HEMENDRA NATH PATHAK Vs. GAUHATI UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to remedy his grievance against the rejection of his thesis, which he contends, he was mislead to be submitted independently, though his research guide approved by the Gauhati University (hereafter referred to as the University) was available.

(2.) I have heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the University.

(3.) THE pleadings of the parties lay the factual foundation and would have to be necessarily traversed. The petitioner has averred that he is a Post Graduate in Physics and following the acquisition of his Masters degree in the said subject had engaged himself as a research Scholar in the same Department of the University with specialisation in Electronics. On his application for provisional registration for Ph. D. Degree on 26. 8. 1986, he was allowed to do so under the guidance of Dr. Meenakshi Devi, Reader in the Department the subject of the dissertation being "status on small and large scale irregularities seen through VHF RB at Low latitude station. " According to the petitioner, the research work undertaken did not progress well in view of the casual attitude of the guide for which he could not submit the thesis in time. Eventually, having readied his thesis on 2. 11. 1993, he submitted an application before the Vice Chancellor of the University seeking permission to submit the same independently. In the meantime, on his request, the initial term prescribed for submission of the thesis had been extended from time to time by the University. According to the petitioner, however, on being advised thereafter, he made a request with the aforementioned authority to arrange for another recognised guide so as to enable him to submit his thesis. In the letter dated 23. 4. 1994 to the said effect, he disclosed that though he had completed the thesis, it was not possible for him to submit the same without the supervision of a guide. In response to the said letter, the petitioner was informed on 14. 6. 1994 that in terms of the decision of the Ph. D. Committee he was permitted to start the process afresh with a new guide, if necessary. It was thereafter that the petitioner on 3. 5. 1995 submitted an application in the prescribed form for provisional registration for Ph. D. Degree on the title "studies on some aspects of ionosphere over Gauhati during 1979-1990" mentioning therein Dr. G. K. D. Mazumdar, Department of USIC, Gauhati University, as his guide. On 2. 11. 1995, he submitted the application for final registration in the prescribed format containing the recommendation of his afore-named guide. While his application was thus pending, the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 13. 3. 1997 of the Academic Registrar in-Charge, Gauhati University, that as per the decision of the Research Council taken in its meeting held on 8. 1. 1997, he had been allowed to be finally registered for Ph. D. Degree and submit his thesis independently. He was also served with a letter dated 14. 3. 1997 also signed by the same authority informing him of his final registration for the Ph. D. Degree on the above named subject as an independent researcher. The petitioner accordingly submitted his thesis finally on 11. 6. 1997. As there was a stony silence on the part of the University in the matter, he submitted representations before different authorities and forums but to no effect. Eventually by the letter dated 7. 12. 2002 of the Academic Registrar, Gauhati University, the petitioner was informed that the Research Council, on a consideration of the reports of the examiners, had rejected his thesis. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a series of representations before the said authority seeking an opportunity either to modify the thesis or to have it examined by another expert. In reply thereto, the Academic Registrar, Gauhati University, by his letter dated 22. 1. 2003 intimated him that as none of the examiners had recommended that the degree of Ph. D. be awarded to him, there was no scope to review the decision of the Research Council already conveyed to him. The petitioner thereafter submitted a spate of representations before the different authorities seeking redressal of his grievance and on invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, having received copies of the evaluation reports of the examiners has laid the present challenge.