ISHWAR CHANDRA THAKUR v. THE VICE CHANCELLOR-CUM-CHAIRMAN ACADEMIC

Patna High Court CWJC No.20706 of 2012 (2) dt.30-01-2013 2 University in February-2006 had undertaken the research work for submission of his thesis and as he could not complete the thesis work within a period of four years, he had filed an application on 28.01.2011 seeking explanation of the period of submission of Ph.D., thesis by a further period of two years i.e., up to January-2012. According, to the learned counsel for the petitioner such submission of the petitioner for extension dated 28.01.2011 has not been disposed of as yet though in the meantime the petitioner has already completed his thesis work in January-2013. Mr. Singh has also emphasized that while the case of the petitioner was kept pending and two similar cases of Ran Vijay Singh and Rajesh Gupta were considered for grant of extension by the University and in fact they were also given extension and in support of it he has placed reliance on the letter dated 02.09.2011 as contained in Annexure-3. Learned counsel for the University having not filed the counter affidavit till date in a period of nearly three months of the filing of the writ application has submitted that the case of the petitioner be remitted Patna High Court CWJC No.20706 of 2012 (2) dt.30-01-2013 3 back to the Vice-chancellor of the Patna University for considering the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to grant of extension. This Court fails to understand as to why the University has retained its counsel in this Court when it even after service of two copies of the writ application on its counsel can not get counter affidavit filed within a period of three months. The matter relates to Patna University and therefore, it is all the more unfortunate that such callous attitude is being maintained by the authorities of the University in not instructing their counsel. Be that as it may, from the pleadings on record there is nothing to show that the petitioner will not be entitled for grant of extension. Clause-13 of the statutes as notified by the Chancellor in his letter no. 1581/G.S.(1) 14.05.2007 has laid down that:- "The minimum period for the submission of thesis will be two registration anad viability of the registration will be four years which may be extended for another two years by the PGRC on the request of the candidates." Therefore, the statutory provision would Patna High Court CWJC No.20706 of 2012 (2) dt.30-01-2013 4 bear it out that there is no maximum period for submission of thesis but then as the thesis has to be submitted within the continuation of the period of registration, the competent authority of the University is only required to consider the issue relating to extension of the period of registration. In the case of the petitioner, his registration was made w.e.f February-2006 and therefore, such registration in normal course came to an end in January-2010. The petitioner, therefore, could have asked for extension of another two years i.e. up to January-2012. The petitioner, as noted above, has done so by filing his application. The University in all fairness therefore ought to have taken a decision on such application of the petitioner without coercing him to move this court for such a routine matter. It does not augur well for any academic institution, much less of reputed alike Patna University, to compel its students to raise even a routine academic issue before a Court of law specially when there are sufficient indication in the statutes itself for exercise of such power including extension for the period of Patna High Court CWJC No.20706 of 2012 (2) dt.30-01-2013 5 registration of the Ph.D., students. There is also no counter affidavit which could clarify as to why the case of the petitioner was kept pending while cases of other similarly situated persons namely, Ran Vijay Singh and Rajesh Gupta had been considered favourably while granting extension to them. Assuming that there was some valid reason for keeping the case of the petitioner pending as indicated in the letter of the University dated 02.09.2011, it was all the more necessary for the authorities of the Patna University to take its final decision in respect of grant of extension of the registration of the petitioner within a short span of time. A period of more than 15 months have already elapsed even from the date of aforesaid order dated 02.09.2011 and neither the petitioner nor even this Court has been made aware of the reason of such pendency or the ultimate decision taken on the application of the petitioner. This definitely amounts to sheer abdication of power by the authorities while causing deliberate harassment to the students. Considering all these aspects, this Patna High Court CWJC No.20706 of 2012 (2) dt.30-01-2013 6 Court would direct the Vice-chancellor of the Patna University to get the matter of the petitioner for extension of his registration placed before the PGRC (Post Graduate Research Council) within a period of one month from today and the PGRC thereafter shall take its own independent decision after considering the fact that not only the cases of similarly situated persons including Ran Vijay Singh and Rajesh Gupta have already been allowed by the University as per its order contained in Letter NO. 1796 dated 02.09.2011 but also that Ph.D. thesis of the petitioner has already completed within prescribed permissible extendable period of registration of two years. If the PGRC, however, will find that the petitioner will not be entitled for such extension of his registration, it shall give its reasons which must be communicated by the Vice Chancellor of the University to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)