AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil
In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other order or direction, directing the respondent No. 3 to produce Original Attendance Register for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 in relation to the petitioner before this Hon''ble Court;
b) Direct the 3rd respondent college authorities to certify the Theses submitted by the petitioner without putting any other modifications and fresh demands;
c) Direct the first and second respondents to take suitable action against the 3rd respondent College in accordance with law for having harassed the petitioner without certifying the Theses submitted by her and sending the complete attendance to the University, enabling her to attend the examination.
d) Direct the 3rd respondent college authorities to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for having played with the petitioner by harassing her without certifying the Theses by putforthing unreasonable conditions and for having treated the petitioner inhumanly.
e) Pass any appropriate orders as this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
This writ petition was listed on 29.04.2010 After going through the records, particularly the order passed in W.P. No. 1764/2010 disposed of on 31.03.2010, the Court felt that the college authorities have to be directed to secure the original attendance register for the perusal of the Court. The matter was. adjourned to be listed again for the said purpose. It transpires that the original attendance register has not been produced before the Court. Counsel appearing for the respondent-College submits that as the original was stolen, the respondent has made available the xerox copy of the attendance register along with the memo dated 27.06.2010.
There is a two fold grievance made by the petitioner. The main issue relates to the attendance of the petitioner in the Post Graduate course i.e., M.S. (Ophthalmology) undergone by her in the 3rd respondent College. According to the petitioner, she has put in the requisite attendance and the college, without producing the original attendance register has come up with baseless allegation that the petitioner did not put in the requisite attendance of 80% in the Post Graduate course.
In fact, petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion in W.P. No. 1764/2010. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 31.03.2010 holding that as the petitioner had contended that respondent No. 1-College had forged the attendance register thereby showing shortage of attendance of the petitioner. The disputed facts could not be gone into by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the controversy raised with regard to the attendance of the petitioner was required to be settled elsewhere. Petitioner was given liberty to work out her remedy in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
Thereafter no solution was found to the problem of the petitioner. The petitioner was denied opportunity to appear for the examination and the dissertation submitted by the petitioner was not certified by the guide. The guide reported that the dissertation work was not honest as contrary to what was asserted by the petitioner stating that 118 references were made by her. only copies of 10 references were produced by the petitioner and that the claim made by the petitioner that she had read 118 articles from various journals and text books was not genuine and that she had read only 10 to 15 articles. A letter written in this regard on 04.11.2010 by Dr. F.E.A. Rodrigues, Professor and HOD, Opthalmology of respondent No. 3-College who is the guide of the petitioner to the Dean of respondent No.3-College. The same is produced by the Counsel for the respondent-College along with a memo dated 16.11.2010. To the said letter dated 04.11.2010, petitioner has responded by filing a detailed objection supported by her affidavit on 21.11.2010 making several allegations against the guide who is also the Professor & HOD, Opthalmology in respondent No. 3-College. It is relevant to notice here that on 02.12.2010, this Court passed an order permitting the petitioner to take back the dissertation for correction and to re-submit the same to respondent No. 3-College. This order was passed based on the memo filed by the petitioner making such a request. A direction was issued to the College to return petitioner''s dissertation and permission was granted to her to correct the same and re-submit it to respondent No.3-College. This Court made further observation stating that if the petitioner re-submits the dissertation, the guide has to consider the same in accordance with law.
It is submitted by Mr. Madhusudan R. Naik. learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-College that the guide has re-considered the corrected dissertation submitted and has sent his remarks to the Dean of the College again reiterating the same stand. In fact, the remarks made by the guide, copy of which is placed on record before this Court by the respondent-College discloses that the petitioner was supposed to study all (he admissions made in the hospital to the tune of about GOO cases and was supposed to study and refer to them in the dissertation. However, she had studied only 90 cases of the babies and did not explain why such a methodology was adopted.
Petitioner contends that there are no such norms prescribed by the University for a Post Graduate student submitting the dissertation to study the cases of all the admissions made in the hospital attached to the college, particularly in the order 600 cases as is being expected by the guide. The contention of the petitioner is that she is harassed by the HOD by stating that all the admissions in respect of new born babies during the relevant period was required to he examined by the petitioner for the purpose of submitting the dissertation work. She contends that without following the requisite norms, the guide has rejected the certification of the dissertation work of the petitioner on account of the bias and prejudiced attitude he has against the petitioner.
By going through the allegations made by the petitioner and the response given by the Head of the Department in his communications addressed to the Dean, it is clear that in the light of the allegations and counter allegations, petitioner''s apprehension that she is being harassed and victimized has to be addressed particularly because the petitioner having completed the course in the year 2009 is struggling to get her degree and is knocking at the doors of this Court on more than one occasion. There is absolute lack of mutual trust and confidence between the petitioner and her guide. It is not appropriate to state anything more in this connection, as the guide is not a party to this proceeding. It is in this background, a suggestion was made by the Court to the learned Counsel representing the University and the Counsel appearing for the respondent-College to explore the possibility of requesting any other expert in the University to examine the dissertation work submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of certification to avoid further delay in the matter. In response. Mr Ramesh, learned Counsel for the respondent-University very fairly submits that such an exercise can be undertaken by the University, provided the court issues a direction, though in the normal circumstances it is the college which has to undertake the said exercise.
Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-College pointed out that as long as the deficiency in the attendance of the petitioner is not addressed, mere certification of the dissertation work may not solve the problem, lie further pointed out that the college does not come in the way of the petitioner completing the course and securing the degree, but having regard to the nature of specialization in which the petitioner is getting trained in the post graduate course, the reputation of the college is involved in ensuring that the student who prosecutes the post graduation course undertakes effective training as contemplated in law and by adhering to the requisite attendance.
Having regard to the above, the appropriate course in the matter, to find a solution to this problem, is to request the university to entrust the work of certification of the dissertation to any other expert in the subject belonging to any other institution. This recourse is necessary as the petitioner - party-in-person is in a precarious situation not being able to get the benefit of years of studies and hard work put in by completing the P.G. course.
Therefore, the Registrar of the respondent-University is directed to entrust the work of certifying the dissertation submitted by the petitioner to another expert. The respondent-College is directed to forward the dissertation submitted along with all the relevant records to the University within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, whereupon the University shall entrust it for certification to another expert and get the same completed within a period of three weeks thereafter. If the petitioner has to be called upon to attend to any other requirements the same can be got done within any further reasonable time for certification of the dissertation.
In so far as the issue regarding shortage of attendance is concerned, petitioner and the respondent College have submitted that they have no objection for entrusting the matter to the authorities of the Department of Medical Education for an independent enquiry and investigation. Counsel appealing for the respondent-College further submits that in case it is found that there is any shortage of attendance, the College is ready to provide all the facilities to the petitioner to make up the shortage of attendance by undergoing requisite (raining and that the College will not charge any tuition or other fees for the said purpose. However, the petitioner contends that she does not feel safe and secured to continue any training in the 3rd respondent College, as her life will be in danger.
In the light of the above submission, the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, is directed to cause an enquiry/investigation done into the alleged shortage of attendance of the petitioner and record findings in that regard by appointing an officer subordinate to him in the Department of Medical Education. Petitioner and the respondent-College shall be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to have their say in the matter before recording any finding on the issue. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is found short of attendance, she shall be permitted to snake up the shortage of attendance by undergoing the requisite training. If the petitioner apprehends any genuine risk or threat in completing the training in the 3rd respondent-College, it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent University and also the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, who will look into the same.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Medical Education Bangalore.
The declaration of result of the examination that the petitioner has taken pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court shall await the result of the enquiry and also the verification of the dissertation work submitted.
Writ petition stands disposed of in terms stated above.