SYED WASI IMAM Vs. THE PATNA UNIVERSITY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for issuance of writ of mandamus on respondent, the Patna University, to publish the Ph. D result of the petitioner as enjoined under Regulations for the Ph. D decree in the faculties of Arts, Science, Commerce, Education and Law (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulations) without any further delay. The petitioner, who is a lecturer in Chemistry in T.P.S. College, Patna, on his having applied for permission of the Patna University for registration of his name for the degree of Ph. D in the faculty of Science, was granted permission for the registration of his name on 6th June, 1983, for the degree of Ph. D in the faculty of Science for a dissertation study of "Elastic Scattering of Electrons". The petitioner worked under his guide, Dr. I. A. Khan Parvez. Reader in Chemistry, Science College, Patna. The Examination Board, which is an authority under Regulation, is required on submission of the Thesis for examination to a Board of three examiners out of five names submitted by the Supervisor through the Board of Moderators. Accordingly, Dr. P. K. Das, retired Professor of Chemistry, Utkal University, Cuttack , Prof.

(2.) Counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University denying all the allegations and the apprehensions entertained. It has also been alleged that through the maneuvering of the Controller of Examination one of the External Examiners could not participate in the viva -voce examination. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 18 of the first counter -affidavit that certain complaints were received by the University about the irregularities committed which, on enquiry by the Vice -Chancellor, were confirmed and, therefore, for some deliberations in the matter there has been delay in the publication of the result. Further, under the Regulation there is no time limit prescribed for publishing the result. Therefore, the petitioner moving the Court for redressal of grievance is wholly pre -mature.

(3.) The petitioner replied to the counter -affidavit mainly denying the manipulations alleged against the father of the petitioner and reiterated that it is because of the ill -will and hatred towards the father of the petitioner that the results are held up. The complaints are also stated to be stage managed even though there is nothing adverse against the petitioner. It is also stated that the excuse put forward for delayed publication of the result is merely a lame excuse on the part of the University only to mislead the Court. Being provoked with the assertion of no irregularity but malice on the part of the Vice -Chancellor, the University has come out with the irregularities in their rejoinder sworn by the Assistant Registrar no. 1 on 5.9.1986 and filed in this Court on 30.9.1986. In paragraphs no. 5 to 10 of the said rejoinder large number of instances have been shown which is indicative of the fact that the petitioner has copied his thesis from various books and journals word by word without acknowledging the source or putting them in quotations and/or any foot -note as being works of other authors. In paragraph no. 11 the relevant pages of the books and journals mentioned in paragraphs no. 6,7,8,9 and 10 were sought to be produced at the time of the hearing of this case. In short, the stand of the University appears to be that the thesis submitted is not the own work of the candidate and/or tending generally to the advancement of knowledge in the subject for the contribution rendered by the petitioner inasmuch as out of 113 pages of the thesis 37 pages partially and 20 pages verbatim have been incorporated in the Thesis of published works of other authors without acknowledgement and/or reference to those materials.