Uttarakhand High Court
Vice Chancellor And Another ...... ... vs Priyaneet Kaur on 5 December, 2023
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA
SPA NO.448 OF 2021
05TH DECEMBER, 2023
Vice Chancellor and another ...... Appellants
Vs.
Priyaneet Kaur ...... Respondent
Counsel for the appellants :Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent :Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel.
JUDGMENT:
(per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
This intra-court appeal is filed by the Vice
Chancellor, Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun
challenging the judgment and order dated 06.10.2021
passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S)
No.1832 of 2020. By the impugned judgment, the
University authorities were directed to hold meeting of
Research Degree Committee within a period of two
months. Operative portion of the said judgment is
extracted below:
"In view of the finding of the inquiry report, which
has been extracted above, the respondent no.1, do not
dispute the fact that the petitioner's and similar other placed
candidates, who were included in the list appended with the
said report, they were all found eligible and qualified for the
grant of admission, in the respective Ph.D. programes for
their respective disciplines for which they have applied.
In the report thus submitted, the petitioner's name
figures at serial no.128 and the discipline for which she was
shown to have been admitted on 19.08.2017, is shown as
English. In fact in view of the contents of said report, no
fault could be found, so far it relates to the petitioner in
granting admission to her, for the Ph.D in 2017, and hence
merely because of the fact that there was a complaint
against the then Vice Chancellor and Assistant Examination
Controller, who were in the helm of affairs in 2017, against
whom some inquiry has been directed to be conducted,
merely because of some allegations of faulty selection
process being adopted by them for grant of admission, I am
of the view that, that pendency of the inquiry proceedings
against their own officials will not create any embargo, for
the respondent no.1 to conduct the Research Degree
Committee proceedings, for the grant of Ph.D. degree to the
petitioner and as such other similarly eligible candidates,
which have been otherwise, held to be eligible in pursuance
to the report of 31.07.2021.
Pendency of the inquiry proceedings, against the then
Vice Chancellor and Assistant Examination Controller of
2017, may not prejudice the rights of the students, who are
otherwise validly admitted in 2017, because it is their
academics, which has to play a predominant role to be
considered by this Court, because they cannot be made to
suffer, because of some inquiry, which has been kept
pending at the behest of the respondents University for an
indefinite period, as against their own officials. The
conducting of RDC for considering the petitioner's
candidature for the grant of Ph.D. degree would be
conducted by the respondents forthwith irrespective of and
without being influenced by the fact of pendency of inquiry
against the then Vice Chancellor and Assistant Examination
Controller. The decision of the RDC would be taken by
respondent no.1 within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order.
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of."
2. Said judgment has been challenged by the
University only on the ground that, a vigilance inquiry
regarding affairs of the University was ordered by the
State Government, which is still pending, therefore it
would not be possible for the University to hold meeting
of Research Degree Committee. When a pointed query
was posed to learned counsel for the petitioner as to
whether there is any legal embargo or impediment in
holding meeting of Research Degree Committee during
pendency of vigilance inquiry, his answer was in the
negative.
3. The respondent, who was petitioner in the writ
petition, had taken admission in Ph.D. programme during
the academic session 2017-18 and even after six years
respondent is not able to submit her thesis due to
inaction on the part of University in convening meeting of
Research Degree Committee.
4. Respondent was admitted in Ph.D. programme
and a committee constituted by the University has found
her admission to be proper, therefore non holding of
meeting of Research Degree Committee for six long years
only on the ground that a vigilance inquiry is pending
against the University authorities, cannot be treated as
valid justification. The learned Single Judge was, thus,
justified in directing University authorities to hold
meeting of Research Degree Committee within two
months.
5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment, especially when there is no
statutory bar in holding the meeting of Research Degree
Committee.
6. In such view of the matter, the appeal is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, ACJ.
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.
Dated: 5th DECEMBER, 2023
BS
