IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1065 of 2009 3 24.2.2010 1. Patna University, Patna through its Registrar. (Respondent no.1 in the writ petition) 2. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna (Respondent no.2 in the writ petition) 3. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna ((Respondent no.2 in the writ petition) 4. The Controller of Examination, Patna University, Patna ((Respondent no.2 in the writ petition) ..... Appellants VERSUS Md. Ishtayaqul Haque Ashraf son of Inamul Haque Ashraf, resident of Sapna Aprtment, Neya tola, P.S. Pirbahore, district and town Patna (Petitioner in the writ petition) ...... Respondents -------- For the Appellants : Mr Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : M/s Madhuresh Prasad and Ravi Verma, Advocates --------- Heard the parties. In this appeal, Patna University has challenged order of the Writ Court dated 21.7.2009 whereby writ petition bearing CWJC No.5195 of 2009 preferred by the respondent herein was disposed of with a direction to the University to proceed with viva voce examination of the writ petitioner for grant of degree of D.Litt. in the light of the recommendation of two examiners, who have evaluated the thesis submitted by the writ petitioner for 2 grant of degree of Ph. D. On behalf of the University an objection has been raised that there are two different sets of regulations governing the two degrees – Ph.D. and D.Litt. Those two regulations were appended to the counter affidavit of the University as Anenxures A and B. It has been shown that for the examination for grant of D.Litt. degree, a qualified person has to offer himself as a candidate, pay the required fee and then he is required to submit a thesis and if the same is approved, he has to sit for a written examination and to appear for oral or practical test on the thesis and on the special subject which he offers. There is also a proviso according to which the board of examiners, in appropriate cases, may exempt the candidate from the written examination but for that they have to submit a report to that effect to the Syndicate and the Syndicate, may on receipt of such report, exempt such candidate from the written examination. Our attention was also drawn by learned counsel for the University to the regulations for Ph.D. degree which also require that a qualified candidate may offer 3 himself as a candidate for the Ph.D. degree but before offering himself for examination, he has to work for not less than two academic years under the guidance of a supervisor, who shall be a teacher approved by the University. There is a proviso to permit exemption in given circumstances for teachers of the University for submitting thesis without working under any supervisor. In the present case the issue is not as to the minor differences in the requirements relating to qualification and procedure for the two degrees as prescribed by two different regulations but mainly to the issue whether the University is obliged under law to treat the writ petitioner as a candidate for the degree of D.Litt. when he had not offered himself as a candidate for such a degree and his thesis was not processed treating it to be a thesis for the purpose of degree of D.Litt. In the present case the writ petitioner had offered himself as a candidate for the Ph.D. degree and for that purpose his thesis was sent to two examiners for evaluation, who have recommended favorably and to the extent that the thesis may be good enough for award of degree of D.Litt. It is on the basis of 4 such recommendation that the writ petitioner wanted the University to hold only an oral interview i.e. viva voce test and decide whether he should be granted the degree of D.Litt. or not. The University appears to have taken the stand that the writ petitioner was required to submit himself as a candidate for the degree of D.Litt. and he could not be considered for award of such a degree only on the recommendation of the two examiners, who were appointed to evaluate his thesis for award of Ph.D. degree. According to the University, the examiners, as per regulations governing the grant of Ph.D. degree, could have either recommended for grant of such a degree or could have given an adverse recommendation but they exceeded their brief in making a recommendation for grant of degree of D.Litt because there is no provision to such effect in regulations governing Ph.D. degree. It is further their case that exemption from written examination is granted by the regulations governing the degree of D.Litt. only by the Syndicate of the University on the recommendation by the board of examiners selected by the University for the purpose of evaluating a thesis for grant 5 of degree of D.Litt. On hearing the parties and going through the order of Writ Court, we are of the considered view that as per regulations the writ petitioner is required to submit himself as a candidate for the award of degree of D.Litt. and then only his candidature and thesis will be processed as per the regulations governing grant of D.Litt. degree. The recommendations made by the examiners appointed to evaluate his thesis for Ph.D. degree do not have sanction of any provision in the regulation so as to create an obligation upon the University to act upon the same, exempt the writ petitioner from written examination and to consider his case for award of D.Litt. degree only on the basis of viva voce test as directed by the Writ Court. It may be relevant to point out here that regulation 10 of the regulations governing grant of D.Litt. degree contains provisions for grant of degree of Ph.D. in case a thesis submitted for grant of degree of D.Litt., is not found satisfactory for grant of such degree but is found good enough for grant of degree of Ph.D. However, no corresponding reverse provisions are to be found in either 6 of the regulations governing grant of Ph.D. degree or D.Litt. degree. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the Writ Court could have directed the University authorities only to entertain candidature of the writ petitioner for grant of D.Litt. degree if he was willing to make an application for the same and thereafter, his candidature and thesis could have been processed and evaluated in accordance with regulations governing grant of degree. The judgment and order of the Writ Court is modified accordingly. The directions of the University for submitting extra copies of the thesis for re-evaluation for the purpose of Ph.D. degree is found not to be in order but in view of our order indicated above it is no longer relevant to go into the legality of the directions of the University contained in Annexure 9 to the writ petition. If the respondent herein offers himself as candidate for grant of D.Litt. and submits necessary copies of his thesis, the University and its authorities shall evaluate his candidature and thesis expeditiously in accordance with law without being prejudiced by earlier correspondences in any 7 manner. It is made clear that in future if occasion arises, the University authorities may consider the thesis of the writ petitioner for grant of Ph.D. degree as per regulation 10, noticed above. It is further made clear that in case the writ petitioner does not offer himself as a candidate for D.Litt. degree then his claim for award of Ph.D. degree shall be considered notwithstanding Annexure-9, on the basis of evaluation made by the earlier examiners, in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J.) sk