Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J Heard Sri Indal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 7th July, 2012 passed by the University refusing to accept the decision taken by the Research Degree Committee on 10th August, 2009 for allowing the petitioner to pursue his D.Sc.
Sri Indal Singh submits that the petitioner has completed his entire research work and has prepared his thesis as a research scholar for award of D.Sc. Now at the fag end of completion, he has been informed that his registration as a D.Sc. Scholar itself was not in accordance with the ordinances.
Sri Indal Singh contends that the power with the Research Degree Committee exists so as to grant relaxation and exemption and therefore in exercise of such powers the decision of the Research Degree Committee dated 10th August, 2009 cannot be set aside or annulled by the University. In essence the submission is that once the power is there with the Research Degree Committee, particularly the provisions of Clause 25 of the Ordinances applicable, then in that event the University on its own could not have taken this decision to annul the order of the Research Degree Committee referred to hereinabove.
Replying to the aforesaid submissions Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the University contends that the Research Degree Committee is only a recommending body in relation to such cases where the candidate does not possess a Ph.D. Degree. He relies on Clause 19 of the Ordinances to contend that either a candidate should be in possession of a Ph.D. Degree or he must be a person who has been allowed to supplicate for D.Sc. directly by the Academic Council on the advice of a Committee as referred to therein. He contends that the petitioner does not fall in either of these categories. He was allowed by the Research Degree Committee without authority in law to carry on his research work.
The contention of the University is that the Research Degree Committee as defined under Clause 25 is only a recommending body for the purpose of considering the relaxation which recommendation may be final but the same has to be subject to the decision of the Academic Council. He relies on Clause 25 (d)(ii) which is as follows:-
"Clause 25 (d)(ii). The recommendation of the R.D.C. shall be referred to the Academic Council for its consideration, in case the R.D.C. Rejects the application of the candidate.
The Academic Council if it so decides may refer such recommendation back to the R.D.C. for its reconsideration after back to the R.D.C. for its recommendation after starting the reasons."
It is therefore submitted that the petitioner had absolutely no right to pursue his D.Sc. Course in the University as he was ineligible to be enrolled as such.
Sri Indal Singh in rejoinder contends that this information is being given after almost four years and the act of the respondent is unjustified.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Ordinances, Clause 19 of the Ordinance is categorical and it defines the minimum eligibility criteria to be possessed by a candidate for the purpose of enrollment. Clause 19 is extracted here under:-
"Clause 19. A candidate for registration for the degree of D.Litt. or D.Sc. must possess a Ph.D. Degree in the subject concern of a University (duly incorporated by any law for the time being in force) recognized by the Executive Council or he must be a person who has been allowed to supplicate for D.Litt. or D.Sc. directly by the Academic Council on the advice of a Committee which shall consist of the Dean of the Faculty concerned and three experts nominated by the Vice-Chancellor in consultation with the Dean of the Faculty concerned."
A perusal thereof clearly indicates that there is no third provision apart from the aforesaid two modes of enrollment/registration.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he could have been enrolled on the basis of concessions granted by the Research Degree Committee therefore cannot be countenanced in the light of Clause 19 which does offer any such relaxation.
It appears that the Research Degree Committee has to examine the topic and the requisite qualifications to be possessed by a person and then it can only recommend a relaxation which has to be finally decided by the Academic Council.
In the instant case there is nothing on record to indicate that the case of the petitioner was ever forwarded by the Research Degree Committee to the Academic Council for any such consideration of the relaxation as alleged by the petitioner. In the absence of any such decision of the Academic Council in favour of the petitioner the argument advanced by Sri Indal Singh therefore cannot be accepted. So far as the continuance of the petitioner on the asking of the Research Degree Committee is concerned this risk was undertaken by the petitioner himself for which the petitioner cannot take any undue advantage or otherwise a legal advantage under any of the provisions of the Ordinances.
The last submission of Sri Indal Singh is that the respondent University has allowed such benefit to one Sri S.S. Kulshreshtha as alleged in paragraph 15 of the writ petition. In the opinion of the Court, Article 14 does not come to the aid of a person where illegality is sought to be pressed into service. If the University has granted any such relaxation then it has to be further examined as to whether the Academic Council had taken any such approval in the case of S.S. Kulshreshtha or not. The candidature of Sri S.S. Kulshreshtha therefore cannot be an example to allow the petitioner to seek any such benefit.
Sri Indal Singh has further submitted that according to Clause 30 the petitioner is entitled to the benefit as the Research Degree Committee is empowered to render an opinion on the standard of the publication of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court when the initial registration of the petitioner is founded on ineligibility, subsequent considerations under Clause 30 are irrelevant.
The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.
Dated: 7.8.2012 Sahu