We find that the learned Single Judge has strangely proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on a gross misconception as to the very issue before him. He has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the premise that the appellant / writ petitioner is a third party and that, in a dispute between an employee and employer, a third party would have no role. The following passage is relevant: “As such the petitioner herein, who is not an employee and is a third party, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition.” We don’t think that the issue arises for consideration even remotely in the Writ Petition filed to enquire whether the 3rd respondent who has been awarded Ph.D degree is even eligible to be admitted to the Ph.D. programme. 8. Taking into account the gravity of the issue, which prima facie involves remissness at the highest level in the filed of education, we are inclined to call for a report from the authorities concerned. Accordingly, as an interim measure, we direct the respondent University to conduct an enquiry on the representation submitted by the appellant, after issuing due notice to both the parties, viz., the appellant and the third respondent, and submit its report within a period of four weeks. 9. Post the matter after four weeks. Notice to the third respondent through court as well as privately by then. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 22.06.2023 Mka R.MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Mka WA.No.1273 of 2023 22.06.2023

WA.No.1273 of 2023
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
(Order of the court was made by Mohammed Shaffiq, J)
Heard Mr.R.Balaguru Swamy, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mrs.V.Sudha, learned standing counsel appearing for the University of Madras.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant / writ petitioner, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed him, for a writ of Mandamus to direct the Registrar and Controller of Examination of University of Madras to enquire with the 3rd Respondent by verifying his educational qualification certificates and to revoke and recall the Ph.D. degree awarded to him.
3. The case of the appellant is that as per the provisional selection, he was originally appointed as a Supervisor to the 3rd respondent to guide him in pursuing the Ph.D. programme, the field of research being “Thiruvasagam Bakthi Kotpadu”. Since the appellant found that even the application had several errors including typographical errors, he called for the third respondent’s qualification certificates for verification. Irked by the said action of the appellant, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint with the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as “SHRC”)
inter alia alleging that the appellant had demanded a bribe to clear his Thesis. The SHRC rejected the said complaint vide its order dated 07.10.2022. The appellant made a representation dated 12.12.2022 requesting the authorities to
conduct enquiry with the third respondent and take further action. The 3rd Respondent also submitted a request for changing the supervisor. Finding no response on his representation, he has preferred WP.No.4504 of 2023, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, by the order impugned herein.
4. We do not intend to get into any of the allegations made by the appellant against the third respondent for the present.
5. Yet, we find that this is one of those instances, where the University of Madras, one of the oldest and premier Institute entering its 164th year of existence, has grossly failed in its obligation to even verify the eligibility criteria while admitting the 3rd Respondent for the Ph.D. Programme. The eligibility for admission to Ph.D. programme, in terms of Clause 2.1 of the
Revised Ph.D. Regulations based on UGC regulations, is that the candidates shall have passed SSLC (10th or 11th class/grade and PUC or higher secondary
(12th grade) before joining undergraduate (UG) programme (3 or more years)
and UG before joining PG degree programme. It appears that the 3rd respondent herein had appeared for the Higher Secondary Course Certificate
(Vocational Education) in March 1997 and failed in Mathematics scoring only
24 marks as would be evident from the Mark statement issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dated 23.05.1997. Subsequently, he had passed
B.A. Literature in Tamil in October 2004 and cleared Tamil Pandit Training
Certificate Course from Periyar University in January 2007. Thereafter, the 3rd
Respondent had appeared for the Higher Secondary Board Exams and cleared Mathematics by scoring 70 marks i.e., 35% in March 2012. It thus prima facie appears that the third respondent does not satisfy the eligibility criteria in terms of the Ph.D. regulations of the University of Madras. However, he was provisionally admitted to the Ph.D. programme vide proceedings dated 21.06.2013. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 3rd respondent has since been awarded Ph.D. Degree.
6. We find that prima facie there has been complete apathy on the part
of the respondent University, while examining the eligibility of the 3rd respondent for even being admitted for the Ph.D. Programme, that is extremely disturbing to put it mildly. We say so since Ph.D. is known and treated as a terminal degree. It is often the highest level of formal education, a student can earn through Universities and Colleges. Ph.D is a doctoral degree in education which sets apart the holder of such degree from other professionals. It is normally where international level of talent is made, thus Educational Institutions cannot afford to be lethargic nor can decisions be permitted to be influenced by extraneous consideration. It would then result in compromising on the merit and quality at the highest level of education. The consequence is, we would producing Midgetry, where Summitry is the desideratum, that is dangerous/ perilous. Any complacency would have serious repercussions having an adverse bearing not only on the individual, but on the University and more importantly, the esteem/admiration/respect earned by the genuine Ph.D Degree holders through dint of hard work would give way to
distrust/skepticism /suspicion, which we would not rather cannot tolerate.
7. We find that the learned Single Judge has strangely proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on a gross misconception as to the very issue before him. He has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition on the premise that the appellant / writ petitioner is a third party and that, in a dispute between an employee and employer, a third party would have no role. The following passage is relevant:
“As such the petitioner herein, who is not an employee and is a third party, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition.”
We don’t think that the issue arises for consideration even remotely in the Writ
Petition filed to enquire whether the 3rd respondent who has been awarded Ph.D degree is even eligible to be admitted to the Ph.D. programme.
8. Taking into account the gravity of the issue, which prima facie involves remissness at the highest level in the filed of education, we are inclined to call for a report from the authorities concerned. Accordingly, as an interim measure, we direct the respondent University to conduct an enquiry on the representation submitted by the appellant, after issuing due notice to both the parties, viz., the appellant and the third respondent, and submit its report within a period of four weeks.
9. Post the matter after four weeks. Notice to the third respondent through court as well as privately by then.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
22.06.2023
Mka
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Mka
WA.No.1273 of 2023
22.06.2023