IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5195 of 2009 MD.ISHTEYAQUL HAQUE ASHRAF SON OF INAMUL HAQUE ASHRAF, RESIDENT OF SAPNA APARTMENT, NAYA TOLA, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT AND TOWN- PATNA. ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. PATNA UNIVERSITY,PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR,PTNA UNIVERSITY,PATNA. 3. THE REGISTRAR,PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. 4. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,PATNA UNIVERSITY, PATNA. ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 21.7.2009. 1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name of the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the patna University (hereinafter referred to as the University). 3. Petitioner was registered for Ph.D in the faculty of Commerce with the University. He submitted his dissertation, which was forwarded for being examined and considered by the Board of Examiners which consisted of two examiners. Both the examiners considered the dissertation of the petitioner separately and made recommendation dated 25.8.2007 and 3.9.2007, which is quoted in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University. For ready reference, the recommendation of both the - 2 - examiners is also quoted hereunder : ”Examiner 1 :The thesis is submitted For the award of Ph.D. Degree but the research Work is of such a high Standard(excellence)that I am compelled to recommend it for the award of D.Litt. degree after viva-voce. Examiner 2: Award of D.Litt Degree Is recommended after Viva-voce instead of Ph.D. degree.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the instructions of the University contained in letter no.9376 dated 3rd May,2008(Annexure-9) submits that the University instead of proceeding with the viva-voce as was recommended by the examiners has asked the petitioner to furnish three of copies of the dissertation for fresh consideration and re-evaluation by a fresh panel of examiners in the light of the decision of the Examination Board. According - 3 - to learned counsel such action of the University is contrary to the recommendation of the examiners quoted above and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as without indicating any reasons the recommendation of the examiners is not being acted upon. 5. Counsel for the University however submitted that as the petitioner was registered for Ph.D., the two examiners who assessed his work earlier ought not to have recommended the petitioner for D.Litt. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the University, I am of the view that the dissertation of the petitioner was assessed by the two examiners appointed by the University. The examiners having considered the dissertation were satisfied that the work is of high standard and the petitioner deserves the grant of D.Litt. and should be further assessed for such grant by subjecting him to viva-voce. In view of the recommendation of the examiners, it is not open for the Examination Board to direct for constitution of the fresh panel of examiners - 4 - N.H./ for again assessing the dissertation of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, I direct the University to proceed with the viva-voce examination of the petitioner for grant of D. Litt. in the light of the recommendation of the two examiners quoted above. The grant of D.Litt. to the petitioner shall however be subject to the result of the viva voce. 8. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)