Allowed

Sneh Lata v. State of. U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin. Secy. Empowerment of Persons With Disability,Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024WRIC/10058/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Clause 8.5 of the University Ordinance 2014 regarding Ph.D. duration is directory, not mandatory, due to the relaxation provision in Clause 8.6. Relying on a coordinate bench's judgment, the court directed the University to permit the petitioner to submit her Pre-submission Viva and complete her course within one year by depositing the requisite fee.

What did the court decide?

Direction to permit petitioner to submit Pre-submission Viva and conclude Ph.D. course within one year.

Sneh Lata Vs State of. U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80326

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10058 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sneh Lata Respondent :- State Of. U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin. Secy. Empowerment Of Persons With Disability,Lko.And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Utsav Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite party No.1 and Sri Sudip Seth, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 5, while notice of opposite party No.6 has been accepted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.

¶7

Petition has been filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to enable petitioner to submit a Pre-submission Viva of Ph.D. thesis and to conclude the Ph.D. course for which she was admitted by the Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of clause 8.5 of the Ordinance of 2014 applicable upon the University, the time limit of completion of Ph.D. course is indicated as five years. He has however drawn attention to clause 8.6 of the aforesaid Ordinance to indicate that such time limit is expandable by the concerned authority of the University upon deposit of requisite fee for the same. It is therefore submitted that clause 8.5 would therefore be only directory and not mandatory in nature.

¶9

It is submitted that the provisions of clause 8.6 would be applicable upon petitioner, who has already deposited the requisite fee for the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in terms of clause 8.6 of the Ordinance of 2024, the Departmental Research Committee of the University in its meeting held on 06th February, 2024 has also unanimously recommended extension of time to petitioner for depositing the fee and completing research, for taking Viva as completion of the Ph.D. course.

¶10

He has also drawn attention to judgement rendered in the case

¶11

of Kaushalendra Kumar vs. State of U.P., Writ-C No.2774 of 2024 and connected matters as well as in case of Sanjay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ- C No. 3800 of 2023.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 5 on the basis of instructions submits that University is bound by Ordinance of 2014, particularly clause 8.5 thereof, due to which the petitioner's request for extension of time was not entertained. He on the basis of instructions admits that the departmental Research Committee of the University in its recommendation dated 06th February, 2024 has recommended the case of petitioner.

¶13

Upon consideration of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, particularly clauses 8.5 and 8.6 of the Ordinance- 2014 it can be concluded that the provisions of clause 8.5 of the Ordinance of 2014 cannot be said to be mandatory in nature, particularly, since a relaxation clause has been provided in clause 8.6 of the Ordinance of 2014.

¶14

The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kaushalendra Kumar (Supra) in the following manner:

¶15

"7. Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University had issued Ph.D. Ordinance 2014, Clause 8 whereof contains provisions regarding duration of Ph.D. It provides that the duration of Ph.D. shall commence immediately after depositing the first installment of the fee. The maximum duration for completing Ph.D. course will be 5 years. Clause 8.6 of the said ordinance provides that the duration of Ph.D. course can be extended on the basis of recommendation of research guide and Head of Department and after approval of Vice Chancellor and also after depositing the prescribed fee.

¶16

17. The petitioners' request has been rejected on the ground that the maximum period of six years, stipulated under Clause 4.2 of the Ph.D. Regulations 2016 of the University Grants Commission and under Clause 8.2 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2018 of the University, has expired and the extended period granted as per the U.G.C. letter has also expired, hence the application of the petitioner for extension of time is not maintainable.

¶17

.41. The sole reason assigned for rejecting the petitioners' request for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course is that the maximum period of six years stipulated under course 4.2 of Ph.D. regulation 2016 of UGC, under course clause 8.2

¶18

of Ph.D. ordinance 2018 of the university and subsequent permissible extension under the effect of public notice of UGC dated 17 May 2022 has been ended on 31-December, 2022.

¶19

43. A request for extension of time is made only when the time available for completion of the curse has expired. In other words, the time permissible for completing Ph.D. course would be a ground for seeking an extension of time and is cannot be a ground for rejecting the request for extension.

¶20

50. It also significant to note that in its meeting held 06.02.2024, the departmental research committee of the University has unanimously recommended for extension of time available to the petitioners for depositing fee, completing research work and taking viva, yet the University has rejected the petitioners' request for extension of time for completing the Ph.D. course.

¶21

53. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the action of the University in denying to extend the petitioner's time for completing Ph.D. course as per the provision contained in Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. course 2014 is unsustainable in law. The petitioners are also entitled to be granted extension of time of one year like other students."

¶22

In considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgement in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is squarely applicable.

¶23

In view of aforesaid, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to submit her Pre- submission Viva of the Ph.D. thesis in a subject and to conclude the Ph.D. course within a period of one year from today in terms of clause 8.6 of the Ordinance of 2014.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself.

¶25

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Reena/-

¶27

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sneh Lata v. State of. U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin. Secy. Empowerment of Persons With Disability,Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneh Lata v. State of. U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief/Prin. Secy. Empowerment of Persons With Disability,Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Naresh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Lalit Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Aditya Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Med.Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 3 Others

Madan Ji Shukla Pno. 842462859 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Kayam Singh Pharmacy College, Mainpur Thru. Its Manager Shiv Darshan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

Rahul Singh vs Learned Upayukt Stamp Ayodhya Region Ayodhya and 4 Others