IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 65 of 2011 Parimal Kumar Das ….…… Appellant. Versus IIT, Roorkee and others ………. Respondents Mr. K.S. Bora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhaskar Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 29.09.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 2415 of 2011 We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the reasons furnished therein for the delay in preferring the appeal, we condone the same. Special Appeal No. 65 of 2011 In the writ petition, it was the contention of the appellant that he has not been granted an opportunity to appear in the examination for completion of his Ph.D. The writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. In course of hearing of the appeal, appellant and respondent – institution have agreed to sort out the difference in between them. Appellant has agreed to appear in one test for completion of his Ph.D. Respondent – institution has also agreed that the appellant shall be given one opportunity to appear in the examination to complete his Ph.D. 2. The above agreement is evidenced by an affidavit filed by the appellant and acceptance thereof, as indicated, by the respondent – institution by filing an affidavit. 3. In the circumstances, the judgment and order under appeal is modified to the extent of the agreement inter se the parties as evidenced by those two affidavits. The salient terms and conditions of the agreement is that the 2 appellant will be permitted to sit in the examination to be held in the month of March, 2012 to be fixed by the respondent – institution and for that purpose, appellant would be required to have himself registered with the respondent – institution in the month of January, 2012. The examination shall be conducted under the supervision of another supervisor, for which the appellant will be required to move an application, and if such an application is moved, respondent – institution shall accept the same and appoint a different supervisor. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.09.2011 29.09.2011 Amit