N INNAIAH Vs. OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a sad story of a scholar of research whose ill-fated thesis met with many an accident fortunately with a chance of survival every time. The petitioner was registered as a Ph. D. student in October, 1965. The topic of the research is "The Philosophical Consequences of Modern Science with special reference to problem of Determinism". One Dr. Madhusudan Reddy was named as the Supervisor for guiding the Scholar in his research. The thesis was submitted sometime in October, 1969.

(2.) A panel of examiners was constituted for the adjudication of the thesis. The internal examiner was not other than the Supervisor of the research work. The other two examiners were the Head of the Department of Philosophy in the Rajasthan University Dr. Daya Krishna and Prof. Leo Gabriel o the University of Vienna. The Foreign Examiner recommended for the award of Ph.D. having regard to the 'intelligent and self reliant work in the discussion of extensive literature and scientific findings" Prof. Madhusudan Reddy the supervisor of the research work also recommended the award of the Ph. D. Degree complementing the thesis as a "useful contribution" and that the subject-matter is "well researched and satisfactorily comprehended". However, the other examiner Dr. Dayakrishna was of the opinion that the thesis was to be rejected without any hesitation. Curiously no action was taken till April, 1971 when the Syndicate directed the valuation of the thesis by a fourth examiner- Thereafter the matter was unduly prolonged and after an inordinate delay of more than two years, the thesis was sent to Prof. Milic Capek of Boston University for evaluation. Prof. Milic Capek recommended a through revision of the thesis by the petitioner with the aid and advise of a Philosopher acquainted in Physics. At this stage the delay in the adjudication of the thesis became subject-matter of a great controversy and the University thought it fit to appoint a one man commission with Justice Parthasarathi, a retired Judge of the High Court. The commission found that there were numerous delays on the part of every one concerned and that the aggregate delay is of such an appealing degree as to be unprecedented in the annuls of any academic body and opined that one of the contributory factors was the remissness on the part of the internal examiner who has taken a year to complete his assessment several months longer than even the foreign examiner. After the report was received the University required the candidate to revise the thesis and the same was re-submitted on 31st March, 1976. The revised thesis was sent for evaluation by a fresh batch of three examiners. After receiving their reports, the University wanted the petitioner to revise the thesis for a second time. On a protest by the petitioner, the thesis was sent to another Board of examiners. The analysis of the reports any not be very material. At that stage, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 476 of 1979 which was allowed by my learned brother Kuppuswami, J., as he then was, on 6th February, 1980, holding that the entire procedure adopted by the University subsequent to the receipt of the reports from the three examiners appointed in the first instance was in gross violation of Rule 31 of the Rules and that the said rule obligates the Vice-Chanceller to decide whether the Vive- voce examination may be conducted or the thesis may be revised and re-submitted or rejected. The learned Judge observed that the position has to be taken into account as it existed in 1971 when the thesis was evaluated by Prof. Gabriel, Prof. Madhusudan Reddy and Dr. Daya Krishna. The Vice-Clancellor was directed to proceed in accordance with the Rules in force as in 1971 and decide whether viva-voce examination should be conducted or the thesis should be revised and resubmitted or rejected. In the light of the directions of the High Court, the Vice- Chancellor appears to have decided to hold a Viva-Voce and called the petitioner to appear before the Board of Examiners for that purpose. On 27th April, 1980, viva-voce was conducted by the Supervisor Dr. Madhusudan Reddy and Dr. Daya Krishna the external examiner from Rajasthan, who recommended rejection of the thesis. The petitioner avers that he had no knowledge about the members constituting the Board till he appeared for the viva-vice examination on 27th April, 1980. Immediately after the viva voce, he sent a representation the same day complaining that the examiners were prejudiced and that he did not have impartial enquiry. A similar representation was made on 6th May, 1980. As expected by the petitioner the examiners did not recommend for the award of Ph. D. It is at this stage this writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings relating to the viva voce examination held on 27th April, 1980.

(3.) The submission of the petitioner is twofold. The viva voce conducted on 27th April, 1980 is contrary to rule 29 of the Rules and Regulations of the Osmania University for the award of Ph. D. Degree and that the viva voce conducted by Dr. Daya Krishna and Prof. Madhusudan Reddy was vitiated by bias and prejudice writ large on the face of it,