Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.5543/2013 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN :
SRI JANARDHANA S/O LATE SRI SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.132, 1ST FLOOR 3RD CROSS, 1ST MAIN INCOME TAX LAYOUT NEAR CHANDRA LAYOUT GANAPATHI TEMPLE BANGALORE – 40
... PETITIONER (BY SRI KALYAN R, ADV.)
AND :
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY BANGALORE - 560056 REP. BY REGISTRAR
THE REGISTRAR EVALUATION BANGALORE UNIVERSITY PAREEKSHA BHAVAN J B CAMPUS BANGALORE - 560056
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR EVALUATION BANGALORE UNIVERSITY PAREEKSHA BHAVAN J B CAMPUS BANGALORE 560056
THE CHAIRMAN
2 DEPARTMENT OF PERFORMING ARTS BANGALORE UNIVERSITY BANGALORE 560056
THE DEAN FACULTY OF ARTS BANGALORE UNIVERSITY BANGALORE 560056
DR V NAGESH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF PERFORMING ARTS JNANA BHARATHI BANGALORE UNIVERSITY BANGALORE 560056 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1-R5 SRI B.B.BAJENTRI, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.1.2012 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURES-A & B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this case, the petitioner has sought for quashing the communications at Annexures ‘A’ order dated 10.1.2012 and 28.7.2012 respectively.
The petitioner got himself provisionally registered with the Bangalore University for the degree
3 of Doctorate in Philosophy on 29.12.2003. He was working under the supervision of his guide - 6th respondent herein. He could not complete his research work and submit his thesis to the University within five years from the date of provisional registration. He could not submit the thesis even after additional period of one year. Therefore, he made an application through his guide to the Registrar of the University seeking extension of time for submission of the thesis. The Registrar by his communication at Annexure ‘A’ dated 10.1.2012 informed the petitioner that his request for extension of time has not been considered and his registration for Ph.D. is cancelled. His request for submission of the thesis was rejected by the University as per the communication at Annexure ‘B’ dated 28.7.2012. Petitioner has called in question the validity of the said communications in this writ petition.
Sri Kalyan R, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is withdrawing all the allegations made in the writ petition against the 6th respondent. The submission of Mr.Kalyan, learned
4 Counsel is placed on record and the allegations made by the petitioner against the 6th respondent stands withdrawn.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The Bangalore University has framed revised Regulations for Ph.D decree course. Regulation 2.6 states thus:- “A candidate shall work for a minimum period of three years from the date of provisional registration under the supervision of Guides. However, in the case of M.Phil/MS/MD/M.CH/DM/ME/M.Tech/LL.M /M.Sc., Engineering Graduates, the minimum period shall be two years.”
Regulation 2.7 states thus:- “A candidate should complete his/her research work and submit the thesis to the University within five years from the date of provisional registration.”
5 Regulation 2.8 (a) provides for an extension beyond five years by the Ph.D. registration committee on the recommendation of the guide/s and with the approval of the university for a maximum period of one year. Regulation 2.8 (b) states that in case of the Teachers of the University / affiliated colleges and other research workers who cannot carry out full time research, the maximum period for submission of thesis shall be seven years.
Regulation 7.3 authorises the Vice Chancellor of the University to extend the period for submission of the thesis under extraordinary circumstances, which is as under:- “Under extraordinary circumstances affecting a student warranting extension of period for submission of thesis, the student should write through the guide to the Registrar, shall refer the same to the Ph.D. Registration Committee for its opinion which will be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration. The Vice-Chancellor’s decision in the matter is final.”
The petitioner made an application dated 27.04.2011 through his guide seeking extension of time for submission of the thesis which is referable to regulation 7.3. In the application, the petitioner has stated that his father was admitted to the hospital as he was not well. He was busy in taking care of his father. Therefore, he could not concentrate in completion of the thesis.
The application was placed before the Ph.D Registration Committee.
The Ph.D Registration Committee considered the application of the petitioner seeking extension of time for submission of the thesis. It has opined that sufficient time has been granted earlier and no further time need be extended. The Committee sent its recommendations to the Vice- Chancellor. When the matter was placed before him, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has remarked as under:- “Request cannot be considered, recommended for cancellation”
It is clear from the above statement that the Vice-Chancellor has not applied his mind while considering the application.
As noticed above, regulation 7.3 authorises the Vice-Chancellor to extend time for submission of the thesis under extraordinary circumstances affecting a student warranting extension of period for submission of thesis. The petitioner had sent an application through his guide. The Ph.D Registration Committee has opined that they have no power to extend the time. The Vice-Chancellor ought to have considered the application in the light of the report of the Ph.D Registration Committee. The endorsement clearly indicates that the Vice-Chancellor has mechanically rejected the application. The Vice Chancellor has to reconsider the application.
In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The note of the Vice Chancellor dated 20.12.2011 is hereby quashed. Consequently, communication at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ is also quashed. Matter is
8 remitted back to the Vice-Chancellor of the Bangalore University for fresh consideration of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj