G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) A Researcher prays for Judges research by evaluation, interpretation and examination of the scheme of Ordinances of Ph. D. Chapter instead of submitting to the "Veto" of the Research Board. He has filed this writ petition precisely for the endorsement of his legal right under Ordinance 216 sub-clause (D) of the University of Jodhpur or re-enforcement of "Rule of Law" over 'Rule of Men". The University claims "Autonomy". Mr Parekh's plea is that Mr. Mridul is raising a worthless storm in a tea cut, which deserves to be nip in the bud by Nutron Bomb of Ordinance 224.
(2.) THE twin Ordinances around which the juristic debate pivots are 216D vs. 224. Let me now examine whether Mr. Parekh who is attacking 216 D, by brandishing sword of 224, can be permitted to kill it in womb. Ordinance 216-D reads as under: - "O. 216-D. If the examiners unanimously recommend the award of the degree, the Registrar shall fix a date for the Viva Voce test, to be held normally at Jodhpur." It is not in dispute that the petitioner after obtaining his post graduate degree, in Political Science proceeded to undertake Research for the purpose of granting the degree of Ph. D. by the University of Jodhpur. His thesis was submitted for examination by the three Examiners. All the three Examiners recommended that he must be granted degree of Ph.D. However, the Assistant Registrar of the University sent a letter (Annexure 1) on 19th June, 1981 in which it was pointed out that the Research Board has decided that the candidate be asked to incorporate the suggestions of the Examiner in the II Chapters of thesis in the light of the comments given by one of the examiner. Extracts of the report of the Examiner was annexed with this letter, which is a part of Annexure 1. According to the extracts the Examiner was very appreciative of all the points taken by the candidate in preparing this thesis and he had all praise. However, as a passing comment he observed that he would be failing in his duty if he would not invite the attention to certain desirable changes and improvements in case the candidate chooses to publish his work. Thereafter the following suggestions were made :- "He should first of all undertake a critical discussion of the relationship between Tradition and Modernity and all that is involved in this relationship He has not cared to examine how fidelity to tradition is incompatible with a modernist, positivism, western scientific outlook. It just escaped his attention that positivism spells the ruin of religious faith and his eulogistic description of the synthesis of positivism and religion in Bankim Chandra is indicative of his uncritical handling, "One gathers the impression that there is too much of emotional history and very little of philosophical analysis in the thesis. One is impressed by its sweep, but disappointed by its lack of preceptiveness. A piece of my advice to the researcher is that he should give a second look to the thesis in general and to the Chapters on Bankim Chandra and Bipin Chandra Pal in particular; to the Chapter on Bankim Chandra because an assessment of Bankim should be made against the background of the discussion on the logical tension between tradition and positivism and to the Chapter on Bipin Chandra Pal, because his idea of Nation as Divinity incarnate requires us to probe into the western origins of his though."
(3.) AFTER making the above passing comment, the Examiner gave the following final report:- "Inspite of the above theoretical short comings, I am of the view that the Researcher has done commendable work by bringing together a lot of new facts relating to the subject and interpreting them in a refreshing manner. The candidate has also given proof of his capacity for critical thinking The literary presentation is also good. "I therefore, recommend the thesis for the award of the Ph. D. degree in Political Science of the University of Jodhpur." It is, therefore, not in doubt that the third Examiner was clear and categorical in recommending the thesis for the award of Ph.D. degree in Political Science and this recommendation was not conditional. I have come to the above conclusion because not only earlier he has prefaced the above comments by saying that the changes are desirable and the improvement may be made if he chose to publish. But in order to remove any doubt about his opinion that the thesis was worth granting of degree of Ph.D. he after making the above comments made it specific, when he observed in the last 2 paragraphs that inspite of the above theoretical short comings the Researcher has done commendable work and he recommends the thesis for awarding the degree for Ph.D. ;