K S GAHARWAR Vs. BARKATULAH VISHWAVIDHYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner submitted his research thesis on THE EFFECT OF THE LATEXT OF OPUNTIA coecinelifera ON THE FETILITY OF FEMALE ALBINO RAT WITH special REFERENCE TO UTERINE MAST CELLS' in the Barkatullah vishwavidyalaya Bhopal in the year 1987, which was duly accepted and the Degree of Ph. D. (Doctor of Philosophy) was awarded to him in the same year. At the time of awarding such Degree of Ph. D. , its matter was governed by the provisions of Ordinance No. 14 of the respondent University which is on record as Annx. P/ 4. As regards petitioner's service career, it may be noted that, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar of respondent University on 28. 3. 1991. He was, thereafter, sent on deputation to University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'ugc for brevity) as Joint Secretary and was made Incharge of State of madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. . Period of deputation was extended up to 30. 6. 2000. During this period, he was promoted to the post of Registrar vide annx. P/7 dated 1. 6. 2000. In the same year, his name came up for consideration for appointment to the office of Vice Chancellor of respondent University by a committee headed by retired Hon 'ble Chief Justice Shri B. M. Lai and nominee of ugc and Executive Council constituted for this purpose by the Chancellor. His name was allegedly recommended and included in the panel submitted by the committee to the Vice Chancellor. Petitioner was not appointed on the said post on account of expiry of the period of deputation. He was again posted as Registrar of the respondent University vide Annx. P/8 dated 10. 7. 2000. Ultimately, the petitioner was transferred on deputation to Higher Education Department vide annx. P/11 dated 19. 3. 2001 where he joined as Additional Secretary.

(2.) THERE were complaints made to the Hon' ble Governor of the State that the petitioner obtained the Degree of Ph. D. in illegal and fraudulent manner. He had allegedly copied certain pages of his thesis from the thesis of his guide Dr. Norton. Additional Secretary of the Hon'ble Governor requisitioned the report of the Vice chancellor of respondent University vide Annx. P/10 dated 19. 9. 2000. Copies of complaints were sent to the petitioner, who sent his reply as contained in Annx. P/12 dated 13. 3. 2001. Ultimately, the thesis of the petitioner was sent for verification through two experts who gave their opinion that certain pages in the thesis of the petitioner were copied substantially from the thesis of Dr. Norton. Matter was directed to be placed before the Executive Council of the respondent university to take a decision in the matter. The Executive Council took a decision on 16. 4. 2003 as revealed in Annx. P/16 that the thesis of the petitioner is to be resubmitted after removal of the copied portion and two chapters (copied chapters)would be rewritten taking into account the literature available till date under a new supervisor. Hence, this petition has been preferred for quashment of the impugned decision taken by the Executive Council against the petitioner vide annx. P/16.

(3.) RESPONDENT submitted its return stating therein that the petitioner was found to have copied two chapters in his thesis from the thesis of his guide Dr. Norton. Accordingly, the Executive Council of the University has taken a decision that the thesis may be resubmitted after rewriting the said two chapters in place of the copied portion under his new supervisor. It is stated in the return with elaboration that there were specific complaint as revealed in Annx. R/3 dated 20. 7. 2002 that the petitioner had copied substantially- (98%) from page 5 to page 35 in Chapter 2 and 3 of his guide Dr. Norton. Thesis of the petitioner as well as that of Dr. Norton were sent to two examiners along with the alleged report vide letter dated 25. 2. 2003. The two examiners, namely, Professor T. Subramoniam and Professor m. Arumagam, both from the Department of Zoology, Madras University, opined that as per Chapter-Ill the histological description of the female reproductive tract, several portions were copied directly from Dr. Norton's thesis without referring to Dr. Norton's work. In continuation of their report, the said two professors further submitted conclusions on 11. 3. 2003 recommending thereby that the thesis of the petitioner is to be resubmitted after removal of the copied portion and the said portion would be rewritten taking into account the literature available till date, under a new supervisor. This supplementary report though is undated carries on it the seal of 11. 3. 2003. Finally, it is submitted that the Executive council has taken a proper decision since the petitioner is found to have copied from the thesis of his guide Dr. Norton, while submitting his own thesis for Ph. D. This was duly detected and the decision vide Annx. P/16 has been rightly taken by the Executive Council.