[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5481 of 2015 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any order made thereunder ? [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] Appearance: MR [ENTITY], SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR. [ENTITY] (437) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY]) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS [ENTITY]) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 MS. [ENTITY], AGP (1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,4,5 MR [ENTITY]) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 MR [ENTITY]) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 6 MR [ENTITY]) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 6 MR. [ENTITY], SENIOR ADVOCATE with MRS [ENTITY]) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,4,5,6 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Page 1 of 12 [CASE NUMBER] Date : 22/03/2018 ORAL [CASE NUMBER]
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] with regard to the allotment of the students to a registered guide and has prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2 - [ENTITY] to withdraw the action of registering Respondent No.6 - [ENTITY] as student of Ph.D under the guidance of Respondent No.5 - Dr. [ENTITY] on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.
2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are that the petitioner was nominated as a Special Expert in the subject of Home Science for holding GDPI in the Department of Home Science, [ENTITY] Ahmedabad for admitting the students for Ph.D degree. The Respondent No.6 had also applied for registration for the Ph.D course in the year 2013 and was registered as Ph.D student. The registration of Respondent No.6 for the Ph.D course was cancelled and the registration of another student was also cancelled and the petitioner was informed accordingly. Thereafter the Respondent No.5 moved an application to the Vice-Chancellor to take Respondent No.6 - [ENTITY] as her student which is granted, which has led to the present petition contending that such an act of [CASE NUMBER] granting admission and allotting the students to the Respondent No.5 is arbitrary and illegal and has sought cancellation as stated herein above. It is contended that allotting an student to Respondent No.5 violates [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the reference is also made to the details about the academic performance and the career of both the Respondent and the Petitioner.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] appearing with learned Advocate Shri [ENTITY] for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] appearing with learned Advocate Mrs. [ENTITY] for Respondent No.6 and also learned Advocate Shri [ENTITY] for Respondent No.3 and learned AGP Ms. [ENTITY] for the Respondent State.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] appearing with learned Advocate Mr. [ENTITY] for the petitioner has referred to the papers at length and and also referred to the rules and regulations and Ph.D Ordinance for the Ph.D program for the [ENTITY]. He pointedly referred to the [SECTION] which has a reference to intake of students. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] submitted that the RDC is the only authority and in case of the Respondent, it has been suggested that the procedure is not required to be followed and the approval is [CASE NUMBER] also granted by the Vice-Chancellor. Again, learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] referred to [SECTION] and submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has no discretion, and therefore, admission of an additional student is arbitrary, illegal and violative of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. He submitted that the approval of RDC is must which has been done away with. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] has referred to the communication by the [ENTITY] dated 3.6.2014 and submitted that on one hand the Vice-Chancellor has suggested that the procedure by the RDC is necessary and on the other hand as stated above it has not been followed. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] therefore strenuously submitted that in spite of the aforesaid letter of the University, the procedure for approval of RDC is not followed. He also referred to the regulations again and submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has no authority and on the contrary he is under an obligation to see that adherence to the statute or the regulation is made in any circumstance. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] submitted that the eligibility certificate was granted after the admission was given.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] referred to the affidavit as well as the affidavit-in-rejoinder to emphasize about [CASE NUMBER] unauthorized permission granted to take an additional Ph.D students which will benefit the Respondent No.5 and therefore the present petition has been filed.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] and submitted that even in this case also, the direction came to be issued to follow the regulation strictly. He also submitted that the additional affidavit raising the contention that the petitioner has been transferred at Science College, Khambat which is now affiliated to another Sardar Patel University and therefore as the petitioner ceases to be a Teacher of [ENTITY], the grievance may not survive, is misconceived. There is a reference to the further affidavit by the petitioner to contend that even after he is transferred to another University, it would not mean that the petitioner is not guide for the [ENTITY] and as per the Rules of the UGC, the petitioner would remain an employee of the [ENTITY] and the students can complete the Ph.D courses and therefore he has submitted that the petitioner has the locus standi to pursue this petition. He has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [PRECEDENT] in case of Dr. (Mrs.[PRECEDENT]. to support his contention on the aspect of locus standi.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] appearing with learned Advocate Mrs. [ENTITY] for the Respondent has submitted that the present petition is throughly misconceived and rather is out of personal vendetta and the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] referred to the prayer clause and submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner inasmuch as the number of Ph.D students registered with the petitioner are four and the number of Ph.D students registered with Respondent No.5 are also four as one of the students has left. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] submitted that as the petitioner is already having the four students as guide cannot claim the additional student as a matter of right making any grievance on any such count. He therefore strenuously submitted that unless there is a legal injury shown, such petition may not be entertained under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
In support of this submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] in case of [PRECEDENT].
8. Similarly he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] to support his contention as to who could be said to be person aggrieved. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT] and emphasized the observations made in paragraph 17 to support his contention:
"17. Although the meaning of the expression "person aggrieved"
may vary according to the context of the statute and the facts of the case, nevertheless, normally, "a 'person aggrieved' must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something." (As Per [ENTITY] L. J. in [PRECEDENT]) referred to by this Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar (1975) 2 SCC 703 :
(AIR 1975 SC 2092) and [PRECEDENT] at p. 584."
9. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] therefore submitted that in [CASE NUMBER] the facts of the case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. He also referred to the judgment and the regulations produced on record particularly [SECTION] and submitted that approval can be granted by the University at the discretion of Vice-Chancellor provided one fulfills the criteria. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] therefore submitted that similarly the number of students which the guide can have, has also been prescribed and for Associate Professor it is four. He therefore submitted that both the petitioner and Respondent No.5 are having four students each as guide and therefore there is no cause to make any grievance.
10.Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] referred to the affidavit- in-reply filed by the University as well as by the Respondent No.6. He emphasized paragraph 3.2, 5 and also paragraph 6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY] submitted that discontinuance of the studies of Respondent No.6 would affect her career and discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised particularly when Respondent No.6 has completed the two terms of her studies and when the petitioner cannot be said to have any legal injury.
11. Learned Advocate Shri [ENTITY] for Respondent No.6 has referred to the background of the facts and submitted that the procedure has been followed for getting the registration of the Ph.D [CASE NUMBER] student. He submitted that the registration of Respondent No.6 was already there and the certificate of registration has been issued and therefore Respondent No.6 is having the registration certificate and there is no irregularity. Similarly, he referred to [SECTION] to emphasize that the Vice-Chancellor has the discretion. He pointedly referred to [SECTION]. Therefore learned Advocate Shri [ENTITY]. submitted that as rightly submitted the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. He has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of [PRECEDENT]. Similarly, he has also made a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of [PRECEDENT].
12.In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition deserve consideration.
13.As it appears from the background of the facts recorded herein above, the case of the petitioner seems to be based on personal vendetta with a grudge or personal bias qua Respondent No.5. It is stated at the bar that there were already other proceedings filed by the petitioner which would also reflect about the personal bias. However, for the purpose of deciding the present petition, as it is [CASE NUMBER] clearly stated that [SECTION] provide for the number of Ph.D students and the Associate Professor as a guide can be allotted four Ph.D students. The petitioner and Respondent No.5 both are having four students each as one of the student has left. The reference is made to allocation of research guide under [SECTION], and [SECTION] refer to the procedure for registration. Therefore the petition which has been filed seeking cancellation of the Registration of Respondent No.6 as a student for the Ph.D only due to the personal grudge against Respondent No.5. Therefore it appears that the litigation is pursued as and by way of abuse of the court proceedings which does not justify exercise of any such discretionary jurisdiction.
14.As stated above, when both the petitioner and Respondent No.5 are allotted four Ph.D students, there can hardly be any grievance by the petitioner even if one more student is allotted to Respondent No.5.
15.In the facts of the case both are having equal number of students each. The petitioner therefore has to satisfy about any prejudice or any legal injury as submitted by learned Senior Counsel Shri [ENTITY]. The petitioner has not shown any legal injury or any prejudice by granting the registration to Respondent No.6 as Ph.D student with Respondent No.5 as a guide.
[CASE NUMBER] Again as contended, the petitioner has been shifted to another University. Therefore, even if it is assumed that after the transfer from University, the petitioner may continue as a guide for the Ph.D student of the [ENTITY], it would not justify to make any grievance seeking cancellation of registration of Respondent No.6 herein.
16.In fact in a further affidavit by the University it has contended that the petitioner is ceases to be as Teacher of [ENTITY] at all when the petitioner has been transferred to Khambat Science College affiliated to Sardar Patel University. Therefore, since it is not necessary to elaborate on this aspect as to whether the petitioner can be said to have ceased the Teacher of [ENTITY] which would be suffice to consider even on merits that no prejudice or no legal injury is caused to the petitioner by granting a registration to Respondent No.6 as Ph.D. Student with Respondent No.5 as guide. In fact the cat is out of bag when the petitioner has stated in the Rejoinder in paragraph 5 as follows:
"It is stated that petitioner and respondent no.5 are otherwise similarly situated and if they have same number of students increment of both of us would be similar, but here in this case because of respondent no.5 is having one more student then petitioner, respondent no. 5 will get additional increment, this causes injury to the petitioner."
[CASE NUMBER] This itself shows the petty-mindedness that for the purpose of increment, the petitioner has filed such petition with a vendetta against Respondent No.5 asking for cancellation of registration of the Ph.D student - Respondent No.6 herein.
17.As stated above, one more student has already been left and therefore at present both are having equal number of students i.e. four students each as guide with petitioner and Respondent No.5. Therefore, such proceedings filed by the petitioner as and by way of abuse of proceedings cannot be entertained. It is also well settled that normally the court would decline to exercise the discretion under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
18.Therefore, the present petition deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any shall stand vacated.
([ENTITY],J) JNW