*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 11.11.2013

+

WP (C) No.2111 of 2013

JITENDER KUMAR

.... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. R.D. Sharma, Mr. Chetan Sharma

Mr. Mohan Lal, Ms. Ruchika Sharma &

Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advs.

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Jaya Goyal & Mr. Rohit Gandhi,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

JUDGEMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

Vide offer letter dated 22.3.2010 issued by the respondent, Jamia

Millia Islamia, the petitioner was informed that the Board of Studies of the

Department of Economics had considered his research proposal and

recommended his registration for the Ph.D Course under the supervision of

Dr. Bathula Srinivas. In continuation of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner

was informed, vide letter dated 8.4.2010, that he had been provisionally

admitted to the Ph.D. Programme under the supervision of the aforesaid

supervisor. He was required to submit his progress report after every six

months through proper channel and was further informed that in case of

failure, his admission would be cancelled. Vide communication dated

24.8.2010, the petitioner was found eligible for grant of Non-Net

2013:DHC:5745

Fellowship. The petitioner sought some modification in the topic assigned

to him and the said modification was granted by the University in due

course.

A certificate dated 15.3.2011 was issued to the petitioner by his

supervisor certifying that his performance had been satisfactory and the

research work was in progress. He also recommended fellowship so that

the petitioner could complete the research. The petitioner also cleared the

examination held in the year 2011 and his result was declared on

10.8.2011.

2. Vide letter dated 27.9.2011, the petitioner alleging problem of

conversation between him and his supervisor, Dr. Bathula Srinivas, sought

change of the Supervisor at an early date. This request was reiterated by

the petitioner vide his letter dated 23.3.2012 whereupon an endorsement

was made that the present Guide, Dr. Srinivas, would continue till some

final decision was taken on his request.

3. Vide notice dated 13.9.2012 the respondent-University informed the

petitioner that none of the faculty members was willing to supervise him

and in these circumstances the Board of Studies had no choice left but to

recommend cancellation of his Ph.D. registration due to non-availability of

supervisor. The petitioner was given a notice to show cause why his Ph.D.

registration should not be cancelled. Thus, the only ground given in the

show cause notice for proposing cancellation of Ph.D. registration of the

petitioner was the unwillingness of any of the faculty members to be his

supervisor. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice and vide letter

dated 17.12.2012, the University conveyed the minutes of the Board of

Studies meeting held on 17.12.2012 to all the members of the said

Committee. A perusal of the aforesaid minutes would show that Dr.

Bathula Srinivas, reiterated that the performance of the six monthly

2013:DHC:5745

progress of the candidate was not satisfactory and despite repeated

encouragement, instructions and reminders to improve his performance he

had submitted an application for change of supervisor. The minutes would

further show that an attempt was made by the Board of Studies to identify

a supervisor to replace Dr. Bathula but no faculty member was willing to

be his supervisor and it was for this reason that a show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner proposing cancellation of his Ph.D. registration.

The Board of Studies recommended cancellation of the registration of the

petitioner on the following grounds:

“In the light of the relevant ordinances, and in view of the

facts that: 1) unsatisfactory performance reported by Supervisor;

2) with no other Faculty is willing to supervise from the

department