Inordinate delay in thesis evaluation necessitates adherence to procedural norms, highlighting the authorities' duties under academic ordinances.

1. The appellant applied for the All India Entrance Test conducted by the respondent - Jawaharlal Nehru University for the M.Phil Programme in Soviet Studies. He was selected and enrolled as a regular student at the Centre for Soviet and East European Studies in the School of International Studies. The appellant successfully completed the M.Phil course and thereafter, he joined the Ph.D. programme at the same Centre. The appellant chose Soviet Party Organization as his subject for the research and submitted his Ph.D. thesis titled 'Democratic Centralism : A Study of Theory and Practice of the Soviet Party Organization', to the Dean, School of International Studies for evaluation on 20th July, 1993. In this appeal the appellant mentioned that he was the only research scholar of the Centre in his batch to submit his Ph.D. thesis within the stipulated time.

2. It is incorporated in the appeal that the appellant waited for evaluation of his thesis for one full year but there was no news about his thesis forthcoming and in the meantime degrees were being awarded to other scholars, who had submitted their respective thesis much after the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant made repeated enquiries and for the first time in November, 1994, he was given a part of the Examiner's Report by his Supervisor and he was informed that one of the Examiners had asked for revision of the thesis. One of the Examiners of the appellant, Prof. K. K. Dasgupta suggested that revision of thesis should be done in such a manner that the revised part should be included in the thesis as an addendum. Prof. Dasgupta had mentioned that according to the rules of the respondent - Jawaharlal Nehru University, the appellant is required to resubmit three copies of the revised thesis incorporating the changes suggested by the Examiners. According to the said rules the changes incorporated in the thesis cannot be sent directly to the Examiner by the candidate under any circumstances. These changes have to be discussed with the Guide / Supervisor and thereafter with his approval, those changes have to be included in the thesis.

3. Prof. Dasgupta in his letter of 10-4-1995 also suggested that the appellant would forget his differences with his Supervisor Prof. R. R. Sharma and, sit with him and finalise the revised version of the thesis and resubmit the same.

4. In the petition, it is alleged that the appellant did not receive any official communication regarding the outcome of his thesis either from the Dean or from the Chairman of the concerned Centre. It is submitted that the appellant had incorporated certain changes as an addendum. It is also mentioned that the other Examiner had already given a positive report and thus the fact remains that both the Examiners had clearly examined the thesis and recommended viva voce examination in their separate report. No date has been fixed till date, though the respondents, herein were duty - bound to do so as per the provisions of the Ordinance relating to the award of Ph.D. degree. It is alleged that the appellant prepared addenda as per the Examiners' directions and gave it to the Supervisor on 4-1-1995 and the same was accepted by the Supervisor in view of the fact that the changes in the form of addenda were done on the directions of the Examiners.

5. The appellant's Supervisor Prof. Sharma in his letter of 1-2-1995 indicated that once a revision is proposed by the Examiner, a certain procedure has to be followed for resubmitting the thesis. It is also mentioned that the delay had occasioned because