JITENDER KUMAR Vs. JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE offer letter dated 22.3.2010 issued by the respondent, Jamia Millia Islamia, the petitioner was informed that the Board of Studies of the Department of Economics had considered his research proposal and recommended his registration for the Ph.D Course under the supervision of Dr. Bathula Srinivas. In continuation of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 8.4.2010, that he had been provisionally admitted to the Ph.D. Programme under the supervision of the aforesaid supervisor. He was required to submit his progress report after every six months through proper channel and was further informed that in case of failure, his admission would be cancelled. Vide communication dated 24.8.2010, the petitioner was found eligible for grant of Non -Net Fellowship. The petitioner sought some modification in the topic assigned to him and the said modification was granted by the University in due course. A certificate dated 15.3.2011 was issued to the petitioner by his supervisor certifying that his performance had been satisfactory and the research work was in progress. He also recommended fellowship so that the petitioner could complete the research. The petitioner also cleared the examination held in the year 2011 and his result was declared on 10.8.2011.

(2.) VIDE letter dated 27.9.2011, the petitioner alleging problem of conversation between him and his supervisor, Dr. Bathula Srinivas, sought change of the Supervisor at an early date. This request was reiterated by the petitioner vide his letter dated 23.3.2012 whereupon an endorsement was made that the present Guide, Dr. Srinivas, would continue till some final decision was taken on his request.

(3.) IN its counter affidavit, the respondent -University has taken the stand that the performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory by his supervisor and he had also failed to submit 4 th & 5th six monthly progress report which was one of the essential requirements for successful continuation of the Ph.D. course in terms of Ordinance 9 (8) (vi) (academic) of the University. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that since every faculty member has adequate Ph.D. registrants under his supervision, it is not possible for the University to assign the petitioner to another supervisor.