IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the university's Research Council and Executive Council to hold a viva-voce examination for a Ph.D thesis, and the obligation of the university authorities to comply with their decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati University appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. H. Rahman, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. The grievance as raised by the petitioner in the present proceedings pertains to the non-holding of the required viva-voce examination in connection with the thesis as submitted by the petitioner for her Ph.D degree. The petitioner has also assailed in this connection, an assessment report of her thesis dated 22.02.2019, furnished by the respondent no. 6 and also the decision as arrived at by the constituted committee, requiring the petitioner to revised her thesis. The petitioner has also presented a challenge to a communication dated 15.02.2022, issued by the Academic Registrar, Gauhati University asking her to submit her replies on or, before 28.02.2022, citing the reason of her failure to carry out the revision work as sought by the committee constituted in the matter by the Vice Chancellor, Gauhati University.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Master Degree holder in Physics, had enrolled herself for a Ph.D course at Gauhati University. The petitioner was assigned a research topic viz. “Lithospheric-Tropospheric-Ionospheric Interactive Processess: A study with special reference to major earthquakes of West Pacific Region.” Pursuant to the recommendation dated 10.09.2015 of the Ph.D committee, the Gauhati University authorities vide a communication dated 07.10.2015, allotted to the petitioner her final registration for the Ph.D degree. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner was granted extensions for submission of her thesis till 17.07.2018 and on 17.07.2018, the petitioner had submitted 3(three) copies of her thesis which was duly acknowledged by the Academic Registrar, Gauhati University i.e. the respondent no. 4 herein.

4. It is the categorical contention of the petitioner that the respondent no. 6 vide a certificate dated 16.07.2018, had certified that the thesis of the petitioner was fit for award of Ph.D degree. The said thesis of the petitioner was thereafter, forwarded to two external examiners for evaluation and out of the two external examiners one had recommended the thesis whereas, the other had rejected the thesis. Since the thesis was rejected by one of the three examiners, the same was referred to a fourth examiner in terms of the Regulations holding the field, who on perusal of the thesis had recommended the same. As two external examiners had recommended the thesis of the petitioner and the same having already been recommended by the respondent no. 6, her guide, the petitioner contends that she was entitled to appear in the viva-voce examination in terms of the Regulations holding the field at that relevant point of time.

5. The petitioner contends that although the respondent no. 6 had certified vide a certificate dated 16.07.2018 that the thesis of the petitioner was fit for award of Ph.D degree, the respondent no. 6 on 22.02.2019, proceeded to submit an assessment report, wherein, it was held that the thesis of the petitioner was poor in most of the facets and accordingly, had recommended revision of all the chapters of her thesis. The said assessment report as submitted by the petitioner naturally lead to a delay in holding of the viva-voce examination in respect of the said thesis of the petitioner. The contentions as made by the petitioner in the writ petition, reveals that certain misunderstanding had developed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a complaint and the same was forwarded to the Departmental Research Committee of the Department of Physics and thereafter, to the Research Council and ultimately, the same to be placed before the Executive Council, Gauhati University. The matter was pla