Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 4858
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA, J
MOHAMAMED KHUDRATHULLA – Appellant
Versus
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE – Respondent
WP 3582 of 2022
The refusal to allow a Ph.D candidate to choose a guide from a different specialty is arbitrary and violates eligibility criteria, as nursing education is a core subject common among specialties.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus - Eligibility for Ph.D Nursing Course - Petitioner, a Principal at a Government School of Nursing, challenged the refusal of the respondent to allow him to pursue a Ph.D under a guide from a different specialty. The respondent contended that the petitioner must select a guide within the same specialty as per the revised ordinance. The court found that the petitioner met all eligibility criteria and that the refusal was arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - The court emphasized that the guidelines do not mandate that a candidate must choose a guide from the same specialty, allowing for flexibility in the selection of guides in nursing education. (Paras 4-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner qualified for the Ph.D entrance test and chose a guide from Community Health Nursing, but was deemed ineligible due to specialty differences. The petitioner argued that nursing education is a core subject common among specialties.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the refusal to allow the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D under the chosen guide was arbitrary and violated the revised ordinance.
Issues: Whether the respondent was justified in declaring the petitioner ineligible to pursue the Ph.D under a different specialty guide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioner’s choice of guide was valid and aligned with the general field of nursing, thus the refusal was unjustified.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed.
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:
“a) Issue writ of Certiorari by quashing the Letter dtd:16.12.2021 in No.RGUHS/AR/Ph.D/N- 08/2021-22 issued by the Respondent at Annexure-J
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to consider the letters dtd:20.12.2021 and 13.01.2022 Annexure-K & L and allow the Petitioner to pursue Ph.D Nursing Course under the guide Dr. G.Nagarathnamma.
c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit to grant in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, by allowing the above Appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is employed as the Principal at the Government School of Nursing, District Hospital, Chamarajanagar. Under notification dated 17.02.2021, respondent invited application for entrance test for admission to Ph.D Course to Nursing, the petitioner qualified himself under the entrance test and petitioner took one ‘Dr. Nagarathnamma .G‘ Professor and HOD in the Department of Community Health Nursing at Government College of Nursing, BMCRI, Bengaluru’ as a guide and issued a declaration on 15.07.2021. Respondent had extended the date of submission of the preliminary synopsis till 16.08.2021 and the petitioner, having cleared the Ph.D entrance examination with an impressive score of 85.45 percentile, submitted his preliminary synopsis to the respondent on 06.08.2021. The respondent issued a revised ordinance concerning the enrollment of candidates for Ph.D research in Nursing 2021 stating that the candidates with Medical Surgical Nursing / M.Phil in nursing awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences or any university recognised by Indian National Council are eligible for enrollment in the in Ph.D course in nursing. According to the petitioner, this Clause made the petitioner eligible for pursuing Ph.D in Medical Surgical Nursing. Several representations were made by the petitioner for reconsideration of his candidature, in response, the respondent addressed the letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has chosen his guide under Community Health Nursing Specialty, which is a different specialty and thereby, made the petitioner ineligible to pursue the Ph.D in Nursing under her guidance. Several requests of the petitioner requesting for reconsideration of the petitioner’s candidature under the guidance of Dr. Nagarathnamma was not responded and the refusal of the respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D in nursing course under Dr. Nagarathnamma has made the petitioner to approach this Court.
3. The respondent filed statement of objections, inter alia, contending that the Ordinance governing Enrollment of Candidates for Research leading to Ph.D mandates that a Post Graduate student who intends to enroll himself for Ph.D is eligible for enrollment in the concerned subject only and he/she should opt for a guide in the concerned specialty empanelled by the university. It is stated that Clauses 6 and 7 of the Ordinance exhaustively covers the aspects of eligibility criteria for the Ph.D enrollment and the age and qualifications of a guide, any infraction of these norms results in lowering the standards of education and even if there were to be a infraction of the norms in an earlier occasion, it does not empower the authorities to perpetuate the mistake forever. It is submitted that the petitioner was informed about the decision and suggested to come with the proposal under the guidance of an eligible guide and sufficient time has been given. It is stated that in the letter directing the petitioner to get an eligible guide is in light of the Ordinance and under no circumstances, the petitioner can be registered under the guidance of Dr. Nagarathanamma and that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the respondent’s refusal to allow the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D in nursing course under the guide from a different spec
