Point of Law: The tenure of a research Scholarship shall be three years counted from the date of joining. The initial award shall however, be released for one year and then renewed from year to year up to the third year, subject to satisfactory progress. On the recommendation of the DSC, the tenure may be extended for a further period of two more years, granting the extension for not more than six months at a time subject to the satisfactory performance of the scholar, at seminar lecture delivered embodying the progress of the work. Grant of a six-monthly instalment of the tenure is subject to actual requirement of the scholar's work to be certified by the DSC, after assessing the progress of the work presented through Seminar lectures

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed against the Order passed by the Director, National Institute of Technology, Warangal (NITW), vide No.NITW/Dir/Vig./2019/4460 dated 28/29.01.2019, canceling the Ph.D admission of the petitioner-Shri A. Chandra Mohan, and the consequential proceedings dated 30.07.2019, 18.11.2019 and the final Senate proceedings dated 03.01.2020 confirming the expulsion of the petitioner from Ph.D course.

2. Heard Ms. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Vani Reddy, G.P. for Education Department, and Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-institute. Learned counsel for both sides sought to advance arguments at length both on facts and law. This Court asked the learned counsels to submit a brief note of their arguments along with judgments relied and the same are placed on file.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner joined the respondent-Institute as a Junior Research Fellow for DST-SERB Project on 12.12.2017 and has been subsequently enrolled for the Ph.D programme in the Academic Year 2017-18 vide Roll No.717168 in the Department of Chemistry under the supervision and guidance of respondent No.5. On 25.04.2018, the petitioner submitted the Progress Report with regard to his Research Work for the period December, 2017 to April, 2018 to the Dean, Academic Affairs. The Report was recommended and forwarded by the Dean, Academic Affairs, and the Chairman and Members of the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee assessed the research work. The petitioner was given grade ‘A’ in two subjects, and grade ‘B’ in other two subjects. Having not satisfied with the grading awarded, the petitioner on 04.06.2018 at 1:30 PM, allegedly used unparliamentary language against respondent No.5-research guide in the laboratory, and had an emotional outburst on his Research Guide in his chambers at 5:00 PM on the same day in front of another faculty Dr.B.Srinivas. At the request of respondent No.5, the Doctoral Scrutiny Committee convened a Meeting on 11.06.2018 and questioned the petitioner about his conduct and grading and asked the petitioner to submit his resignation and leave the institution. Thereafter, on 19.06.2018, the respondent No.5 addressed a written complaint to the Director, NITW, stating that after the DSC Meeting of 11.06.2018, the petitioner gave an open challenge to the research career and job of respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 has become unstable and unable to concentrate on his work and therefore requested to remove the petitioner from his project and also to cancel the petitioner’s Ph.D registration. Pursuant to the complaint dated 19.06.2018 made by respondent No.5, the Director, NITW, constituted a Committee under the chairmanship of Prof. K.V. Jayakumar, to discuss the issue and take further course of action. The Committee met on 20.08.2018 and 21.08.2018 and deliberated on the issue and decided to take a lenient view by giving an opportunity to the petitioner, however cautioned the petitioner by imposing certain conditions to be complied by the petitioner with regard to his research work and conduct. Thereafter, a Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Prof. Srilakshmi, and the Committee recommended to cancel the Ph.D registration of the petitioner. Thereafter, a Show Cause notice dated 02.01.2019 came to be issued by observing that the petitioner has not showed any improvement in his research work and conduct, and the petitioner replied to the same on 07.01.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed on 28/29.01.2019 cancelling the Ph.D registration of the petitioner, hence the writ petition.

4. Ms. Nandita Guha, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments in the writ affidavit and also the documents filed along with the writ affidavit and by making a reference to the counter affidavit of