Delhi High Court
Bushra Salam vs Jamia Millia Islamia And Ors on 3 March, 2016
Author: Manmohan
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1049/2016 & C.M.Nos.4579/2016, 4580/2016, 5408/2016
BUSHRA SALAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Bahar U.Barqi, Advocate.
Versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Apurb Lal with Ms.Meenu
Pandey, Advocates for R-1 & 2.
Date of Decision: 3rd March, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to grant sufficient time to the petitioner for completing her
Ph.D course. Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent nos. 1 to 3
to appoint a new Supervisor for the petitioner. Petitioner further seeks
a direction to the respondents to release the fellowship to the
petitioner, which has not been given to her since 1st January, 2013.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner had
filed a prior writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7928/2014 seeking
extension of time for completion of her Ph.D course as well as for
change of her Supervisor and the same was disposed on 19th
November, 2014 with a direction to make a representation to the
University and the University was directed to pass a speaking order
within six weeks.
3. The respondent-University disposed of petitioner's
representation vide letter dated 5th November, 2015 stating that in
accordance with the decision of the Board of Studies dated 14 th
January, 2015 and the Minutes of Board of Studies dated 12 th October,
2015, the petitioner is not entitled for sixth year extension to Ph.D
admission, and therefore, no question of change of her Ph.D
Supervisor and for release of non-NET fellowship arises.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner's
thesis has been lying complete since 14th August, 2013, but till date
the Supervisor has not accepted the same. He refers to petitioner's
letter dated 22nd April, 2014 to contend that the draft of the thesis had
been submitted to the Head of Department on a C.D on 4th November,
2013.
5. He further states that the petitioner's future is at stake and she
has been unable to complete her Ph.D degree for more than two years
because of respondents' inaction.
6. However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that after the
petitioner's initial writ petition was disposed of on 19 th November,
2014, the Board of Studies comprising eight Professors/Teachers, after
considering the petitioner's representation and after perusing the
records decided against recommending sixth year extension to the
petitioner and further resolved that the petitioner's admission to Ph.D
course be cancelled. The relevant portion of the decision of the Board
of Studies is reproduced hereinbelow:-
" In the meeting, following members were present
1. Proft. Shahnaz Parveen (Chairperson)
2. Prof. Mohd Mazhar Ali Khan
3. Proft. Rocket Ibrahim
4. Dr. Haroon Sajjad
5. Dr. Atiqur Rahman
6. Dr. Taruna Bansal
7. Dr. Lubna Siddiqui
8. Ms. Aruna paarcha
xxx xxx xxx
1. Her sixth year extension to the Ph.D. Course
............ Upon consideration of the representation of Ms.
Bushra Salaam and perusal of records, BOS observed that:-
Ms. Bushra Salaam had not been regular in pursuits of the
research work and did not follow the academic guidance of
carrying out her Ph.D. work. Dr.Lubna Siddiqui had sent
email notices dated 27 Jan' 2013and 3 Feb' 2013 to
Ms.Bushra Salamm and asked her to submit her Ph.D.
progress report but Ms.Bushra Salaam failed to do so. Dr.
Lubna Siddiqui then reported this matter in DOS dated 22nd
August, 2013. On the basis of the resolution of DOS, a
warning letter was issued to Ms. Bushra Salaam on 29th Aug'
2013, asking her to submit the Ph.D. progress report
forwarded by her supervisor Dr. Lubna Siddiqui, within one
month from the date of issue of warning letter, which Ms.
Bushra Salaam failed to comply with.
Dr. Lubna Siddiqui had also reported verbally both in DOS
and BOS that Ms. Bushra Salam had misbehaved with her
many times.
Both the above matters are conduct in violation of
Ordinances and Regulations (Academic), [Ordinance 9 (IX),
9, (c) Cancellation of Registration in the Ph.D. Course].
On the above grounds, BOS resolved that the 6th year
extension to Ph.D. Admission cannot be recommend to Ms.
Bushra Salaam and the BOS further resolved the cancellation
of her admission from Ph.D. Course."
xxx xxx xxx
3. Release of her non-net fellowship
As per the documents already provided by the supervisor,
Dr.Lubna Siddiqui, Ms. Bushra Salam was found to be
drawing the university Non-NET fellowship and also working
as PGT in Navyug School, Gole Market, New Delhi from 22
Sept. 2012 to 31 March 2013 and has also drawn salary from
the school simultaneously which is a serious violation of
Ordinances and Regulations (Academic), [ Ordinance 9 (IX) 9.
(c) Cancellation of Registration in the Ph.D. Course].
xxx xxx xxx
Therefore, BOS recommends for recovery of the drawn Non-
NET fellowship from Ms. Bushra Salam during the period for
which she had drawn salary from school also. Further release
of Non-NET fellowship in the light above issue was not
recommended by BOS".
(emphasis supplied)
7. Upon a perusal of the reasons given by the Board of Studies,
this Court is of the view that the same are reasonable as well as based
on grounds which are germane and which call for no interference in
writ jurisdiction.
8. It is settled law that Courts are reluctant to interfere in the
academic matters, especially when decisions have been taken by a
body comprising academicians. In fact, the Supreme Court in
University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC
519 has held that in academic matters, unless there is clear violation of
statutory provisions, regulations or notification issued, Courts should
not interfere. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that
conclusions of the Expert Body call for no interference in writ
jurisdiction.
9. It is pertinent to mention that though the learned counsel for the
petitioner repeatedly emphasised that the Ph.D thesis had been
submitted by the petitioner as early as 3 rd September, 2013, yet this
Court is not impressed by the said contention, as from the paper book
it is apparent that the petitioner had been issued a prior warning letter
on 29th August, 2013 by the petitioner's Head of Department, wherein
it was stated that the petitioner had not been in contact with her
Supervisor from September, 2012. From the said letter, it is apparent
that the petitioner's alleged Ph.D thesis, which she claims to have
furnished on 3rd September, 2013, had not been approved by the
Supervisor. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Ph.D
thesis are not submitted in one go to the Supervisor but virtually every
chapter is first approved by the Supervisor and then the Ph.D thesis is
submitted in its entirety.
10. In view thereof, the present writ petition along with the
applications being bereft of merits are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
MARCH 03, 2016
KA
