IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23243 of 2006(P) --------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- BINDHUKALA P.N., BINDHU BHAVAN, PALACKAL, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. VICE-CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. DR.A.J. ABRAHAM, RESEARCH GUIDE, DEPARTMENT OF HINDI, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY (ANCHANIYIL, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.) R1 RO R3 BY ADVS. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI. V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 23243 of 2006(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.1997 PH.D.DEGREE IN HINDI. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AC.AII-2/203/HIN/97 DATED 1.10.2002. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AC.AII-2/203/HIN/97 DATED 11.8.2003. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADJUDICATION OF PH.D THESIS. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.5.2004 BY THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY FORWARDING THE SYNOPSIS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.6.2004 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE TITLE PAGE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADJUDICATION OF PH.D THESES. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE DRAFT CERTIFICATE WITH CORRECTIONS MADE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.7.2004. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.7.2004 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT FORWARDING THE THESIS. EXT.P11 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ATTACHED TO THE THESIS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 16.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN REPLY TO EXT.P-12. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE MEMO DIRECTING HER TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE THE HON'BLE VICE-CHANCELLOR. Contd... WP(C).No. 23243 of 2006(P) EXT.P15: : COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 2.8.2005 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 : COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH CENTRE, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY. EXT.P17 : COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE PRINCIPAL, N.S.S. HINDU COLLEGE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P18 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P19 : COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 11.11.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23243 OF 2006 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had registered herself as a research student and as a candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy of the 1st respondent -University. Registration was granted as per Exhibit P1 order and the minimum period of research was three years. The time for completion of final thesis was extended from time to time till 18.7.2004 as evident from Exhibit P3. 2. A controversy arose, since the 4th respondent, who was the Research Guide of the petitioner refuted his signature in the NOC submitted. Proceedings were then initiated by the University and thereafter, it appears that the 4th respondent became inaccessible and his whereabouts are also not known as evident from the endorsement made by the Head of the Department, Research Centre, NSS Hindu College, Changanassery in Exhibit P16. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition seeking for various reliefs. 3. Before this Court also, the 4th respondent has not W.P.(C)No. 23243/06 -2- appeared and has not filed any vakalath. The notice sent to him returned unserved with the endorsement 'addressee left'. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the University. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of Exhibit P8 draft will show that the 4th respondent has corrected his address in his own handwriting therein and thereafter Exhibit P11 certificate was issued by him, which is duly signed by him also. But strangely, subsequently,he developed a change of mind and he filed a complaint to the University in the matter, which it is contended, is really unfounded. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not oblige to all the illegal demands of the 4th respondent. It is submitted further that the petitioner was prepared to face any enquiry in the matter. For change of research guide various formalities had to to be completed as stated in Exhibit P15 and item No.12 therein is the NOC from the present guide, the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the same is an impossibility as nobody knows the whereabouts of the 4th respondent. 5. This is a peculiar situation faced by a research student. For evaluating the thesis, the research guide will have to submit a W.P.(C)No. 23243/06 -3- panel of three members who will be selected and appointed by the Syndicate. Now that the 4th respondent is not available, a proper course will have to be adopted to see that the thesis submitted by the petitioner is evaluated. As the petitioner has indicated that the petitioner is prepared to face any enquiry with regard to the signature of the 4th respondent also, if the University at this distance of time finds that any enquiry is required, the same can be initiated with notice to the petitioner. If no such enquiry is required to be done, what remains is the evaluation of the thesis. Since the 4th respondent is not available, respondents 1 to 3 can take appropriate action to see that a Supervisor is appointed properly without requiring the NOC from the 4th respondent and thereafter a Board of Examination can be appointed from the panel submitted by the Supervisor and the evaluation of thesis can accordingly be made. Action in this respect will be finalised within a period of four months. If the University is of opinion that any action should be initiated against the 4th respondent, it is open for the University to do so. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge