Ritesh Kumar v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

15. It is further argued that Clause 24 of the Ordinance provides that in exceptional circumstances and on the recommendations of the concerned Committee, the Academic Council can in its discretion relax any of the provisions of the Ordinance, except the CGPA requirements. It is stated that the petitioner‟s case was considered by both the Special Committee of the School of Environmental Sciences as well as the Academic Council of the University. The Special Committee in its meeting held on 07.04.2017 in part (B), item no.10, had resolved to recommend the case of the petitioner to the Academic Council. However, the Academic Council after considering the case of the petitioner in its 144th meeting held on 01.12.2017 had decided not to de-register the petitioner from the Ph.D. program.

16. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel for the University argues that Clause 24 of the Ordinance vests discretionary power with the Academic Council to agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Special Committee, and thus, the Academic Council was not bound to accede to the recommendation of Special Committee to allow the petitioner to de-register from the Ph.D. program. It is further contended that the administrative decisions of the University cannot be challenged before Courts and the same being policy matters of the University, the Courts have no power to interfere with the same.

17. Therefore, it is prayed on behalf of the respondents that the present petition be dismissed.

ISSUES IN QUESTION

18. The issue before this Court is as to whether the impugned order dated 01.02.2017, passed by the Academic Council of Jawaharlal Nehru University during its 144th (B) meeting, is liable to be set aside on the ground that it allegedly lacks any cogent reasons for striking down the recommendation of the 90th (B) Special Committee meeting held on 07.04.2017, qua the petitioner.

19. It also is an issue of importance to consider and adjudicate as to whether this Court‟s interference with the decision of the Academic Council will directly impact the academic discipline at large in the University.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of discretion under Clause 24 of the Ordinance in favour of petitioner by the Academic Council?

20. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court notes that the petitioner herein had enrolled in the Ph.D. program at Jawaharlal Nehru University on 22.07.2015. The synopsis submitted by the petitioner was approved by the Special Committee of the School of Environmental Sciences in April, 2016. Further, the petitioner was also receiving Rs. 8,000/as scholarship for pursuing his Ph.D. Course. It is not disputed by the petitioner himself that in the meantime, he had applied for the post of Assistant Scientist (Forestry) in Haryana Space Applications Centre, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Haryana and was selected for the said post. It is also not disputed that only after getting his appointment letter, the petitioner had applied for deregistration from the Ph.D. program in November, 2016.

21. At this juncture, it will be crucial to note that as per Clause 8.[1] of the „Ordinance relating to the award of the degree of Ph.D.‟, no candidate is permitted to submit his Ph.D. thesis unless the student has pursued the said program, at the University, for a period of not less than two years. Clause 8.[2] further stipulates that a student shall be permitted to de-register from the Ph.D. program only after completing the two-year „residency‟ period prescribed in Clause 8.1. For reference, these Clauses are reproduced hereunder: “8.[1] No candidate shall be permitted to submit his/her thesis for the Ph.D. Degree, unless he/she has pursued the said program of research at the University for not less than two years after confirmation of his/her admission. Provided that the residency period for the M.Phil/Ph.D. students whose admission to the Ph.D. programs has been confirmed from the date of award of M.Phil., the residency period of two years shall be counted from the date of submission of M.Phil, dissertation. Provided further that in case of M.Phil/Ph.D. students whose admission to Ph.D. Programme has been confirmed after the completion of course work with requisite CGPA the residency period shall be counted from the date of confirmation of admission to the Ph.D. programme by the CASR/Special Committee of the Schools/Special Centres. 8.[2] A student shall be permitted to de-register from the Ph.D. programme only after complete of two years residency period as prescribed in Clause 8.1.”

22. Furthermore, Clause 10 of the Ordinance prohibits candidates, admitted to the Ph.D. program, from undertaking any employment before completing the minimum residency period, unless they are engaged in teaching and research at a recognized institution in Delhi. Clause 10, for reference, is extracted hereunder: “...Before completing the minimum period prescribed in clause 8, no candidates admitted to course of research for the Ph.D. degree shall: (a) Undertake any employment: Provided that those engaged in teaching and research in recognized institution located in Delhi may be exempted from the limitation of this sub-clause:”

23. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had not completed his minimum „residency‟ period of two years when he had applied for, and had secured, the job of Assistant Scientist at the Haryana Space Applications Centre, and when he had applied for de-registration from Ph.D. program, i.e. in the month of November, 2016. This Court is of the opinion that by doing such acts, the petitioner has violated Clause 8.[1] and 8.[2] of the Ordinance.

24. Furthermore, as noted above, the petitioner had taken up employment in Haryana Space Applications Centre, which is situated in Panchkula, Haryana, before the completion of minimum residency period of two years. Therefore, the petitioner‟s employment in Haryana, which is outside Delhi, is in clear violation of Clause 10 of the Ordinance.

25. However, the records of the case reveal that the petitioner‟s case was considered first by the DRC in its meeting on 16.03.2017, and a recommendation was made for waiver of two-year residential period requirement, to enable the petitioner to de-register from Ph.D. program and to again register with the University at a later stage. Thereafter, in the 90th meeting dated 07.04.2024, the case of the petitioner was considered by the Special Committee, which had also recommended and forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Academic Council, for consideration as an exceptional case under Clause 24 of the Ordinance. The recommendation of the Special Committee, in item no. 10 i.e. with respect to the petitioner, reads as under: “Item No. 10. The Committee considered the request for permitting the de-registration of Mr. Ritesh Kumar, a Ph.D student, from the Ph.D Programme wef 21.11.2016, on the recommendations of the Supervisor of the student, under Clause 24 of the Academic Ordinance of the University. He was enrolled in the Ph.D programme w.e.f. 22.07.2015 and his Ph:D synopsis was approved by the Special Committee of the School on 4th April, 2016. However, he could not complete the required residency period of two years for deregistration under Clause 8.[2] of the ordinance, as he joined the post of Assistant Scientist (Forestry) at HarSAC (Haryana Space Application Centre), Hisar, Haryana. The matter was deliberated, discussed and the committee decided to recommend and forward the request with a reason based on the DRC Report dated 16/03/2017 for consideration in the Academic Council of the University.”

26. While the Special Committee had recommended the petitioner‟s case, the Academic Council, in its 144th meeting held on 01.12.2017, had resolved not to de-register the petitioner from the Ph.D. program, in view of his violation of the clauses of the Ordinance. The resolution of Academic Council reads as under: “08. Considered the decision of 90" (B) Special Committee meeting of the School of Environmental Sciences held on 7th April 2017 (item No. 10) in respect of Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ph.D. student, and; After detailed deliberations, it was resolved not to accede to the 90th (B) Special Committee meeting of the School of Environmental Sciences held on 7 April 2017 (item No. 10) in respect of the case of Mr. Ritesh Kumar, ex-Ph.D. student for permitting de-registration to him from Ph.D. programme on account of his not having completed the minimum prescribed residency period of two year for de-registration under clause 8.[2] Ph.D. Ordinance.”

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Clause 24 of the Ordinance, which allows the Academic Council, in exceptional circumstances and on the recommendations of the concerned Committee, to relax any of the provisions except those prescribing CGPA requirements. Clause 24 of the Ordinance reads as under: “Notwithstanding what is contained in the Ordinance, the Academic Council may in exceptional circumstances and on the recommendations of the Committee for Advanced Studies and Research concerned or an appropriate Committee and the Board of the School as well as on the merits of each individual case consider, it is discretion and for reasons to be recorded relaxation of any of the provisions except those prescribing CGPA requirements.”

28. However, after giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the decision dated 01.12.2017 of the Academic Council of the University is within the purview of the discretionary powers vested in the Council by virtue of Clause 24 of the Ordinance. It is pertinent to note that Clause 24 confers discretionary power on the Academic Council, and this discretion does not impose a duty on the Council to grant such relaxation in each and every case. Moreover, being the highest academic body of the University, the Academic Council is not bound by the decision or recommendation of the Special Committee(s), and the Council, after considering every case placed before it, has the authority to either grant the relaxation of any rule sought by a student or reject any such prayer, independent of the recommendation of any Committee.

29. This Court has also gone through the observations of the Special Committee, which had recommended the case of petitioner to the Academic Council. However, this Court is of the opinion that the highest authority of the University with whom the final discretion lies with, to decide the issue in question, is the Academic Council, which already has observed that no case for allowing de-registration of the petitioner is made out.

30. Moreover, in this Court’s opinion too, the petitioner has apparently violated the mandatory Clause 8.[1] and 8.[2] of the Ordinance, as he has not completed the mandatory period of two years of residency as he was required to under Clause 8.[1] and 8.[2] of the Ordinance. Further, he has also violated Clause 10 of the Ordinance as he had taken employment in an institution outside Delhi i.e. in Haryana, though as per mandate of clause 10 of the Ordinance, he could not have done so.

31. Furthermore, neither during the course of the arguments nor in the petition has the petitioner given any reasons as to what were the exceptional circumstances due to which he had violated the above Clauses of the Ordinance, and more importantly, why despite such violation by himself, he should be given any preferential or exceptional treatment.

32. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances before this Court that would warrant the exercise of discretion, under Clause 24 of the Ordinance, in his favor by either the Academic Council of the University or this Court. The mere fact that the petitioner‟s employment aligns with his doctoral research objectives does not constitute an exceptional circumstance, sufficient to override the clear provisions of the Ordinance, particularly when the petitioner was aware, or ought to have been aware, that he was violating several mandatory clauses of the Ordinance by which he was bound as a student of the University. Impact of Courts’ decisions on Academic Discipline in Universities

33. The academic policies, rules, regulations, and Ordinances are drafted by academicians and educationists, who are best positioned to determine the optimal policies for educational matters. Pursuing a higher degree, such as Ph.D., requires specialized supervision and thus, the same is supervised by senior educationists with extensive experience and knowledge of the educational field. These experts understand the intricacies and requirements of guiding students through a full-time doctoral program. To ensure proper conduct of such academic programs and maintain the standards of education, rules and regulations are drafted by the universities.

34. Academic discipline, i.e. a strict adherence to these rules and regulations, is therefore crucial for maintaining integrity and credibility of educational institutions and the courses offered by them.

35. While considering the present case, this Court remains conscious of the fact that the students, who are diligently pursuing their full-time Doctorate courses, while dutifully completing their residency requirements and not taking up employment, cannot be given an impression that they can be placed at par with those who violate the University rules and regulations by flouting the Ordinance. The residency requirement and the prohibition on external employment are designed to ensure that students devote their full attention to their research. However, the present petitioner, who was also receiving a scholarship of Rs. 8,000/-, had chosen to willfully violate these rules of the Ordinance by taking up full-time employment. He now seeks to benefit from his actions of violation by requesting exceptional consideration under Clause 24 of the Ordinance, despite there being no exceptional circumstances justifying grant of such relief.

36. In this Court‟s opinion, in case the petitioner is granted the relief which he has prayed for, it would amount to opening the doors of the Courts and encouraging others, pursuing different courses and programs, to violate mandatory rules and regulations of their Universities, with the expectation of obtaining relaxation from the Courts at a belated stage. This would lead to a complete breakdown of academic discipline in the universities. Thus, the Courts have to consider the broader implications of their decisions, which should not solely focus on individual petitioners but also on the larger academic community. Needless to state, those who diligently follow the rules ought not to be disadvantaged by the actions of those who violate them. Academic Pursuits cannot be sans Academic Discipline

37. Academic pursuits cannot be sans academic discipline. When a person enrolls in a particular course of study, he also commits to adhering to the established discipline, which is essential for pursuing such studies.

38. It cannot be a matter of convenience, even for a student of higher studies, that he should be allowed to pursue it only as per his convenience and leisure, in clear violation of mandatory terms and conditions, rules or regulations of the University, which enrolls him as a student of the University. The course that he is pursuing has to be a dutiful pursuit and not something that one will pursue at his leisure, that too without following the mandatory rules essential to be followed to complete the said course. At times, the duration of a course studied is the essence of it and any subtraction of the time period or schedule will essentially interfere with the basic requirement of the course pursued.

39. There can be no two views that Schools, Universities and Academic Institutions are not meant to be machines producing individuals whose aim is only to chase marks, courses or degrees, but are meant to be academic institutes of eminence who help the students to pursue their academic pursuits for building a nation through the students/scholars who will be the future of this country.

40. The academic institutions though are often not considered as one of the pillars of democracy, in this Court‟s opinion, educational institutions are definitely a strong pillar of not only the democracy, but the entire country as the country's future depends on the students who are its citizens. The educational institutions do not produce degree holders alone. There is a difference between churning out and being factories producing people with degrees for their own needs, and cultivating good human beings and citizens when they are studying in an academic institute, who will make a strong country. For this, maintaining academic discipline and standards even at higher levels of studies and research work, both by the universities and its students is of critical importance to the community and the country as a whole. Violation of the Mandatory rules: Whether only technical hindrance?

41. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the academic pursuit of the present petitioner should not be impacted by the technicalities of the rules and regulations. This Court agrees and is of the opinion that though it may be true that the academic pursuits of a student should not be overshadowed by technicalities of the rules and regulations, at the same time, this Court will be failing in its duty if, in order to be empathetic to the petitioner, it would ignore an important pillar of academic institutions i.e. the academic and student discipline. While pursuing academic studies and even higher studies, rules and regulations which are mandatory to be followed are not made to be broken, and the students as well as the Universities have to be bound by those rules and regulations.

42. The Universities are also known by the academic discipline and excellence they maintain as academic institutions. The rules and regulations that bind a student to the course they are pursuing are not mere technicalities but essential aspects of academic discipline. When a student enrolls and agrees to these conditions at the time of admission he understands and agrees that any violation of these rules will invite necessary consequences. More so, these course rules must be followed, as universities are committed to maintaining Administrative Academic Discipline. Similarly, students must adhere to these rules, upholding their own academic discipline.

43. In case the Courts will hold and consider that violation of these regulations of the Ordinances by which at the time of his admission, the student had bound himself to, are mere technical hindrances though in clear violation without any exceptional reasons of the Ordinance, the student cannot come to the Court and argue that the violation of the rules was not academic indiscipline and nonfollowing of mandatory rule, but be labeled as technical hindrance. Higher studies: Higher responsibility: Higher academic standard

44. A person pursuing higher education such as a Doctorate is a pursuit that commands respect due to its rigorous academic standards and significant impact on personal and professional development. Institutions of higher learning, such as universities and colleges, are esteemed for their commitment to advancing knowledge, fostering critical thinking, and promoting innovation, while maintaining strict adherence to its rules and regulations.

45. Similarly, pursuing a Ph.D. is driven by a combination of a student‟s desire for advanced knowledge, career aspirations, personal and intellectual growth, and the aim to contribute to society through original research and discovery in one particular academic discipline.

46. To impart this level of high education, it is essential that these institutions uphold high standards in all aspects of their operations. This includes stringent admission criteria, a robust curriculum, dedicated faculty, and a commitment to academic integrity. Higher education involves not only rigorous academic instruction but also the cultivation of discipline across various dimensions. This discipline manifests in the commitment to scholarly excellence, ethical behavior, and personal responsibility. Universities and colleges set high standards for attendance, punctuality, and engagement, fostering an environment where students pursuing Ph.D. learn to manage their time effectively and prioritize their research. It is for this reason that there are always few seats available for pursuing research in most academic institutions. A person who after successfully crossing each step of getting admission into a Ph.D. leaves it mid-way without any cogent reason in violation of various clauses of the Ordinance, he was bound by, rather also wastes a seat for another candidate who may have wanted to pursue it more seriously devoting entire time to the research.

47. Therefore, such specialized higher educational pursuits demand higher focus, devotion and academic discipline. Such higher pursuits also demand that the student be bound by all the terms, conditions, rules, and regulations set by the University. Empathy cannot overshadow academic discipline and policy

48. The Courts cannot ignore the aforesaid aspects while passing orders, as a misplaced sympathetic order in one case may go a long way in disturbing academic discipline of a university, and many more cases of non-compliances and violations of mandatory rules and regulations by students may affect the institution as a whole.

49. In case the Universities violate what is mandatory for them to follow, a case can be decided against them, and conversely, in case a student is found violating such rules or regulations for which there is no justification, only an empathetic approach cannot be the sole ground to pass an order in favour of the student.

50. Allowing exceptions in the absence of genuinely exceptional circumstances would undermine the standards set forth by a university, and encourage non-compliance of the mandatory rules and regulations. Thus, judicial interference in academic policy matters, particularly when a student has willfully violated mandatory clauses of the Ordinance, would be detrimental to and would undermine the essential academic discipline which is crucial for any educational institution. Conclusion

51. In conclusion, this Court notes that in matters of education and academic administration, the opinion of experts and the decisions of academic bodies are to be given considerable weight. The Academic Council of Jawaharlal Nehru University, being the highest academic body of the University, has the authority and expertise to make decisions regarding academic regulations as well as exceptions thereto. The Council‟s decision to uphold the requirements of minimum period of residency and prohibition of employment outside Delhi before the completion of the residency period was made after due consideration of the facts and circumstances. It is not for this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the academic experts, especially when there is no ground to hold that the decision under challenge before this Court was arbitrary, capricious, or made without application of mind.

52. When the Ordinance in question had been drafted, exceptional difficulties or circumstances which a student may face while pursuing a course must have been considered, which has resulted into drafting of clause 24 of the Ordinance. However, a student has to make out a case in his favour, to be covered under the exception clause. Mere existence of exception clause does not mean that every case, even without an exceptional cause, has to be treated as exceptional case, to be covered under exception clause.

53. In order to ensure that the academic excellence standards are maintained by the academic institutions, academic standards are laid down according to their wisdom and should not be lightly interfered with by the Courts of law who are not specialized in the field of education. To hold that any violation of the mandatory clause of the Ordinance should be ignored by the Academic Council without there being any reasons, will be a dangerous trend and will be lightly setting aside and quashing the decision of the Academic Council.

54. This Court is therefore not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Academic Council, which is composed of eminent individuals including the worthy Vice-Chancellor of the University, Deans of Schools, and the Chief Proctor. These persons of eminence have already considered the petitioner‟s case and resolved not to grant the requested relief to the petitioner, considering the violations of the Ordinance.

55. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The decision of the Academic Council of the University to deny the petitioner‟s request for de-registration from the Ph.D. program is upheld. However, the petitioner herein can enroll/seek fresh admission as per rules in the Ph.D. program, in case he so desires.

56. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

57. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J JULY 22, 2024