K.S. GAHARWAR Vs. BARKATULLAH VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the legal sustainability and substantiality of the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2209/2003 is called in question.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details the facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the appellant upon completion of due formalities submitted his thesis on the subject 'The Effect Of The Latex of Opuntia Coecinelifera On The Fertility Of Female Albino Rat with Special Reference To Uterine Mast Cells' and the respondent university after due scrutiny conferred the degree of Ph.D. which was notified on 25.2.1987. On 10.7.2000 when the appellant was posted as Registrar of the respondent university one Dr. H.Y. Tiwari was appointed as the Vice -Chancellor.

(3.) THE said step was taken by the communication dated 25.2.2003. In pursuance of the aforesaid, a report · was sent by the Vice -Chancellor of the Madras University on the basis of analysis made by two Professors. The Vice -Chancellor of the respondent university apprised the Chancellor about the communication received from the Madras University and the Chancellor, in his turn directed the Vice -Chancellor to place the matter before the Executive Council. The Executive Council met on 15.4.2003. Though the issue of Ph.D. of the appellant was not included in the agenda, yet, in its meeting the Executive Council accepted the report of the two experts of Madras University. The recommendation made therein to the effect that the thesis of the appellant is to be resubmitted after removal of the copied portion and the two chapters should be re -written taking into account the literature available till date under a new supervisor was also accepted without following the principles of natural justice. 1978 MPLJ 9], Ku. Neelima Mishra v. Dr. Harinder Kaur Paintal and others [AIR 1990 SC 1402], Shrawan Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1991 SC 309] and Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and another v. State ofGujrat [(1995)5 SCC 302], and carne to hold that the powers conferred under clause (xxx) of section 24 can be exercised by the Executive Council by the university; that the impugned decision is not beyond the scope of power of withdrawal of degree as engrafted under clause (xxx) of section 24; that the delineation by the Executive Council of the subject without the same being in the agenda did not suffer from any procedural illegality; that there has been no violalion of Ordinance 14 of the University, that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, that the Executive Council has not applied its mind to the facts in issue and has been totally guided by the recommendation of an outside agency; that the order passed by the Executive Council is unsustainable in law; that the writ petitioner had substantially copied certain pages from the thesis of Dr. Norton; and that the Executive Council is at liberty to take a fresh decision after following the principles of natural justice and granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Ravish Agrawal, learner senior counsel appearing for the appellant, questioning the defensibility of the order passed by the learned Single Judge has raised the following contentions :