Madras High Court
Dr. S. Murugesan vs The Registrar on 17 May, 2024
Bench: R.Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
W.A.No.1273 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.05.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No. 1273 of 2023
---
Dr. S. Murugesan
Assistant Professor
Department of Tamil
Loganatha Narayanasamy Government College
Ponneri - 601 204 .. Appellant
Versus
1. The Registrar
University of Madras
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
2. The Controller of Examination
University of Madras
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
3. R. Dhandapani
Son of V.C. Rajamanickam
No.62/69, Kamala Nagar 2nd Street
Thiruvottiyur, Chennai - 600 019 .. Respondents
Page 1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1273 of 2023
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent against the order
dated 21.02.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 4504 of 2023 on the file of this
Court.
For Appellant : Mr. R. Balaguruswamy
For Respondents : Mrs. V. Sudha for RR1 and 2
Mr. M. Kamalanathan for R3
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Mahadevan, J)
Education is a potent tool that can sculpt, shape as well as change the
future of a nation. The quality of education imparted will have a direct
impact on the development of the country, both sociologically as well as
economically. In fact, its progress will be gauged by the level of literacy and
education. An educated and informed citizen will be a major contributor to
the growth and progress of the nation in every sphere. With this brief prelude
on the significance and importance that we must attach to education, we
proceed to discuss the facts of the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the
order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge dismissing Writ Petition
No. 4504 of 2023 filed by him.
3. The appellant has filed the above Writ Petition No. 4504 of 2023
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to
consider his representation dated 12.12.2022 and to pass orders on merits
and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to enquire with the third
respondent by perusing the educational qualifications certificates and
consequently, pass an order revoking and recalling the Ph.D., degree
awarded to the third respondent with immediate effect, within a stipulated
time, as prescribed by this Court.
4.(i) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the appellant
stated that he is working as an Assistant Professor, Department of Tamil,
Loganatha Narayanasamy Government College, Ponneri. He was also
appointed as the Supervisor for the third respondent herein to pursue his
Ph.D. Programme on a part time basis for a period of four years from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24.05.2013 by the University of Madras, through a letter dated 21.06.2013
under the broad field of research topic "Thiruvasaga Pathika Kotpadu".
According to the appellant, the thesis of Ph.D. programme should be
submitted on or before 23.05.2019 and the research topic has to be submitted
before him for verification with the prescribed fees. When the thesis was
submitted by the third respondent, it was noticed that there are several
typographical errors committed by the third respondent and therefore, he
returned the thesis and advised the third respondent to produce the same after
rectification. However, the third respondent has given a representation dated
03.08.2017 to the respondents 1 and 2 to change the Supervisor (appellant)
and to appoint one Dr.K. Venkatesan, Principal, Head of Tamil, Kanchi Sri
Krishna Arts and Science College, Kancheepuram by alleging that the
appellant did not approve the records submitted by him. On the basis of such
representation, the respondents 1 and 2 changed the appellant as the
Supervisor of the third respondent and appointed another Supervisor,
through whom Ph.D. degree was awarded to the third respondent. It was
further submitted that the third respondent is not eligible for conferment of
Ph.D. Degree and the degree conferred on him is liable to be revoked. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant also referred to SHRC No. 1941 of 2019 filed by the third
respondent against him and one Dr.S. Saravanan, Saiva Siddhantha
Department, Head of Department, University of Madras before the State
Human Rights Commission, Chennai alleging that the appellant harassed
him by using his caste name and also demanded a bribe of Rs.5 lakhs for
approving the records submitted by him. The appellant also submitted that
ultimately, SHRC No. 1941 of 2019 was dismissed, against which, no appeal
was filed by the third respondent.
(ii) The appellant referred to the deposition of the third respondent
in his cross-examination in SHRC No. 1941 of 2019 and submitted that the
third respondent is not qualified for appointment as B.T. Assistant (Tamil) in
the respondents/University. The third respondent does not possess the
qualification of 10 + 2 + UG Degree + Post Graduate Degree and therefore,
he is not eligible to be conferred with a Ph.D. degree. Therefore, the
respondents 1 and 2 ought not to have appointed the third respondent in the
post of B.T. Assistant (Tamil) when he did not possess the requisite
qualification for holding the post. To be specific, it was contended that the
third respondent failed in Mathematics subjects in Higher Secondary (Plus
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Two) examination conducted during March 1995 and passed the same after
two years during March 1997. It was also contended that the third
respondent had pursued Bachelor of Literature in Tamil through Open
University and therefore, he is not entitled to be admitted to Ph.D.
programme at all as per G.O. Ms. No.107, Education Department dated
18.08.2009. The appellant also referred to the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University vs. Secretary to
Government, Information and Tourism Department and others reported in
2009 (4) SCC 590 to contend that the Open University degree obtained by
the third respondent will not entitle him to be conferred with a Ph.D. degree
as per the norms of the University Grants Commission. Therefore, the
appellant preferred the writ petition for the above said relief.
5. On 21.02.2023, when the writ petition was listed for admission,
the learned Judge held that under Service Law Jurisprudence, a Mandamus
cannot be issued under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, at the
instance of a third party, to an employer to take action against an employee.
Referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sudalaikannu vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal
Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai
and others in WP (MD) No. 8871 of 2018 dated 26.04.2018, the learned
Judge concluded that a third party cannot stand in the way between an
employee and employer in matters of service disputes, especially in the
context of disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, it was held by the learned
Judge, that the writ petitioner- appellant, who is a third party, cannot
maintain the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition filed by him.
Therefore, this writ appeal.
6. Assailing the above order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the
learned Judge in WP No. 4504 of 2023, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted there is no service dispute involved in the writ petition filed by the
appellant. Similarly, the appellant was not a third party to the writ
proceedings. The appellant was the supervisor appointed for the Ph.D.
programme pursued by the third respondent and therefore, he has locus
standi to maintain the writ petition against the third respondent. The
controversy raised in the writ petition relates to the eligibility and/or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prescribed qualification possessed by the third respondent to get admitted in
Ph.D. programme. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the
third respondent has made several omissions and commissions while
submitting the Ph.D. thesis and therefore, the appellant returned the same.
The appellant is fully aware of the capability, potential and eligibility of the
third respondent and that he is not entitled for being conferred the Ph.D.,
Degree. However, the third respondent was conferred with Ph.D. degree
and questioning the same, the writ petition was filed. The learned Judge did
not take note of the fact that before filing the writ petition, a representation
dated 12.12.2022 was submitted by him highlighting the fact that the third
respondent is ineligible to be conferred with a Ph.D. degree and requested
the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry thereof. But the said
representation was not considered. Therefore, the appellant has no other
alternative except to approach this Court with a Writ Petition for a
Mandamus. The learned counsel also submitted that the relief sought for by
the appellant is only to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry
in which the third respondent can also participate. However, the learned
Judge, without considering the nature of relief sought for by the appellant in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the writ petition, dismissed it on the ground of locus standi of the appellant
to maintain the writ petition and therefore, he prayed for allowing this
appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting third
respondent, by placing reliance on the counter affidavit dated 23rd January
2024 of the third respondent, submitted that the third respondent is in
possession of the requisite qualification of 10+2+3+2 and he is fully
qualified for registration to the Ph.D. programme. According to the learned
counsel for the third respondent, when the Ph.D. programme was in the final
stage, the appellant did not approve the thesis submitted by the third
respondent and demanded Rs.5 lakhs as bribe besides making remarks
against the caste to which the third respondent belonged. Therefore, he had
filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission. Thereafter, the
Principal of Loganatha Narayanasamy Government College, Ponneri issued
No Objection Certificate for change of Supervisor. Accordingly, the
respondents 1 and 2 allowed the change of Supervisor and the third
respondent was conferred with Ph.D. degree in accordance with the norms.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. As regards the qualification, as per Clause 2 of eligibility
conditions mentioned in the prospectus for admission to Ph.D. programme
for the year 2012-2013, those who completed Masters Degree with 50%
marks are entitled to register for Ph.D. Programme. Further, as per Check
List provided in appendix H of Clause I of the Admission procedure to
Ph.D., programme, even those with Open University Degree in
postgraduation are eligible for registration for Ph.D., programme. In this
case, the third respondent pursued B.Litt Degree through Institute of
Correspondence Education, University of Madras. As per Clause (1)
Regulation 2 of University Grants Commission, 1985, without +2
qualification, he can also join the three year degree course and complete it
subject to the condition that he shall be eligible for admission if he has
passed an entrance test conducted by the University. As per the above
Regulation, the third respondent was admitted to Ph.D. programme and such
admission is proper. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the third
respondent is fully qualified for provisional registration of Ph.D. programme
during the year 2012-2013 as per the University Grants Commission
Regulations and that the writ petition has been filed by the appellant only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
with an oblique motive to wreck vengeance and taking note of the same, the
learned Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the learned
counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the
third respondent and also perused the records.
10. On 02.06.2023, when this appeal was taken up for hearing , after
hearing the counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing counsel
for the respondents 1 and 2, we passed an order with certain observations,
which can be usefully reiterated in this judgment, as follows:-
".....
4. We do not intend to get into any of the
allegations made by the appellant against the third
respondent for the present.
5. Yet, we find that this is one of those instances,
where the University of Madras, one of the oldest and
premier Institute entering its 164th year of existence, has
grossly failed in its obligation to even verify the eligibility
criteria while admitting the 3rd Respondent for the Ph.D.
Programme. The eligibility for admission to Ph.D.
programme, in terms of Clause 2.1 of the Revised Ph.D.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Regulations based on UGC regulations, is that the
candidates shall have passed SSLC (10th or 11th
class/grade and PUC or higher secondary (12th grade)
before joining undergraduate (UG) programme (3 or more
years) and UG before joining PG degree programme. It
appears that the 3rd respondent herein had appeared for the
Higher Secondary Course Certificate (Vocational
Education) in March 1997 and failed in Mathematics
scoring only 24 marks as would be evident from the Mark
statement issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated
23.05.1997. Subsequently, he had passed B.A. Literature in
Tamil in October 2004 and cleared Tamil Pandit Training
Certificate Course from Periyar University in January 2007.
Thereafter, the 3 rd Respondent had appeared for the
Higher Secondary Board Exams and cleared Mathematics
by scoring 70 marks i.e., 35% in March 2012. It thus prima
facie appears that the third respondent does not satisfy the
eligibility criteria in terms of the Ph.D. regulations of the
University of Madras. However, he was provisionally
admitted to the Ph.D. programme vide proceedings dated
21.06.2013. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the 3rd respondent has since
been awarded Ph.D. Degree.
6. We find that prima facie there has been
complete apathy on the part of the respondent University,
while examining the eligibility of the 3rd respondent for
even being admitted for the Ph.D. Programme, that is
extremely disturbing to put it mildly. We say so since Ph.D.
is known and treated as a terminal degree. It is often the
highest level of formal education, a student can earn
through Universities and Colleges. Ph.D is a doctoral
degree in education which sets apart the holder of such
degree from other professionals. It is normally where
international level of talent is made, thus Educational
Institutions cannot afford to be lethargic nor can decisions
be permitted to be influenced by extraneous consideration. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
would then result in compromising on the merit and quality
at the highest level of education. The consequence is, we
would producing Midgetry, where Summitry is the
desideratum, that is dangerous/perilous. Any complacency
would have serious repercussions having an adverse
bearing not only on the individual, but on the University and
more importantly, the esteem/admiration/respect earned by
the genuine Ph.D Degree holders through dint of hard work
would give way to distrust/skepticism /suspicion, which we
would not rather cannot tolerate.
7. We find that the learned Single Judge has
strangely proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on a gross
misconception as to the very issue before him. He has
proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the premise that
the appellant/writ petitioner is a third party and that, in a
dispute between an employee and employer, a third party
would have no role. The following passage is relevant:
“As such the petitioner herein, who is not an employee
and is a third party, cannot maintain the present Writ
Petition.”
We don’t think that the issue arises for consideration
even remotely in the Writ Petition filed to enquire whether
the 3rd respondent who has been awarded Ph.D degree is
even eligible to be admitted to the Ph.D. programme.
8. Taking into account the gravity of the issue,
which prima facie involves remissness at the highest level in
the field of education, we are inclined to call for a report
from the authorities concerned. Accordingly, as an interim
measure, we direct the respondent University to conduct an
enquiry on the representation submitted by the appellant,
after issuing due notice to both the parties, viz., the
appellant and the third respondent, and submit its report
within a period of four weeks.
9. Post the matter after four weeks. Notice to the third
respondent through court as well as privately by then."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. Pursuant to the above order dated 22.06.2023, passed by this
court, the respondents 1 and 2 have constituted a two member committee
presided by Justice P. Jyothimani, former Judge of this Court and Dr. E.
Murugesan, Professor and Head and Dean (Research) Department of
Physical Chemistry, University of Madras. According to the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the committee met on
27.07.2023 and 23.08.2023 and after enquiring the appellant as well as the
third respondent, a report dated 30.08.2023 was submitted by the two
member committee. A copy of the report was furnished before this Court by
the learned Standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and we have gone
through the same. The findings of the enquiry committee are relevant for
being considered by us in this appeal, which read as follows:-
"1. As per the University guidelines, Mr. R.
Dhandapani lacked the prescribed qualification for
admission to Ph.D., in 2013, as he has not complied with the
requirement of 10 + 2 + 3 + 2 pattern in spirit as he has not
completed his HSC by passing all papers before going to the
three years degree course, which is the requirement for
admission into Ph.D., course. His undergoing foundation
case in the degree programme as per the Statute may save
his B.Litt., degree. But for admission to Ph.D., he should
have passed all papers in HSC at the time of joining B.Litt.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
But equally the Departmental Selection Committee with Dr.
S. Murugesan, heading it, recommended the name of Mr. R.
Dhandapani, which should have been after verifying the
certificates of the candidate, as per Appendix-H (a) and (b)
extracted above. Having failed in his duty while
recommending the name of Mr. R. Dhandapani, as early as
on 26.09.2012, it is too late for him to make a complaint to
the Controller of Examinations of the University on
20.09.2018, after the relationship between him and Mr. R.
Dhandapani has become strained. This is mere approbation
and reprobation not expected of the category of teachers. If
only he had complained of this at the earliest point of time,
the entire damage to the institution would have been
averted. The University officials relying upon the prospectus
simply believed the Departmental Selection Committee that
they would have verified the certificates of the candidates.
Therefore, in our view fault cannot be attributed wholly on
the University staff, even though it is true that they could
have cross checked the candidates.
2. There is no flaw in the assessment of the
research work of the candidate, Mr. R. Dandapani, by the
University in all stages either by the Doctoral Committee,
evaluation by the external and internal examiners, including
the vivo voice conducted resulting in the conferment of Ph.D.
degree to him.
3. A perusal of the Madras University Act and the
Statutes made thereunder by the Authorities of the
University, shows that there is no power to the University to
cancel the degree already awarded as per the Statute. In any
event, we are of the view that after placing all the facts, we
should follow the decision that may be given by the
Honourable High Court. We also recommend that in order
to avoid repetition of this sort unwanted problems in future,
particularly relating to admission of candidates in Ph.D.,
programmes, an internal circular may be issued by the
Authority of the University that the concerned section should
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
also verify the certificates of the candidate apart from the
correctness of the same before granting provisional
registration to any candidate."
12. At the outset, we are inclined to deal with the question of locus
standi of the appellant to file the writ petition. According to the third
respondent, the writ petition has been filed only as a litigation to settle
personal scores and wreck vengeance against him. There is nothing for being
adjudicated in the writ petition at the instance of the appellant-writ petitioner
especially when the third respondent had obtained Ph.D. degree after
following all the procedures in place. Merely because the appellant was
appointed as Supervisor to assist the third respondent to obtain Ph.D. degree,
it will not give rise to any locus standi to file the writ petition.
14. The learned Judge, accepting the plea of the third respondent
and by placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court
in Sudalaikannu case, held that the appellant is a third party to the dispute
inter se and he is not entitled to maintain the writ petition. The learned Judge
also held that in matters of service dispute, a litigation engineered by a third
party cannot be entertained and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the appellant.
15. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as
also the Memorandum of grounds of writ petition, it is clear that what is
sought to be adjudicated at the instance of the appellant does not involve any
service dispute. The appellant has not raised any claim with reference to the
appointment, seniority or promotion conferred to the third respondent. What
was questioned is the breach of certain norms required to be followed for
pursuing the Ph.D. programme by the third respondent. Above all, the
appellant also specifically contended that the third respondent is unsuitable
to possess a Ph.D. Degree. Having regard to the above submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, when this writ appeal was taken up for hearing, we
directed the respondents-University to conduct an enquiry on the
representation made by the appellant, and submit its report, after affording
opportunity of hearing to the third respondent to put forth his defence.
Accordingly, a committee was appointed and an enquiry was conducted in
which the appellant as well as the third respondent participated. After
conclusion of the enquiry, the committee also submitted a report dated
30.08.2023 which was taken on record by this Court. In such circumstances,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the question of maintainability of the writ petition has lost significance for
our consideration, particularly because the appellant has raised serious
allegations as against the third respondent with reference to the manner in
which he has breached certain norms and/or parameters laid down for
pursuing Ph.D. programme. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the illegalities
brought to its notice, by citing technical reasons on the locus standi of the
petitioner, as the sweep of this Court’s powers under Article 226 is wide.
Therefore, without adopting a hyper-technical approach, especially in view
of the glaring facts that the Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to, we are
inclined to examine the allegations levelled by the appellant in the light of
the report dated 30.08.2023 submitted by the Committee constituted by the
respondents 1 and 2 as per the directions issued by us.
15. On perusal of the report submitted by the 2 Member Enquiry
Committee on 30.08.2023, it is evident that the third respondent, without the
prescribed qualification, was admitted to the Ph.D. programme. The said
also suggests that before admitting the third respondent, the educational
testimonials ought to have been thoroughly verified. The report also blamed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellant for having recommended the name of the third respondent at
the first instance, without even verifying his credentials. The report proceeds
to state that if the appellant had complained about the credentials of the third
respondent at the earliest stage, much damage to the reputation of the
University could have been averted. Ultimately, it was concluded by the 2
Member Enquiry Committee that as per the Statutes of the University, there
is no provision to cancel the degree already conferred on the third
respondent. However, the 2 Member Enquiry Committee also recommended
that in order to avoid admitting an ineligible person to Ph.D. programme in
future, the certificates of the candidate as well as the veracity of the
certificates has to be thoroughly verified before according provisional
registration to any candidate.
16. It is further revealed that the 2 Member Enquiry Committee
verified all the documents provided to substantiate the educational
qualification and/or academic standard of the third respondent before
submitting the report. The report of the enquiry committee discloses that the
third respondent was ineligible for being recommended or appointed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pursue Ph.D. programme in the respondents University. It was the
categorical finding of the 2 Member Enquiry Committee that the third
respondent has not fulfilled the requirements of 10 + 2 + 3 +2 pattern of
education and therefore, he is ineligible for admission to Ph.D. programme.
When such a categorical finding has been rendered by the committee, which
is not disputed by the third respondent, we are of the view that the admission
of the third respondent to Ph.D. programme is a flaw committed by the
respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, the Ph.D., degree conferred on the third
respondent has to be declared as void. We are also in agreement with the 2
Member Enquiry Committee on the aspect that the appellant should have
raised the issue regarding the ineligibility of the third respondent at the
earliest point in time. A stitch in time could have saved nine. Here, it is seen
that the first time when the appellant raised this issue was on 12.12.2022,
much after some personal battles were fought between him and the third
respondent. This also put his allegations under a cloud at first blush.
However, while placing the above on record, we must also state that delay
cannot defeat the factum of the third respondent's ineligibility once proved
true.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. A person who holds a Ph.D. degree will act as a mentor for
others to pursue such degree. The holder of a Ph.D., degree will act as a
catalyst for many other students to obtain such degree. The guidance,
briefing, counselling and sharing of the experience by the holder of a Ph.D.
degree to his peers will be emulated by them. The “academic integrity” is
the intellectual honesty and originality in proposing, performing and
reporting any activity, which leads to the creation of intellectual property.
While so, the person who acts as a mentor must be free from any
blameworthy conduct as otherwise it will spell disastrous consequences for
several others to be emulated. In this case, when the Ph.D. degree conferred
on the third respondent is not proper as it is apparent now that he had flouted
and breached several norms for obtaining such degree, the wrong committed
cannot be allowed to be perpetuated any further. Above all, the appellant,
who was his counsellor for pursuing the Ph.D. degree has made serious
allegations with reference to his competitiveness and competence to pursue
the degree, and the various omissions and commissions made in submitting
the thesis during such programme. Taking note of the above and the specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reasoning assigned by the 2 Member Enquiry Committee in its report dated
30.08.2023, we are of the view that the learned Judge ought to have allowed
the writ petition filed by the appellant herein by issuing a Mandamus as
prayed for, instead of hinging on technicality that the appellant has no locus
standi to file the writ petition.
18. In the present case, it is glaringly evident that the Ph.D. degree
awarded to the third respondent is a result of illegality as he was not eligible
even to be admitted into the University. Now, in the report of the 2 Member
Enquiry Committee, it is stated that the university lacks power to canceling
the degree awarded to a candidate. Therefore, the question arises as to what
are the circumstances under which the Ph.D. degree conferred on a candidate
can be cancelled, who is authorised to cancel the Ph.D. degree awarded to
the candidate and whether the University or the University Grants
Commission is not competent to pass appropriate orders for cancellation of
the degree already conferred.
19. In India, there is no direct authority provided to the University
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to cancel the Ph.D. degree awarded to a candidate by the University Grants
Commission irrespective of the fact whether such degree was conferred by
following the norms or not. The role of the UGC mainly deals with the
setting and maintaining academic standards and guidelines for the
Universities and Colleges in India. However, if there are concerns about the
validity or legitimacy of a PhD programme awarded by the University, the
UGC can interfere through (i) recognition and approval (ii) guidelines and
Regulations and (iii) investigation and recommendations. The University
Grants Commission is the sole authority to grant recognition and approval to
Universities and Colleges. If there has been an established fact found that the
university has been consistently awarding degrees fraudulently or in any
forms of illegality, the UGC can withhold or revoke the recognition granted
to the university and not the degree already conferred on a candidate. The
UGC is the authority which issues guidelines and Regulations to be followed
by the Universities and Colleges. This includes the awarding of a PhD
degree, eligibility criteria, evaluation procedures and standards for thesis
evaluation. If there is any deviation found by the UGC, then disciplinary
action can be taken which may include withholding recognition. In any case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
there is a recognition of academic fraud/misconduct, the UGC may appoint a
committee or conduct investigations to inquire into the matter. The UGC can
recommend appropriate actions to the concerned universities, government
authorities or regulatory bodies if there is any form of illegality found. The
UGC serves as an advocate for academic integrity and quality in higher
education. The definition of academic integrity is defined in section 2(a) of
the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and
Prevention of Plagiarism in higher educational institutions) Regulations,
2018. In this context, the Honourable Supreme Court, in Osmania
University Teachers Association vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
[(1987) 4 SCC 671, has issued certain guidelines and it can be useful to refer
to the same as under:
“30. The Constitution of India vests Parliament with
exclusive authority in regard to coordination and
determination of standards in institutions for higher
education. The Parliament has enacted the U.G.C. Act
for that purpose. The University Grants Commission
has, therefore, a greater role to play in shaping the
academic life of the country. It shall not falter or fail
in its duty to maintain a high standard in the
Universities. Democracy depends for its very life on a
high standard of general, vocational and professional
education. Dissemination of learning with search for
new knowledge with discipline all round must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
maintained at all costs. It is hoped that the University
Grants Commission will duly discharge its
responsibility to the Nation and play an increasing
role to bring about the needed transformation in the
academic life of the Universities.”
20. In the case of Annamalai University rep. by Registrar v.
Secretary to the Government of Information and Tourism Department and
ors. (Civil Appeal no. 4173 of 2008) it was held as under:-
"32. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High
Court is correct in rendering the opinion in the manner it did
in its judgment.
33. It is also not a case as has been contended by Mr.
K. Parasaran as also Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran, that we should
invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India. Writ petitioners - respondents have moved the High
Court at the earliest possible opportunity. It is a case of
promotion. It is not a case of fresh entry in services. Our
judgment would not affect the service of appellant Ramesh.
He cannot only be promoted to the post of Principal of the
Institute. Even in the earlier round of litigation, the Madras
High Court opined:
"9. When all these reasons have been given by the
Government for appointing the appellant as the
Principal, we see no arbitrariness in the appointment
and in particular, when the stand of the University
Grants Commission is clear that on the date when the
appellant obtained his M.A. Degree, it was possible for
a person who did not have the basic degree to obtain
the M.A. degree, the order appointing the appellant as
the principal cannot be quashed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. Thus, the UGC cannot directly interfere in the case, but on
looking at the seriousness of the irregularities committed by the third
respondent as well as by the respondents 1 and 2 in admitting the third
respondent, there has to be some measure to be taken for cancellation of the
Ph.D degree awarded to the third respondent and it cannot be buried under
the carpet.
22. Similarly, National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) also is not empowered to cancel the PhD degree awarded to a
candidate. But the action of NAAC can influence the University's academic
qualification and integrity. In the present case, though the NAAC cannot
directly interfere with the issue, it can interfere as the institutions with
NAAC accreditation may be more motivated to uphold academic standards
and address instances of academic misconduct to maintain their accreditation
status and reputation.
23. Even in the absence of the respondents-University or the NAAC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to cancel the Ph.D degree awarded to the third respondent, this Court cannot
allow the irregularity to be perpetuated. This Court, under Article 226 of
The Constitution of India, has enormous power to set right an irregularity
and it cannot shut its eyes to the illegalities perpetuated by anyone.
24. As per the statute of the University, the sole authority who can
cancel the Ph.D degree awarded to the Respondent No. 3 is the University of
Madras but due to limitation, the University lacks the right to revoke the
degree awarded. Therefore, when it is brought to our notice regarding the
irregularities committed in the matter of award of Ph.D., degree to the third
respondent, it is our duty to interfere to uphold the standard of education
imparted in the respondents University. In this regard, useful reference can
be made to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Sheeja Vs. Principal
Secretary (O.P. No. 12108 of 2001) wherein it was held thus:-
“17. Courts Are not infrequently faced with a dilemma
between breach of the rules of natural justice and the Court's
discretion to refuse relief even though rules of natural justice
have been breached, on the ground that no real prejudice
caused to the affected party."
If therefore, we interfere with the order on the ground of
failure to follow the rule of natural justice, the result would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that certain persons who have been prima facie appointed
illegally would be enabled to retain their allegedly ill-gotten
benefits. Rule of natural justice is not a shield to protect
illegality. The court should not be party to perpetuating
illegality by means of issuance of writ of certiorari.”
25. In the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to invoke and
exercise its inherent powers in the backdrop of the application of the
principles of natural justice and the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness.
On an application of the Wednesbury Principle, it can be stated that even if
the court lacks the authority to directly interfere in the present case, it can
order the governmental agencies and concerned authorities to act as per the
decision. If the cancellation of the degree is challenged on the grounds of
regulatory oversight, courts may review the actions of regulatory bodies such
as the University Grants Commission (UGC) or the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NAAC) to determine if they have acted within their
legal authority.
26. The instant case is a classic example of a case where this Court
can well exercise its authority to interfere with the illegality that has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
brought before it and it would not be fair if this court ignores the illegality.
The concept of public interest has to be given more importance. If the
fraudulently gained Ph.D. degree is left alone without taking any proper
action by the authorities on the ground that they are incompetent to do so as
per the statute, it will lead to a situation where such illegalities would galore
which would collapse the system of education in our country. In the case of
S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Another, 1981 (Supp) SCC 87, the
Honourable Supreme Court analyzed the importance of public interest and
Justice Bhagwati observed that:
".. It is for this reason that in public interest litigation
litigation undertaken for the purpose of redressing public
injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective,
'diffused' rights and interests or vindicating public interest, any
citizen who is acting bona fide and who has sufficient interest
has to be accorded standing.."
27. The limitation within which the Court must act, and the caution
against the abuse of the same is referred to by Bhagwati J. at page 219 as
follows:-
"24. But we must be careful to see that the member of the
public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting
bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court
must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and
others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a
political objective. Andre Rabie has warned that "political
pressure groups who could not achieve their aims through the
administrative process" and we might add, through the
political process, "may try to use the courts to further their
aims". These are some of the dangers in public interest
litigation which the court has to be careful to avoid. It is also
necessary for the court to bear in mind that there is a vital
distinction between locus standi and justiciability and it is not
every default on the part of the State or a public authority that
is justiciable. The court must take care to see that it does not
overstep the limits of its judicial function and trespass into
areas which are reserved to the Executive and the Legislature
by the Constitution. It is a fascinating exercise for the court to
deal with public interest litigation because it is a new
jurisprudence which the court is evolving a jurisprudence
which demands judicial statesmanship and high creative
ability. The frontiers of public law are expanding far and wide
and new concepts and doctrines which will change the
complexion of the law and which were so far as embedded in
the womb of the future, are beginning to be born.
25. Before we part with this general discussion in regard to
locus standi, there is one point we would like to emphasise and
it is, that cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public
injury by the act or omission of the State or a public authority
but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to
an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In
such cases, a member of the public having sufficient interest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
can certainly maintain an action challenging the legality of
such act or omission, but if the person or specific class or
group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such
act or omission, do not wish to claim any relief and accept such
act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of
the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot
maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at
the instance of such member of the public would be to foist a
relief on the person or specific class or group of persons
primarily injured, which they do not want.”
28. In the case of Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v.
Employees Assn. reported at (2007) 4 SCC 669, this Court held that the
doctrine of proportionality has not only arrived in our legal system but is
here to stay. With the increasing presence and visibility of administrative law
and the need to control possible abuse of discretionary powers by various
administrative authorities, certain principles have been evolved by reference
to which the action of such authorities can be judged. If any action taken by
an authority is contrary to law, improper, irrational or otherwise
unreasonable, a court competent to do so can interfere with the same while
exercising its power of judicial review. The above mentioned principles are
applicable to this case. Though the appellant/writ petitioner has no direct
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
connection to institute the writ petition and when some irregularity has been
brought to our notice, necessary action has to be taken to curb the practice of
illegal award of degrees in educational institutions. Education stands as one
primary source of the future and this cannot be taken for granted by any
authority, including the judicial bodies.
29. For all the above reasons, the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by
the learned Judge in W.P. No.4504 of 2023 is set aside. As a sequitur, the
Ph.D. Degree conferred on the third respondent by the respondents 1 and 2 is
declared as void and the respondents/University are directed to take
necessary action against the third respondent.
30. Before bringing the curtains down, bearing in mind, the decline
in the educational standard and taking a cue from the report of the 2 Member
Enquiry Committee, and also in view of the fact that the University is
powerless to cancel a degree awarded as per the statute, we suggest that the
respondent University shall issue a circular to the officer concerned to
initially verify the genuineness of the certificates of the candidates before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
granting provisional registration to them to any degree in future.
31. With the above observation and direction, this writ appeal
stands allowed. No costs.
[R.M.D., .J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
17.05.2024
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
rsh
To
1. The Registrar
University of Madras
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
2. The Controller of Examination
University of Madras
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rsh
17.05.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
