Dismissed

Bushra Salam v. Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors.

Delhi HC3 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/1049/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking an extension for Ph.D. completion and appointment of a new supervisor. Upholding the University's Board of Studies decision due to the petitioner's irregular pursuit of research and violation of regulations regarding simultaneous employment, the Court declined judicial interference in academic matters.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bushra Salam Vs Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1049/2016 & C.M.Nos.4579/2016, 4580/2016, 5408/2016 BUSHRA SALAM ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Bahar U.Barqi, Advocate.

¶4

Versus

¶5

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Apurb Lal with Ms.Meenu Pandey, Advocates for R-1 & 2.

¶6

Date of Decision: 3^rd March, 2016

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶8

J U D G M E N T

¶9

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

¶10

Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant sufficient time to the petitioner for completing her Ph.D course. Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent nos. 1 to 3 to appoint a new Supervisor for the petitioner. Petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to release the fellowship to the petitioner, which has not been given to her since 1^st January, 2013.

¶11

The relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner had filed a prior writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7928/2014 seeking extension of time for completion of her Ph.D course as well as for change of her Supervisor and the same was disposed on 19^th November, 2014 with a direction to make a representation to the

¶12

W.P.(C) 1049/2016

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

University and the University was directed to pass a speaking order within six weeks.

¶15

The respondent-University disposed of petitioner’s representation vide letter dated 5^th November, 2015 stating that in accordance with the decision of the Board of Studies dated 14^th January, 2015 and the Minutes of Board of Studies dated 12^th October, 2015, the petitioner is not entitled for sixth year extension to Ph.D admission, and therefore, no question of change of her Ph.D Supervisor and for release of non-NET fellowship arises.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner’s thesis has been lying complete since 14^th August, 2013, but till date the Supervisor has not accepted the same. He refers to petitioner’s letter dated 22^nd April, 2014 to contend that the draft of the thesis had been submitted to the Head of Department on a C.D on 4^th November, 2013.

¶17

He further states that the petitioner’s future is at stake and she has been unable to complete her Ph.D degree for more than two years because of respondents’ inaction.

¶18

However, a perusal of the paper book reveals that after the petitioner’s initial writ petition was disposed of on 19^th November, 2014, the Board of Studies comprising eight Professors/Teachers, after considering the petitioner’s representation and after perusing the records decided against recommending sixth year extension to the petitioner and further resolved that the petitioner’s admission to Ph.D

¶19

W.P.(C) 1049/2016

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

course be cancelled. The relevant portion of the decision of the Board of Studies is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶22

“ In the meeting, following members were present

¶23

1. Proft. Shahnaz Parveen (Chairperson)

¶24

2. Prof. Mohd Mazhar Ali Khan 3. Proft. Rocket Ibrahim 4. Dr. Haroon Sajjad 5. Dr. Atiqur Rahman 6. Dr. Taruna Bansal 7. Dr. Lubna Siddiqui 8. Ms. Aruna paarcha 9. xxx xxx xxx

¶25

1. Her sixth year extension to the Ph.D. Course

¶26

............ Upon consideration of the representation of Ms. Bushra Salaam and perusal of records, BOS observed that:-

¶27

Ms. Bushra Salaam had not been regular in pursuits of the research work and did not follow the academic guidance of carrying out her Ph.D. work. Dr.Lubna Siddiqui had sent email notices dated 27 Jan’ 2013and 3 Feb’ 2013 to Ms.Bushra Salamm and asked her to submit her Ph.D. progress report but Ms.Bushra Salaam failed to do so. Dr. Lubna Siddiqui then reported this matter in DOS dated 22^nd August, 2013. On the basis of the resolution of DOS, a warning letter was issued to Ms. Bushra Salaam on 29^th Aug’ 2013, asking her to submit the Ph.D. progress report forwarded by her supervisor Dr. Lubna Siddiqui, within one month from the date of issue of warning letter, which Ms. Bushra Salaam failed to comply with.

¶28

Dr. Lubna Siddiqui had also reported verbally both in DOS and BOS that Ms. Bushra Salam had misbehaved with her

W.P.(C) 1049/2016

Page 3 of 6

many times.

Both the above matters are conduct in violation of Ordinances and Regulations (Academic), [Ordinance 9 (IX), 9, (c) Cancellation of Registration in the Ph.D. Course].

¶33

On the above grounds, BOS resolved that the 6^th year extension to Ph.D. Admission cannot be recommend to Ms. Bushra Salaam and the BOS further resolved the cancellation of her admission from Ph.D. Course.”

¶34

xxx xxx xxx

¶35

3. Release of her non-net fellowship

¶36

As per the documents already provided by the supervisor, Dr.Lubna Siddiqui, Ms. Bushra Salam was found to be drawing the university Non-NET fellowship and also working as PGT in Navyug School, Gole Market, New Delhi from 22 Sept. 2012 to 31 March 2013 and has also drawn salary from the school simultaneously which is a serious violation of Ordinances and Regulations (Academic), [ Ordinance 9 (IX) 9. (c) Cancellation of Registration in the Ph.D. Course].

¶37

Therefore, BOS recommends for recovery of the drawn NonNET fellowship from Ms. Bushra Salam during the period for which she had drawn salary from school also. Further release of Non-NET fellowship in the light above issue was not recommended by BOS”.

(emphasis supplied)

W.P.(C) 1049/2016

Page 4 of 6

Upon a perusal of the reasons given by the Board of Studies, this Court is of the view that the same are reasonable as well as based on grounds which are germane and which call for no interference in writ jurisdiction.

¶42

It is settled law that Courts are reluctant to interfere in the academic matters, especially when decisions have been taken by a body comprising academicians. In fact, the Supreme Court in University Grants Commission Vs. Neha Anil Bobde, (2013) 10 SCC 519 has held that in academic matters, unless there is clear violation of statutory provisions, regulations or notification issued, Courts should not interfere. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that conclusions of the Expert Body call for no interference in writ jurisdiction.

¶43

It is pertinent to mention that though the learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly emphasised that the Ph.D thesis had been submitted by the petitioner as early as 3^rd September, 2013, yet this Court is not impressed by the said contention, as from the paper book it is apparent that the petitioner had been issued a prior warning letter on 29^th August, 2013 by the petitioner’s Head of Department, wherein it was stated that the petitioner had not been in contact with her Supervisor from September, 2012. From the said letter, it is apparent that the petitioner’s alleged Ph.D thesis, which she claims to have furnished on 3^rd September, 2013, had not been approved by the Supervisor. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Ph.D thesis are not submitted in one go to the Supervisor but virtually every

¶44

W.P.(C) 1049/2016

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

chapter is first approved by the Supervisor and then the Ph.D thesis is submitted in its entirety.

¶47

In view thereof, the present writ petition along with the applications being bereft of merits are dismissed.

¶48

MANMOHAN, J

¶49

MARCH 03, 2016 KA

¶50

W.P.(C) 1049/2016

¶51

Page 6 of 6

Bushra Salam v. Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bushra Salam v. Jamia Millia Islamia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Nirman Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Bgs International Public School Vs K.K. Joy & Anr.

R.S. Misra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Developers & Builders Forum through Its President & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Principal Secretary & Ors.

Hawkers Suraksha Foundation All India Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Yogesh Gupta & Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

No 962332788 Constable/ Gd Mukesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sukdeb Sahu Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mantec Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (I.a. Division) & Anr.

Himanshu Mittal Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Avtar Lal Gill Vs the Lt. Governor & Ors.

Mohd Shahid & Ors. Vs Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Anr.

Sarita Gautam Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Joginder Kumar Bhasin Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi and Ors.