High Court · 2012

This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant seeking direction to quash the de cision of the Gauhati University declining to accept the thesis of the appellant for the purpose of awarding Ph.D. Degree. The appellant is a Masters Degree hol der in Physics and became a research scholar in the said subject with specializa tion in (cid:28)Ionosphere (cid:29). He registered for Ph.D. Degree on 20.8.1986 under Dr. Mina kshi Devi. He could not submit thesis in time and sought time to submit the thes is independently. Thereafter, the appellant sought permission for arrangement of another recognized guide and applied for provisional registration. Thereafter, the appellant submitted his thesis on 11.6.1997 and he was informed by the lette r dated 7.12.2002 that his thesis has been rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the appe llant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The University opposed the prayer on the ground that the research undert 2. aken by the appellant was the same as was done under the previous guide on which ground, on due evaluation by three external examiners under the Rules, the awar d of Ph.D. Degree to the appellant was declined by the University.

3. n. It was observed :- After due consideration, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitio (cid:28)11. The parties noticeably are not in issue on the sequence of events till t he provisional registration of the petitioner for research work under Dr. G.K.D. Mazumdar, Department of USIC, Gauhati University, on 3/4/1995. It is not denied by the University either that thereafter the petitioner had submitted an appl ication for final registration under the said guide and had eventually on 22/6/1 996 submitted his thesis on the title (cid:28)Studies on some aspects of ionosphere ove r Gauhati during 1979-1990 (cid:29) endorsed by his guide Dr. G.K.D. Mazumdar. Though th e plea of the University that the subject on which the petitioner pursued his re search work under both the guides was essentially common on many aspects has bee n refuted by him, the fact remains that the Research Council in its meeting held on 8/1/1997 had resolved to allow him to get the final registration for Ph. D. degree and submit his thesis independently. He was accordingly registered as suc h on 14/3/1997. Not only the petitioner had admitted the receipt of these two co mmunications, he on 11/6/1997 submitted an application for permission to submit his thesis as an independent candidate. Further his letters to the Academic in-C harge of the University following the communication dated 13/3/1997 conveying th e decision of the Research Council as above, do not divulge any semblance of rem onstrance over the said decision. Instead thereby, the petitioner had expressed his thankfulness to the University for having eased his long standing problems p ertaining to submission of his thesis. His representations thereafter before var ious authorities carried his persistent query about the outcome of his thesis so submitted and his distress for the delay in the declaration of the results.

12. While this Court is ill equipped to probe into the controversy as to whe ther the subject of research work undertaken by the petitioner under the two gui des is similar or not, considering the specialised field of study involved, such an exercise is considered inessential as well for all practical purposes, the t hesis submitted by him on 22/6/1996, with the recommendation of his guide Dr. G. K.D. Mazumdar having been abandoned by him in the face of his application seekin g permission to do so as an independent candidate on 11/6/1997. Most significant ly till immediately prior to the institution of the instant proceeding, the peti tioner had not raised any grievance qua the decision of the Research Council all owing him to submit his thesis independently and/or his registration in such cap acity. His application for permission to submit thesis as the independent resear ch scholar also does not carry any demur in this regard. In the above view of th e matter, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner, by his conduct, is estop ped at this point of time to question the decision of the Research Council to pe rmit him to submit his thesis independently. He having submitted to the said dec ision and acted in terms thereof, he cannot be permitted to turn around and reso rt to an endeavour to improve his chances, his thesis having been rejected. The petitioner having taken a conscious decision to submit his thesis independently and to be evaluated as such, he ought not to be allowed to retrace his path.

13. His plea that he had never applied to submit his thesis independently is belied by the document Annexure XIV to the affidavit in opposition of the Unive rsity. The Research Council having taken a decision to permit the petitioner to submit his thesis independently, the same, in the opinion of this Court, signifi es non-entertainment of the dissertation submitted by him on 26/6/1996 with Dr. G.K.D. Mazumdar as his research guide. That thesis of the petitioner was logical ly rendered nonest in law and on facts with the submission of his application to do so independently. For all intents and purposes therefore the petitioner’s th esis was to be and had been rightly assessed as one submitted independently by a research scholar.

14. Significantly the Research Council under Regulation 8 of the Regulations in force at the relevant time was empowered to permit a candidate of the catego ries referred to therein to submit a thesis for the Ph. D. degree prepared indep endently. The petitioner has not furnished adequate pleadings to demonstrate any lack of authority of the Research Council or non-compliance of this provision o f the Regulations to establish that the resolution dated 8/1/1997 is vitiated by any such contravention.

15. A plain reading of Regulation 11, which prescribes the method of evaluat ion of a thesis for Ph. D. Degree makes it abundantly clear that it has to be ex amined by a Board of Examiners consisting of three external examiners when there are no guides. Regulation 12 deals with the different eventualities in the cour se of such assessment. Whereas sub-clause (a), (b) and (c) visibly are applicabl e to a thesis submitted under a guide(s). Sub-clause (d) contemplates one withou t one. Under the said sub-clause, if a thesis is recommended by one of the exami ners and recommended for resubmission by another and rejected by a third examine r, it is liable to be rejected. In the case in hand, the petitioner’s thesis was rejected by the examiner Prof. P.K. Bhuyan and recommended for resubmission on revision by Prof. P. K. Bhatnagar. The third Examiner Prof. A.B. Kulkarni condit ionally recommended the thesis subject to the substantiation by the petitioner o f his findings therein. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s thesis i s one submitted independently, considering the evaluations made by the three exa miners, the impugned decision of rejection of his thesis cannot be said to be in transgression of the Regulations. The petitioner as such has not questioned the validity or acceptability of the analysis or the appraisals made by the examine rs on merits. In this view of the matter, the rejection of his thesis being in t erms of Regulation 12 (d) of the Regulations cannot be denounced as illegal or f lawed. (cid:29)

4. iversity. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the Un

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no reason was given in the order declining the award of degree. Mere fact that research work was the sa me could not be a ground to decline Ph.D. Degree to the appellant.

6. We are unable to accept this submission. As per the regulation, dealing with the subject, referred to in the above observations of the learned Single Ju dge, the appellant having listed himself for submitting his thesis independently , could not take advantage of the research undertaken under the previous guide. His thesis was duly examined by the examiners and the decision had been taken ba sed on their recommendation.

7. order of learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the

8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.