Monika Gupta Aggarwal vs Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner before this Court is a research scholar at Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University. The topic of her research is "Art and Elements of Translation". The University had earlier allotted a research supervisor to the petitioner, namely, Sri S.S. Deo. According to the petitioner, while she had already completed 90 per cent of the work under the supervision of this supervisor, she was informed in the year 2016 that way back in the year 2015 itself the supervisor has been changed and her new supervisor is Sri D.S. Kaintura.

According to the petitioner, she had no knowledge of the change of the supervisor and the work she has already completed under the supervision of Sri S.S. Deo should be deemed to be her work and be taken into account, for which perhaps the University is denying this request of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Clause 12 of the UGC (Minimum Standards and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulations 2009 and would argue that clause 12 clearly stipulates that the allocation of the supervisor for a selected student shall be decided by the Department in a formal manner depending on the number of student per faculty member. Clause 12 of 2009 Regulations reads as under:-

"12. The allocation of the supervisor for a selected student shall be decided by the Department in a formal manner depending on the number of student per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors, and the research interest of the student as indicated during interview by the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor shall not be left to the individual student or teacher."

(Emphasis provided)

Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon Clause 6.2 of the notification dated 05.05.2016 of the University Grants Commission which clearly says that the supervisor shall be the one who is appointed by the University and shall be the member of the faculty. However, a window is still open in the said provision where an outside supervisor can be permitted to supervise, but only in the capacity of a Co-supervisor, provided it has an approval of the Research Advisory Committee.

In view thereof, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter, if the University has appointed another supervisor, the same is as per the Regulations.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this regard, the petitioner has already moved a representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the University.

Writ petition is therefore disposed with a direction that the Vice-Chancellor may take an advice of the Research Advisory Committee in terms of Clause 6.2 of the 2016 Regulations and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, and explore the possibilities of appointing a Co-supervisor.