OM PARKASH WADHWA Vs. KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner O.P. Wadha has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of letter dated 2.4.1993 and communication dated 3.6.1993, Annexure P-10 and P-11 respectively, with a further prayer that the respondents be directed by issuing a writ of mandamus to appoint examiners to evaluate his Ph.D. thesis.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Research Scholar for the Ph.D. Course on August 25, 1989 under registration No. 89-UD, Ph. D.-25, Annexure P-1. Dr. Mrs. Sarla Malik, the then Professor and Head, Department of Public Administration, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra was appointed as his Supervisor. Topic assigned to the petitioner for his Ph.D. Course was "University Administration in India : A case Study of Universities in Haryana. According to the petitioner, he submitted his half-yearly reports to the Supervisor which as per his information were found to be satisfactory. The last report was submitted by the petitioner in March, 1991. He thereafter made a request to the authorities vide letter Annexure P-6, dated June 24, 1992 for appointment of examiners for evaluation of his thesis. His request was duly recommended by the Supervisor. However, examiners to evaluate the thesis of the petitioner were not appointed as in the intervening period, some dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 who had in the meantime taken over as Head and Chairman, Department of Public Administration in February 1991 after Dr. Mrs. Sarla Malik went on long leave and joined as Professor in Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak. During this period, the petitioner remained under an impression and perhaps rightly that his candidature for Ph. D. Course had been cancelled. It was in this situation that he filed the present writ petition seeking quashment of Annexures P-10 and P-11 as noticed above with a further prayer that his thesis for the Ph.D. Course be got evaluated by appointing the examiners.

(3.) Two separate written statements have been filed, one by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and the other by respondent No. 3. Allegations of mala fide levelled by the petitioner against the respondents have been denied in the written statements. However, it is not necessary to go into this aspect of the matter as the petitioner after having sound advice from his counsel has fairly and, in my view, rightly withdrawn those allegations. As regards the respondent-University, it has taken a stand that first three half-yearly reports have not been received and thus according to the University the petitioner has not yet completed his research work on his thesis. It is appropriate to notice at this stage that some correspondence placed on record of this petition by the University as also respondent No. 3 goes to show that at one point of time candidature of the petitioner for the Ph. D. Course had been cancelled but during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondents took a candid stand, especially after going through the correspondence, that registration of the petitioner had not been cancelled and Dr. Mrs. Sarla Malik was allowed to continue as his Supervisor. Letter Annexure P-7/A dated 6.8.1992 from the Deputy Registrar (R&S) addressed to the Chairman, Department of Public Administration of the University is a clear pointer in that behalf. According to learned counsel for the respondents, registration of the petitioner has not been cancelled even till today. It is thus not necessary to examine the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition that his registration for the Ph. D. Course had been cancelled.