue to
be in the service of the University or the College of the
University, as the case may be, may, however, be
permitted to submit their thesis on the
recommendations of the Head of the Department
concerned. "
3. In the petition, it is also averred that the Head of Department of
Sanskrit had issued a certificate dated 8th November, 2011. The said
certificate reads as under:-
"This is to certify that Mr. Vinod Kr. Khurana a Ph.D.
student of this Department has presented his Pre-Ph.D.
Seminar paper on the research topic "A study of
Atharvaveda in the context of changing Social
Organisation and Norms" on 08.11.2011 at 01.00
P.M. in the Department of Sanskrit, University of
Delhi, in the presence of the teachers and research
students of this Department.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the Head of the
Department had granted permission to the petitioner to submit his thesis in
the meeting of departmental research committee held on 22 nd September,
2011, yet the University had written a letter to the Head of the Department
of Sanskrit stating that as the petitioner was not enrolled in Ph.D. there
was serious lapse on the part of the department in allowing petitioner to
present his Pre-Ph.D. thesis submission. The letter dated 11th January,
2012 is reproduced hereunder:-
"This is with reference to Shri Vinod Kumar
Khurana's letter dated 19.9.2011 addressed to you,
seeking permission to submit Ph.D. thesis. This letter
was forwarded by you to the Chairman, BRS (Arts) on
26.09.2011. It is noted that you issued a certificate
dated 8.11.2011 to Shri Khurana for his having
presented the pre Ph.D. thesis submission seminar on
8.11.2011 without verifying the facts whether he was
actually enrolled as Ph.D. student and without even
waiting for the permission to do so from the Board of
Research Studies. Though Shri Khurana was issued a
letter dated 28.06.1979 for his admission to Ph.D.
Course which was subject to fulfilment of certain
requirements but from the records available with the
Board's office it is noted that he was not enrolled as
Ph.D. student. Thus, this was a serious lapse on your
part to allow a non-student to give presentation for his
pre-Ph.D. thesis submission. Therefore, you are asked
to be careful in future and ensure that the student is
actually enrolled for the Programme, before
accepting/allowing any student to give his pre thesis
submission presentation."
5. On the other hand, Mr.Rupal, learned counsel for the respondent-
University states that the petitioner had filed an earlier writ petition
seeking similar relief being W.P.(C) No. 8255/2011. He further states that
the petitioner had even filed an appeal challenging non-grant of any
interim order by the learned Single Judge. He points out that on the date
the appeal was listed namely, 26th November, 2011, the petitioner filed
the present writ petition. On the date the present petition was listed for
hearing, the counsel for petitioner undertook to withdraw the earlier writ
petition and the LPA. He contends that in fact after filing of the first writ
petition by the petitioner, the respondent-University had passed an order
dated 22nd November, 2011 informing the petitioner that his request for
submission of thesis had not been acceded. The letter dated 22nd
November, 2011 reads as under:
"With reference to the recommendations of the
Departmental Research Committee dated 22.09.2011
of the Department of Sanskirit forwarded by the Head,
Department of Sanskrit vide letter No. Skt./2011/3222
dated 26.09.2011 alongwith your request for
permission to submit the Ph.D. thesis and another
request dated 11.11.2011 addressed to the Vice-
Chancellor by you, for the same, it is to inform you that
your request has been considered by the University but
it has not been found possible to accede to your
request."
6. Mr.Rupal also states that the present writ petition is infructuous as
the petitioner has already retired on 30th November, 2011.
7. Having perused the papers, this Court finds that on 28th April, 1979,
the Delhi University had granted admission to the petitioner in Ph.D.
course. It is pertinent to mention that for the petitioner's topic of research
'Atharavaveda in the present context', he had been granted study leave
during the period 14th September, 1983 to 15th September, 1986.
8. Admittedly, the Ph.D. thesis has not been submitted by the
petitioner despite a lapse of 32 years.
9. This Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the
petitioner in the present proceedings as the petitioner has till date not
impugned the order dated 22nd November, 2011 by virtue of which the
University had refused to accept his Ph.D. thesis.
10. In any event, as the petitioner has already retired from service, this
Court is of the view that petitioner cannot take benefit of Clause 7
Ordinance VI-B as it applies only to serving teachers. Consequently, the
present writ petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 09, 2014
mr
