NRUSHINGHA CHARAN Vs. CHANCELLOR UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who, with a view to securing the degree of Doctorate in Philosophy in Arts had registered himself in the Utkal University and had submitted a thesis and appeared in the viva voce test, has filed this writ application with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to publish the result of his examination within a period of time to be specified and to quash any order or direction issued by the Chancellor in this behalf.

(2.) Petitioner has alleged that he had passed his M.A. Examination in Oriya in Ist Class from Utkal University in the year 1979 and had registered himself in Utkal University in December, 1981 to prepare a thesis on "A Comparative Study on Hawthorn the American Novelist and Fakir Mohan, an Oriya Novelist", with Dr. Gopal Chandra Misra, M.A.D. Litt. Professor and Head of the Post-Graduate Department of Oriya, Sambalpur University, as his guide. According to the provisions contained in Regn. 7 of Chapt. IX, Utkal University Regulations, the thesis which was submitted by the petitioner, was referred by the Syndicate to the Board of three Examiners and after the thesis was approved by the Board, the petitioner was informed by the Controller of Examination of the University that the viva voce part of the Ph. D. Degree Examination will be held at 11.00 a.m. on 15-3-85 at the residence of Dr. G.C. Misra, the guide. The Syndicate under Statute 203 of the Utkal University Statutes (hereinafter call the Statutes) considered and approved the recommendation of the Board of Examiners for publication of the results by Resolution No. 545 dt. 24-3-85 vide Annexure-3. In usual course of business the result of the examination was to be published by the University and as a matter of fact the result of four other candidates mentioned in the Resolution (Annexure-3) was published, but not the result of the petitioner. Not knowing the reason for which the petitioner's result was not published, he submitted a representation to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 12-4-85 (Annexure-4). The petitioner carne to know thereafter that the Chancellor had directed the University not, to publish the result of the petitioner which according to the petitioner is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Chancellor. The petitioner having failed in all his attempts to have the result of his examination published by the University, has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to be issued by this Court to the opposite parties to publish his result as decided by the Syndicate is resolution No. 545 dt. 24-3-85 (Annexure-3) within a specified time.

(3.) In the reply the opposite parties denied all the allegations of the petitioner and contended that he is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The stand of the opposite parties in a nutshell is that the Chancellor of the Utkal University in exercise of his powers under S.5(7), Utkal University Act (hereinafter called the "Act") has annulled the resolution of the Syndicate appointing the Board of Examiners to examine the thesis paper of the petitioner and, therefore, all the subsequent resolutions of the Syndicate are null and void. According to them, the examination in question having. been conducted by a Board of Examiners, the constitution of which was itself invalid, is void ab initio and, therefore, the subsequent resolution of the Syndicate resolving to publish the result of the petitioner on the basis of the recommendation of the said invalid Board of Examiners is also void. It was further contended that the Chancellor's jurisdiction was invoked by way of a complaint alleging various irregularities committed in the matter of appointment of examiners and in conducting the viva voce test. The Chancellor in exercise of his powers under the Act passed an interim order of stay pending full enquiry into the matter and on a consideration of all reports and materials received by him, the Chancellor by a reasoned order dt. 22-5-85 annulled the resolution of the Syndicate and directed the Syndicate to constitute a fresh Board of Examiners and to conduct a fresh viva voce test after restoring the status quo ante in the matter. According to the opposite parties the Chancellor is vested with the jurisdiction to annul any proceeding of the senate, syndicate or any other authority if it, in his opinion, is not in conformity with the Act and the Statutes. In the present case the Chancellor being the Head of the University was entitled to examine the resolution of the syndicate appointing the Board of Examiners which for the reasons recorded by him was in violation of the express provisions of the Act and the Statutes and the action taken by the Chancellor was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though an objection was taken in the counter-affidavit that the Governor of the State who happens to be the Chancellor of the University is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the same was not seriously pressed at the hearing.