ORDER
H.N. Tilhari, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner who had been provisionally registered for Ph.D. Course in ‘Child Psychology’ seeking direction to the respondents to accept the thesis prepared by her on the subject ‘An Experimental Study on the role of Message Inadequacy in Causing Communication Failure in children’ when it was submitted. The petitioner has also sought for the issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the communication of the respondents bearing No. Aca V/Ph.D/Regn/ Psy/88-89 dated 6th July 1989. The petitioner has also sought a direction to complete, all formalities connected with Ph.D. examinations and such other reliefs as the Court may deemed fit.
2. The petitioner’s case, as per allegations made in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner after having completed the Master’s Degree in Home Science with specialisation in ‘Child Development’ applied for registration in Ph.D. Degree Course in the area of Child Psychology in the year 1986 vide application dated 21st August 1986.
3. The petitioner’s further case is that she was allowed to do the research work in the area of ‘Child Psychology’ with the subject and title of research as ‘An Experimental Study on the Role of Message Inadequacy in Causing Communication Failure in Children’ and the petitioner was listed for the said research work under the guidance of one Dr. A. Sridhara, Reader in the Department of Psychology, APS College, Bangalore affiliated to the Bangalore University – respondent No. 1. Dr. A. Sridhara is also a recognised guide of the University.
The petitioner’s case is that after considering the various relevant factors to assess the eligibility of the petitioner to take the research work on the chosen problem, she was granted a provisional registration on 14.6.1988. The petitioner thereupon submitted her synopsis and also the half yearly report to her guide on 19th October 1988. The Guide of the petitioner had made correspondence with the Head of the Department – Psychology seeking conducting of Pre-Ph.D. examination. The petitioner has been awarded a Doctorate Fellowship for her chosen work by the Indian Council of Social Science Research. The fellowship was fixed at Rs. 1,200/- per month and contingency grant of Rs. 3,000/- per annum had also been allowed. On two counts, the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 8,700/- from the Council and she spent the entire amount for the purpose of research work. During the course of her intensive and immense study, the petitioner had interaction with as many as 800 children. A copy of the Fellowship Award has been enclosed to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition at the time when her thesis was on the verge of completion and was ready to be submitted.
4. The petitioner made several representations, last of which was on 30th December 1988 for holding pre Ph.D. examination. But, instead of holding pre-Ph.D. examination, the University Authorities issued the communication dated 6th July 1989 to the effect that Committee of Deans had recommended the provisional registration granted in favour of the petitioner on the subject of Psychology be withdrawn and that possibility of petitioner’s case for Ph.D. registration in Home Science should be considered by faculty of Science to be founded. It is mentioned in the letter copy of which is at Annexure-F that it was resolved that the problem to be taken by the petitioner for registration for Ph.D. in Psychology is not interdisciplinary and there is no psychology aspect in it and it is further resolved to recommend the registration to Science Faculty. The last part of the letter reads as under:
“Therefore, your application will be placed before the Ph.D registration Committee in Home Science which is being constituted and the decision of the Committee will be informed in due course.”
Having felt aggrieved with this communication, the petitioner has filed this petition for the reliefs claimed as mentioned above.
5. The Writ Petition had been filed in August ’89. It is the year 1996 now. But no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents countering petitioner’s claims. So the petitioner’s case as pleaded goes uncontroverted to the extent that it has not been controverted by filing any counter affidavit. I have heard the petitioner’s learned Counsel Sri S. Shivanand and Ms. Ragina Mary on behalf of respondents.
6. It has been contended by the petitioner’s learned Counsel that once the petitioner had been granted provisional registration in accordance with the regulations and after consideration…. by the Committee concerned at the relavent time and that the petitioner was allowed to continue with the research work for the period of three years commencing from August 1986 to July 1989 and the petitioner had been awarded the fellowship on the subject to complete the Ph.D. Course which the petitioner spent in incurring expenditure relating to the research work. For the failure of the respondents themselves to carryout the pre-Ph.D. examination in spite of there being requested at times again the respondents are estopped from withdrawing or cancelling the petitioner’s registration from Ph.D. Course in ‘Child Psychology’. Learned Counsel submitted that as per regulations of the Bangalore University it is provided that if a candidate wished to take research work in subject other than chosen for the Master’s Degree, which is of interdisciplinary character, he/she has been eligible for provisional registration. He further submitted that provisional registration according to Regulations 2, 3 and 2.3, the eligible candidate has to be provisionally registered on the basis of the recommendations of the Ph.D. registration Committee.
7. Learned Counsel submitted that when the provisional registration was granted to the petitioner, under law it is to be presumed that the Provisional registration Committee applying its mind to the eligibility requirements of the candidate, recommended for provisional registration and the University has granted provisional registration to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. Learned Counsel submitted that once provisional registration had been granted to the petitioner, from the date of petitioner’s application for registration, it was the duty of the respondents to have held pre-Ph.D. examination within/on the completion of one year, but that was not done. Learned Counsel submitted that if the examination would have been held, the petitioner would have no doubt succeeded but even if it is taken that failure would have occurred, the petitioner would have been entitled to appear for the second attempt after six months and it is his case that if the petitioner had failed in second attempt, no doubt her provisional registration would have been or could have automatically cancelled. But this has not happened in the petitioner’s case. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the provisions of the regulations and submitted that it is provided that petitioner has to continue the research work for three years dating back to the date of registration of the applicant and thereafter it is also provided that the petitioner is required to submit her research thesis within the period of five years from the date of registration, that is the date of application for registration.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1989, almost three years period had expired, the respondents have instead of holding pre Ph.D. examination within one year of registration or within the said period of three years, adopted the tactic of cancelling or withdrawal of the provisional registration. Learned Counsel submitted that when the petitioner got on the representation of granting provisional registration, petitioner did not join any other course in view of the conditions mentioned in the provisional registration letter nor did she apply for any other appointment. Instead, she had been able to get only the Indian Council’s award of Doctorate Scholarship for completing the course and that she has spent the whole amount in the research work. If the respondents are allowed to withdraw her provisional registration, the petitioner is going to suffer irrepairable loss. Further, for respondent’s failure to hold the relavent examination, the petitioner cannot be subjected to sufferance. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondents themselves did not hold pre-Ph.D. examination and when three years period expired in 1989 and now when almost ten years period is going to complete, the petitioner’s registration should be deemed not to be liable to be cancelled and should be deemed to be a permanent registration, a complete registration. Learned Counsel further submitted that in these circumstances, the opposite party may be directed to accept the thesis of the petitioner in pursuance of her provisional registration dated 21st August 1986, and the cancellation order to be deemed invalid and inoperative in law. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel made references to the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases:
(a) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., .
(b) Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., .
(c) State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Ganesh Wood Products and Ors., . and the decisions of Allahabad High Court in
(d) Kum. Ruchira Chauhan v. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and Ors., .
(e) Surat Kumar Patnaik and Anr. v. Kanpur University and Ors., .
The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been hotly contested by Mr. Regina Mary, Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. Ms. Mary submitted before me that the Provisional Registration Committee was entitled to consider and hold that petitioner had not satisfied the eligibility for admission or for registration for Ph.D. Course in research work in ‘Child Psychology’ and as such it could hold and order that the application for registration be rejected and registration may be withdrawn. She further invited my attention to letter dated 13.12.1991 and submitted that the Provisional Registration Committee resolved to cancel the petitioner’s registration vide letter dated 13.12.91 and her registration had been cancelled as earlier an opportunity was given to the petitioner to approach the Science Faculty which had a subject of Home Science and the petitioner did not approach as registration had already been cancelled, there is no question of petitioner being granted any relief. Ms. Mary submitted that after the cancellation of registration, the petitioner had not at all approached the University or did take action accordance with law,
10. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the relavent records.
11. That as per revised regulations for the Ph.D. Degree Course relating to the Bangalore University and produced before me, a candidate as per Regulation 1.1 who has obtained Master’s Degree of the Bangalore University or of any other University recognised as equivalent thereto securing not less than 50 per cent of the marks in aggregate of the Master’s degree as a whole or a candidate who was obtained M.Phil. Degree has been provided to be eligible for Ph.D. Degree. It is further provided that in case of candidates possessing MBBS Degree and seeking registration for Ph.D. in Basic Medical Sciences, the minimum percentage of marks shall be 60 per cent of the aggregate of the M.B.B.S Course as a whole. Regulation 1 sub Regulation 2 further provides that a subject of research shall be one which relates to the main branch of knowledge chosen for Master’s degree. It further provides that if a candidate desires to conduct a research in a subject other than chosen for the Master’s Degree, but that subject is of an inter-disciplinary character, such a candidate shall also be eligible for provisional registration. These reading of Regulation 1.1 and 1.2 reveals that a candidate desiring to do research work in subject other than the one chosen for Master’s degree, provided that subject is of interdisciplinary character and provided his/her marks in the Master’s degree are 50 per cent in aggregate is eligible for provisional registration. Regulation 2 deals with registration and provides that all the applications be processed and forwarded to the concerned Head of Department of the University and it further provides that if the subject of study involves more than one Department, copies of the application are to be sent to all such Heads of Departments concerned in the University. Similarly, Regulation 2.2 also provides that a candidate for Ph.D. shall work in the University Departments, or any of the Colleges affiliated to Bangalore University for Post-Graduate Studies and research in the concerned branch of study or in any recognised Laboratory/Institute/Department within the jurisdiction of the Bangalore University, Regulation 2.3 reads as under:
“The eligible applicant shall be provisionally registered, based on the recommendation of the Ph.D. Registration Committee. The date of provisional registration will be the same as the date of application, provided the Ph.D. Registration Committee is satisfied about the eligibility requirements of the candidate,”
12. A reading of Regulation 2.3 per se reveals that firstly it is provided that provisional registration is to be made on the basis of the recommendations of the Ph.D. Registration Committee and that Ph.D. Registration shall before making recommendation be satisfied about the eligibility requirements of the candidate. That once the Ph.D. Registration Committee has recommended that the candidate is eligible applicant for registration then he/she shall be registered for Ph.D. Course and that registration will have retrospective effect from the date of application. Regulation 2.4 provides for pre-Ph.D. examination. It reads as under:
“The provisional registration of a candidate shall be confirmed after the applicant has passed the pre-Ph.D. examination which shall be conducted after the completion of one year from the date of provisional registration of the applicant.”
Regulation 2.4 further provides for the schemes of pre-Ph.D. examination and about its contents as well as it refers to the papers and viva-voce etc. Clause F of Regulation 2.4 provides that the candidate shall be declared as successful in Pre-Ph.D. examination if the candidate secures marks not less than 50 per cent in aggregate and a minimum of 40 per cent in each of the written papers as well as in viva voce examination. Regulation 2.5 provides that if a candidate is not successful in Pre-Ph.D. examination in the first attempt, he may be given one more chance to appear for the entire examination after six months from the date of previous examination. As per Regulation 2.6, in case the candidate is not successful even in the second appearance/attempt in the Pre-Ph.D. examination, his provisional registration shall be cancelled. Regulation 2.7 provides an exception to candidates with M.Phil/M.S. degree of either Bangalore University or of any other University recognised as equivalent thereto that such candidates shall be exempted from taking Pre-Ph.D. examination provided he satisfies the Ph.D. Registration Committee that the field chosen for research is in conformity with the Course undertaken for the M.Phil/M.S./MD degrees and such candidates shall be registered for Ph.D. Course directly. As per Regulation 2.8, it is provided that the candidate whose registration is confirmed will work for a minimum period of three years from the date of provisional registration under the supervision of the guide. However, in case of candidates with M.Phil, M.S. and M.D. degrees, the minimum period prescribed is two years. The period for submission of thesis by the candidates as provided under Regulation 2.9 is that a candidate should complete research work and submit thesis to the University within five years from the date of registration. No doubt it provides that in case of exceptional nature, extension of the prescribed period may be permitted by the Ph.D. Registration Committee on the recommendation of the guides, but such an extension cannot be for more than one year. But if within a period of six years, a candidate so registered fails to submit his/her thesis, then his/her registration shall automatically stand cancelled. Regulation 2.9 provides that this period of limitation of five years rule will not apply to teachers of the University/affiliated colleges and research assistance who cannot carry out full time research and in their case, the maximum period has been prescribed to be seven years beyond which their registration will automatically stand cancelled. That under Regulation 2.11 it is provided that no candidate shall without previous permission of the Ph.D. Registration Committee join any course of study other than those connected with Ph.D. Programme concerned nor shall he appear for any other examination conducted by the University or by any other University during the period of registration. Regulation 2.12 requires that every candidate has to submit a half yearly report regularly through the guide and send the copy thereof to the Head of the Department. That as per Regulation 2.13, if the two consecutive half yearly progress reports of a candidate are not satisfactory, the Ph.D. Registration Committee may cancel the registration of such candidate. Regulation 2.14 provides that in case a candidate fails to submit two consecutive half yearly progress reports in time, his registration shall be cancelled provided he has not obtained the prior permission of the University.
13. A perusal of the scheme of the regulations dealing with Ph.D. Course per se reveals that in some cases Ph.D. Registration Committee has been given power to cancel registration such as under Regulation 2.13 and 2.14 that is in case where a candidate’s two consecutive half yearly progress reports are not satisfactory. Similarly, on account of failure of the candidate to submit the report for two consecutive half yearly period, the committee can cancel the registration. Or it may be taken that in cases covered by Regulation 2.6, where the candidate is not successful in second attempt of pre-Ph.D. examination, his provisional registration shall be cancelled. When this is the position under the regulations framed under Bangalore University Act, the power to cancel the registration, whether provisional or otherwise can be exercised only in specified conditions. It is well settled that power is given to an authority under specific regulations and certain conditions are prescribed for the exercise thereof, then it leads to and means that power can be exercised only in those conditions and only on fulfillment of those conditions. The power to cancel the registration provisional or otherwise could only be exercised by the Ph.D. Registration Committee only in cases covered by Regulation 2.6 or by Regulation 2.13 or 2.14, and not otherwise. The Committee cannot cancel the registration unless so specifically provided by any rule or provisions of the Act. The said power could be exercised under Regulation 2.6 provided the University would have held the pre-Ph.D. Examination and the petitioner would have failed not only in the first attempt but also in the second attempt. That examination had to be held firstly on the expiry of one year from the period of provisional registration, that is atleast from the date of the order dated 14.6.88. But as this has not taken place within one year, the Committee could not cancel the provisional registration granted retrospectively under the Regulations on 14.6.88. As per annexure ‘C’ dated 14.6.88 wherein it had been provided that the application of the petitioner for registration had been provisionally accepted for carrying out research work for Ph.D. Course on the subject “An experimental study on the role of message inadequacy in causing communication failure in children” under guidance of Dr. A. Sridhar, The communication further provided that registration shall take effect from the date of application that is from 21.8.86 provided he/she satisfied the Ph.D. Registration Committee, that he/she has been working towards the degree from the date of application and at the end of the I year, his/her registration may be confirmed subject to the conditions stipulated in the regulations governing the Ph.D. Degree Course of the University. As this letter also indicates that her registration would have been confirmed subject to the regulations that is after the applicant has passed pre-Ph.D, examination which shall be conducted after one year from the date of provisional registration. As mentioned earlier, holding of pre-Ph.D. examination after completion of one year of provisional registration, it was the duty of the University Authorities to conduct the examination and in case as mentioned earlier the petitioner would have failed twice or would have been unsuccessful in two attempts of pre-Ph.D. examination, the provisional registration would have been liable to be cancelled. But having no such examination being conducted, registration was not liable to be cancelled nor the Ph.D. Registration Committee could withdraw or cancel the registration that had been granted after due deliberation and consideration by the Committee earlier; Apart from that the respondents, in the view of the fact and circumstances of case which stand uncontrovened were barred from cancelling or withdrawing petitioner’s registration (provisional) in Ph.D. Course by the doctrine of estoppel as petitioner acted in pursuance provisional registration without her fault, obtained fellowship invested those sums to complete research work and did not go in any other course or job during the period as mentioned above.
14. Thus considered in my opinion, the cancellation order which has been passed subsequently in the year 1991 brought to the notice of Court by the learned Counsel for the University as well as the order dated 6.7.1989 copy of which is annexed as Annexure-F whereby it had been recommended that the provisional registration granted to the petitioner to be withdrawn are without power, without jurisdiction. It is well settled that when power is given to the Committee or person or authority under and circumscribed by certain conditions, certain circumstances then that power can be/could be exercised only in those conditions and not otherwise . The University has also permitted one Mrs. C.V. Geetha as per uncontroverted allegations made under similar circumstances to appear and to submit the thesis and she has been granted Ph.D. degree. It appears just and proper that the University ought not have as well as could not have passed the order of cancellation of the petitioner’s provisional registration vide their letter dated 30.12.1991. In the circumstances, it appears just and proper that the letter and orders dated 6.7.89 and 31,12.1991 be held to be illegal, null and void and inoperative and that the respondents be directed to complete the formality and to hold the petitioner’s pre-Ph.D. examination within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order as well as permit the petitioner to submit her thesis on the subject and that the petitioner’s thesis be considered for valuation in case the petitioner passes pre-Ph.D. examination either in the first attempt or in the second attempt as per provisions contained in Regulations 2.5 and 2.6. Thus considered the Writ Petition is hereby allowed holding order letter dated 6.7.89 Annexure-F and letter order dated 31.12.91 cancelling or withdrawing petitioner’s provisional Ph.D. registration to void and null and inoperative and it is directed:
a) That order dated 6.7.89 and order dated 31.12.91 will not be operated or be implemented against the petitioner;
b) That the petitioner registration (provisional Ph.D. Registration), shall be and be deemed to continue;
c) That the petitioner’s pre-Ph.D. examination shall be held by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. In case the petitioner is not successful in the first attempt as per Regulation 2.5 the petitioner shall be allowed a second chance immediately after the expiry of six months period from the date of first examination’s result;
d) The opposite party will give sufficient notice of the date of examination and sufficient time to the petitioner to appear for the examination with preparation.
e) That petitioner’s Thesis/Research work on the subject concerned as above shall be accepted for evaluation and consideration by authorities ie. respondents and it shall be considered and evaluated on petitioner’s passing the pre-Ph.D, examination.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall furnish correct address of the petitioner to Ms Ragina Mary, learned Counsel for respondents as well as forward a copy thereto to the Head of Department, Psychology of the Bangalore University as well to the Registrar, Bangalore University, Bangalore ie. respondent No. 3 to enable them, to duly contact and inform petitioner the date of examination. Let the directions as above be issued to respondents in the form of writ of mandamus for compliance.
The Writ Petition is thus allowed with costs.