RAVICHANDRA HEBBALLI Vs. KARNATAK UNIVERSITY DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner has approached this court for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first and second respondents to receive the application form along with the prescribed fee of Rs. 1,000/- with 4 dissertation copies of the petitioner for m.d.s. examination which has to commence sometime in august 1996.

(2.) the petitioner had taken admission to the post-graduate course (m.d.s.) in the field of 'oral and maxillofacial surgery' in the 2nd respondent-college. The said course had commenced in august 1993 as is evidenced by the certificate of 2nd respondent placed at annexure-c. It is the case of the petitioner that on completion of his dissertation he approached Dr. C. Bhaskar rao, professor and head, department of oral and maxillofacial surgery and principal of the 2nd respondent-college for its certification as an original research work of quality and standard befitting m.d.s. course. But, according to the grievance raised by the petitioner, Dr. Rao has refused to certify the work, as desired, for no good reasons. Petitioner assails the said ACT as arbitrary and craves this court's interference in the matter. At the request of Sri mohan rangam an impressively bound copy of said dissertation has been taken on record.

(3.) Dr. C. Bhaskar rao has filed his statement of objections duly sworn by himself. He has come on record with an affidavited statement testifying that the topic given to the petitioner for his study and preparation of dissertation was "psycho-social implications of morbidity associated with radical neck dissection in the Indian context" and not the one on which the purported dissertation has been prepared and presented before this court. It has further been stated that the petitioner was required to complete the said dissertation under the supervision and guidance of professor paul c. Salins, head, maxillofacial and reconstructive surgery. Dr. Rao has further stated that no dissertation as entrusted to the petitioner was completed by him under the direction and guidance of Dr. Paul c. Salins. To substantiate the said fact, the 2nd respondent has placed on record the letter of Dr. Salins, wherein it has been stated that :