Back
2019 Supreme(Chh) 843
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
DEEPAK SHARMA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3135 of 2018, 24 of 2019, 82 of 2019, 100 of 2019, 177 of 2019, 548 of 2019, 743 of 2019, 935 of 2019, 1129 of 2019, 1329 of 2019, 1738 of 2019, 3136 of 2018, 3137 of 2018, 3138 of 2018, 3150 of 2018, 3169 of 2018, 3170 of 2018, 3177 of 2018, 3195 of 2018, 3201 of 2018, 3203 of 2018, 3204 of 2018, 3205 of 2018, 3208 of 2018, 3210 of 2018, 3215 of 2018, 3221 of 2018, 3225 of 2018, 3229 of 2018, 3230 of 2018, 3232 of 2018, 3237 of 2018, 3238 of 2018, 3240 of 2018, 3244 of 2018, 3249 of 2018, 3250 of 2018, 3251 of 2018, 3252 of 2018, 3253 of 2018, 3264 of 2018, 3269 of 2018, 3270 of 2018, 3271 of 2018, 3276 of 2018, 3280 of 2018, 3292 of 2018, 3309 of 2018, 3310 of 2018, 3311 of 2018, 3314 of 2018, 3318 of 2018, 3323 of 2018, 3324 of 2018, 3326 of 2018, 3329 of 2018, 3334 of 2018, 3340 of 2018, 3344 of 2018, 3364 of 2018, 3366 of 2018, 3371 of 2018, 3385 of 2018, 3387 of 2018, 3393 of 2018, 3412 of 2018, 3413 of 2018, 3417 of 2018, 3419 of 2018, 3421 of 2018, 3427 of 2018, 3428 of 2018, 3429 of 2018, 3431 of 2018, 3432 of 2018, 3433 of 2018, 3434 of 2018, 3435 of 2018, 3436 of 2018, 3437 of 2018, 3438 of 2018, 3439 of 2018, 3440 of 2018, 3443 of 2018, 3444 of 2018, 3445 of 2018, 3446 of 2018, 3453 of 2018, 3459 of 2018, 3464 of 2018, 3480 of 2018, 3481 of 2018, 3493 of 2018, 3494 of 2018, 3521 of 2018, 3525 of 2018
Decided On : 05-09-2019
Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Adv., Mateen Siddiqui, Adv., B. Gopa Kumar, Adv., Anish Tiwari, Adv., Meena Shastri, Adv., Shantam Awasthi, Adv., Harish Khuntiya, Adv., Prateek Sharma, Adv., Khushbhoo Dua, Adv., Chandra Kumar, Adv., Amit Kumar Chaki, Adv., Navin Shukla, Adv., C.J.K. Rao, Adv., Alok Bakshi, Adv., Chandresh Shrivastava, Adv., Rahul Jha, Adv., Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Adv., Rahul Birthare, Adv.
Headnote:
Representative of People Act, 1951 - Section 81 – PhD degree - Petitioners have obtained Ph.D degree from University over a different period of time and the convocation was scheduled for distribution of the degree - Before programme, certain complaints were made to the Chancellor - Chancellor on the basis of complaints had ordered for an enquiry and a special team of experts was constituted - They examined the grant of Ph.D degrees to different petitioners and reported back certain shortcomings to the Chancellor after examination of individual cases of the petitioner - Chancellor in turn made the correspondence with the University and the State - University after examination of the cases, issued notice to different petitioners – Held, Petitioners can very well present their stand before the University to justify the award of the Ph.D. Degree and that the requirements of Ordinance No.2, which govern Ph.D were fulfilled in its object and spirit - If any adverse decision is taken, the petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge the same - Court restrains itself to adjudicate or comment upon the fact as to whether a particular part of Ordinance has been duly complied or not ? It would be a matter of consideration for the University and the Chancellor - Petitions Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Goutam Bhaduri, J. -In all the bunch of the petitions, the primary challenge is to the show cause notice dated 22.10.2018 addressed to respective petitioners. According to the format of notice, the default clause(s) subject to its application is/are marked and response was sought from each of the individual petitioners.
2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the petitions are almost similar, they are decided by this common order.
3. The facts of the cases are that all the petitioners have obtained Ph.D., degree from Pt. Sunderlal Sharma Open University over a different period of time and the convocation was scheduled for distribution of the degree. Before such programme, certain complaints were made to the Chancellor. The Chancellor thereafter on the basis of complaints had ordered for an enquiry and a special team of experts was constituted. They examined the grant of Ph.D., degrees to different petitioners and thereafter reported back certain shortcomings to the Chancellor after examination of individual cases of the petitioner. The Chancellor in turn made the correspondence with the University and the State. Subsequently the University after examination of the cases, issued show cause notice to different petitioners.
4. The common show cause notice(s) was served to the petitioners and in respect of each petitioner, separate right mark was made against each clause for the shortcomings noticed in respect of the individual petitioners. The format of such notice is reproduced herein below :
5. According to the petitioners, they have undertaken the Ph.D., course through the respondent Pt. Sunderlal Sharma Open University. The degrees of Ph.D., were awarded to the petitioners on different dates. It is also the common case of the petitioners that the grant of Ph.D., is governed by Ordinance No. 2 framed u/s 27 of the Pt. Sunderlal Sharma Open University Adhiniyam, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2004). It is further case of the petitioners that after the grant of degree of Ph.D., they have received the show cause notice by the University calling explanation as to why the notification awarding Ph.D., may not be cancelled. The show cause notice purports that within a stipulated period of time, the reply must be filed otherwise, degree of Ph.D., would be cancelled. Few of the petitioners have filed reply to show cause and few of them have not yet filed. It is at this stage, all the petitioners have moved this Court by filing different petitions.
6. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 03.05.2016 the convocation has commenced and on 06.05.2016 the University received a letter. On 12.07.2016, the direction was issued not to distribute the degrees. It is stated that once the degree of Ph.D., is granted, the denotification could not be done and the University cannot revert back to the genuineness of the grant of degree.
7. Commencing the arguments Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per section 8 of the Adhiniyam 2004, the powers were exercised by the Governor (Kuladhipati) and the powers of enquiry was delegated to the State. It is contended that the State has no power to enquire into the affairs of the University as the power of inspection or enquiry is only vested with the Chancellor i.e., Kuladhipathi. Learned counsel would further submit that after the enquiry, the decision has been taken by the State Authority and shortcomings were pointed out, which the State does not have the power. It is stated that the Chancellor cannot delegate his power of advice to the State which has been done in the instant cases. It is contended that because of want of power the entire act of the State and the finding of enquiry report by the State is without jurisdiction and cannot be acted upon. It is further stated that the letter was issued by the Governor in the capacity of Chancellor and since the Governor has delegated the power to take decision, it was withou
