Rajasthan High Court
Hemant Kumar S/O Shri Rameshwar ... vs University Of Rajasthan on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2922/2017
Hemant Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad, aged about 38
years, R/o 6/101, Moti Nagar, Queens Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. University of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nahru Marg, Jaipur,
Through its Registrar.
2. Deputy Registrar (Research), University of Rajasthan,
Jawahar Lal Nahru Marg, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
4. Professor Naresh Dadhich (Retd.), Head Department of
Political Science, University of Rajasthan, R/o 2-d, 12,
Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vimal Choudhary, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Dr.Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr.Chayan Bothra,
Advocate.
Mr.Ashish Sharma, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
ORDER
25/07/2022
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who
is a student of Ph.D. challenging the orders dated 30.01.2016 and
02.01.2017 cancelling registration of the petitioner for doing Ph.D.
Course from the respondent-University of Rajasthan (hereinafter
shall be referred to as "the respondent-University"). The petitioner
has also prayed in the writ petition that a direction may be issued
(2 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
to revive his Ph.D. registration and further permit the change of
Guide for completing Ph.D. Degree.
2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner in his
writ petition, are that the petitioner after acquiring the
qualification of M.Phil. and Post Graduation in Philosophy &
Political Science, qualified UGC-NET Examination for eligibility for
Lectureship in Political Science. The petitioner appeared in the
pre-Ph.D. Entrance Examination for undergoing Ph.D. Course in
the year 2012 and cleared the said Examination.
3. The petitioner received his registration letter whereby he was
informed by the respondent-University that he was to do his Ph.D.
Degree under the supervision of Dr.Naresh Dadhich, Department
of Political Science, University of Rajasthan (hereinafter shall be
referred to as "the respondent No.4"). The petitioner has pleaded
that he was pursing his research work but his Supervisor, the
respondent No.4, showed his inability to continue as Supervisor of
the petitioner due to his busy schedule and as such, the petitioner
submitted an application on 29.06.2015 to change his Supervisor
and Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal had given his consent to be the
Supervisor of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has pleaded that application of the petitioner
dated 29.06.2015 was sent to the Deputy Registrar (Research)
whereby the petitioner had made a request that permission may
be granted to change the Guide and research work may be
permitted to be undertaken under the supervision of Dr.Shyam
Mohan Agarwal.
(3 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
5. The petitioner has pleaded that Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal,
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of
Rajasthan on 01.07.2015 had given his consent to permit the
petitioner to undergo Ph.D. research work under him and the said
consent letter was countersigned by the Head, Department of
Political Science, University of Rajasthan - the Supervisor of the
petitioner i.e. respondent No.4.
6. The petitioner has pleaded that a letter dated 26.11.2015
was received by him whereby he was asked to submit his
explanation within 30 days as why his registration may not be
cancelled, as per the report submitted by the Supervisor of the
petitioner.
7. The petitioner has pleaded that by the impugned letter/order
dated 30.01.2016, the petitioner was informed that his
registration of Ph.D. was cancelled, as was recommended by his
Supervisor.
8. The petitioner submitted his representation on 09.02.2016,
02.05.2016 & 09.08.2016 and thereafter, the petitioner was
communicated vide impugned order dated 02.01.2017 that his
request for revival of Ph.D. registration, was not accepted by the
respondent-University.
9. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned
orders dated 30.01.2016 and 02.01.2017, has submitted that
these orders have been passed in arbitrary manner and the
petitioner was not at fault, as the earlier Guide was busy with his
official work and he refused to continue as Guide of the petitioner
and the petitioner had also sent the consent of the new Guide.
(4 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
10. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent-
University has passed a non-speaking order and no reason has
been assigned as what was the basis for passing the impugned
orders and as such, the University authorities have misused their
powers to harass the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste
category.
11. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that revival of
Ph.D. registration of the petitioner was not undertaken by keeping
in mind the irrelevant factors and the University authorities have
deprived the petitioner to pursue his career without any
justification.
12. The respondent-University (respondent Nos.1 & 2) has filed
reply to the writ petition and pleaded that it was communicated by
the petitioner's Guide vide letter dated 21.11.2015 that work of
the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not interested in
pursuing Ph.D. and accordingly, the Supervisor & Head of the
petitioner made recommendation for cancellation of Ph.D.
registration of four candidates including the petitioner.
13. The respondent-University has pleaded that in pursuance of
the letter, received from the Guide, a notice was issued to the
petitioner asking for his explanation, before cancellation of Ph.D.
registration. However, the petitioner being served with the notice,
did not appear either before the University authorities or his Guide
and, as such, the matter, for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of
the petitioner, was placed before the Vice Chancellor of the
respondent-University and thereafter, the petitioner was informed
about cancellation of his Ph.D. registration.
(5 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
14. The respondent-University has further pleaded that the
application, said to have been submitted by the petitioner on
29.06.2015 and letter dated 01.07.2015, requesting for change of
his Supervisor, were never received by them and the petitioner
has submitted the said communications with his letter dated
09.02.2016, as an afterthought, in order to develop his case for
re-registration of Ph.D.
15. The respondent-University has also pleaded that
representation of the petitioner was considered in the meeting of
the Dean's Committee held on 04.03.2016 and it was found that
since cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner was done,
after following the proper procedure and the same had been
approved by the Vice Chancellor, the request of petitioner could
not be considered for revival of Ph.D. registration.
16. The respondent-University has further pleaded that after
receipt of representation from the petitioner, the matter was re-
considered by the Dean's Committee held on 18.11.2016 &
05.12.2016 whereby the request of the petitioner for revival of
Ph.D. registration was considered and the same was not accepted.
17. The respondent-University has prayed that since due
procedure was followed by them before cancellation of Ph.D.
registration of the petitioner, as such, the writ petition filed by him
may be dismissed by this Court.
18. The petitioner, during pendency of the writ petition, has filed
an additional affidavit and the respondent No.4 Dr.Naresh Dadhich
filed a counter to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and
(6 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
also filed an additional affidavit denying the allegations leveled
against him.
19. The respondent No.4 has pleaded that academic conduct of
the petitioner was not up to the mark and the same was pathetic
and rife with plagiarism. The respondent No.4 has also pleaded
that the letter dated 01.07.2015 was countersigned by him in
good faith, upon request of the petitioner but the said letter was
not submitted by the petitioner to the University authorities.
20. The respondent No.4 has reiterated that due to poor
academic performance of the petitioner and despite repeated
reminders, the notice dated 26.11.2015 was issued to him, as the
petitioner was not interested in pursuing Ph.D.
21. The respondent No.4 has pleaded that communication dated
02.05.2016 was only issued to save the petitioner's academic
future and as such, considering the entire facts and unsatisfactory
performance of the petitioner, the respondent-University had to
take a decision for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the
petitioner.
22. Counsel for the petitioner, while concluding his arguments,
submitted that guidelines were issued by the respondent-
University after a meeting of Syndicate held on 01.07.2019 and
new amendments have been made in the University Ordinance to
govern grant of M.Phil & Ph.D. Degrees. Counsel, on the strength
of the said guidelines, submitted that if the work of a Research
Scholar is unsatisfactory, the Research Advisory Committee shall
record the reasons for the same and suggest corrective measures
and if the Research Scholar fails to implement these corrective
(7 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
measures, the Research Advisory Committee may recommend to
the Department Research Committee with specific reasons for
cancellation of registration of the Research Scholar.
23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
24. The primary question for consideration before this Court is
with regard to validity of orders passed by the respondent-
University whereby Ph.D. registration of the petitioner has been
cancelled.
25. This Court finds that registration of the petitioner for Ph.D.
Course was done under the guidance and supervision of the
respondent No.4 Dr.Naresh Dadhich and the Guide of the
petitioner had written a letter to the Vice Chancellor on
23.11.2015, whereby research work of four persons including the
petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and all of them were
found not interested in pursuing Ph.D.
26. This Court finds that after receiving letter from the Guide of
the petitioner, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and
the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice, did not
file any reply.
27. This Court further finds that if the petitioner had any
grievance against proposed cancellation of his Ph.D. registration,
the proper course was to submit his response by narrating the
complete facts as why the decision of the respondent-University
was erroneous for cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the
petitioner.
(8 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
28. This Court further finds that the case of the petitioner, after
cancellation of his Ph.D. registration was examined by the
University-Authorities on two occasions and the request of the
petitioner and three other similarly situated candidates for revival
of registration for Ph.D. degree, was rejected.
29. This Court finds that if the Guide of the petitioner had found
that the work of the petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not
interested in pursuing his Ph.D., no inference can be drawn by this
Court that Guide of the petitioner has acted in any mala-fide or
discriminatory manner to deprive the petitioner from continuing
with his Ph.D. Course.
30. This Court further finds that it was not the case of the
petitioner alone but there were three other similarly situated
candidates under the same Guide-Dr.Naresh Dadhich, who were
not pursuing the Course in proper manner and as such
recommendation of the Guide was kept in mind by the University-
Authorities before cancellation of the Ph.D. registration and that
too after serving a show cause notice to the person concerned
before taking a final view in the matter.
31. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that a
request was made by the petitioner to change his Guide and
consent was also communicated by new Guide to permit the
petitioner to have research work and as such reference of letters
dated 29.06.2015 and 01.07.2015 are concerned, this Court finds
that these letters have not been admitted by the respondent-
University, as they never received these letters.
(9 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
32. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
University-Authorities have acted arbitrarily in cancelling the Ph.D.
registration of the petitioner, this Court finds that if the petitioner
was not pursuing his course in proper manner and even his Guide-
respondent No.4 has given his report about poor performance of
the petitioner and the same being reflected in the additional
affidavit filed before this Court wherein remarks has also been
given about poor performance of the petitioner, this Court cannot
assume that the respondent No.4 in any manner acted in
vindictive manner to deprive the petitioner to continue his Course.
33. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a
judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.2111 of
2013 [Jitender Kumar Vs. Jamia Millia Islamia & Ors.] dated
11.11.2013. This Court, on careful reading of the said judgment,
finds that the Delhi High Court has set aside the cancellation order
of Ph.D. in that case on account of the petitioner not given proper
show cause notice and opportunity of hearing with respect to the
alleged poor performance and failure to submit six monthly
progress report. The Delhi High Court found that the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner in that case proposing cancellation
of Ph.D. was on the ground that no faculty member was wiling to
be appointed his Supervisor but the show cause notice was given
for a different reason and as such the Delhi High Court allowed the
writ petition. The said case has no application in the present
matter, as in the present case, proper show cause notice was
given to the petitioner and even he failed to file any reply to the
said show cause notice.
(10 of 10) [CW-2922/2017]
34. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The
writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Solanki DS, PS
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
