Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Professor Dr. Nayyar P. Siddiqui, a lecturer, submitted a treatise titled 'English and Urdu Poetry: A Parallel Literary Study' for the degree of Doctor of Letters (D.Litt.) in the faculty of Arts at Sant Gadgebaba Amravati University. The treatise was referred to two examiners appointed by the Board of Examination: Prof. Sattar and Prof. Mohammad Sharf-E-Alam. Prof. Sharf-E-Alam's report highly recommended the treatise as a research work of very high order, while Prof. Sattar's report was negative and allegedly contained personal comments indicating bias. The Board of Examination and Management Council considered the reports and recommended the matter to the Academic Council, which disapproved the treatise. The petitioner challenged this decision by way of a writ petition, contending that Prof. Sattar was biased against her and that the Academic Council did not follow the procedure under Ordinance 111 of the University, which requires that if examiners' reports differ, the Council may appoint a third examiner. The court examined the reports and found that Prof. Sattar's report contained personal remarks suggesting bias. The court held that the Academic Council's decision was vitiated because it did not consider the option of appointing a third examiner as per Ordinance 111 and relied on a biased report. The court quashed the communication dated 22/9/2005 disapproving the treatise and directed the University to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law, specifically by following the procedure under Ordinance 111 and ignoring the biased report of Prof. Sattar.
Headnote
A) University Law - Doctor of Letters (D.Litt.) - Disapproval of Treatise - Bias of Examiner - The petitioner's treatise was disapproved by the Academic Council based on reports of two examiners, one of whom recommended approval and the other gave a negative report allegedly with personal comments indicating bias. The court held that the Academic Council must follow the procedure under Ordinance 111, which requires consideration of examiners' reports and may appoint a third examiner if reports differ. The decision was set aside as the Council did not follow the prescribed procedure and the negative report appeared biased. (Paras 1-8) B) University Law - Ordinance 111 - Procedure for Evaluation of D.Litt. Treatise - Clause 8 of Ordinance 111 requires that if examiners' reports differ, the Academic Council may appoint a third examiner. The court held that the Council's failure to consider this option and its reliance on a biased report rendered the disapproval invalid. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disapproval of the petitioner's D.Litt. treatise by the Academic Council was vitiated due to bias of one examiner and non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Ordinance 111 of the Amravati University.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the communication dated 22/9/2005, and directed the University to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law, specifically by following the procedure under Ordinance 111 and ignoring the biased report of Prof. A. Sattar.
Law Points
- Bias of examiner
- Non-compliance with University Ordinance
- Academic Council's duty to follow procedure
- Judicial review of academic decisions
