Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed an appeal by Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, upholding a single bench’s decision that a PhD research scholar cannot be denied a doctoral degree for simultaneously pursuing a part-time diploma in ‘tabla’. The court further ruled that the scholar is entitled to receive his degree without refunding a university scholarship.“We have carefully perused the PhD ordinance as well as the University Research Scholarship (URS) ordinance… It has been correctly held that such part-time evening courses (tabla course) do not interfere with PhD studies,” a division bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Sudeepti Sharma held in its order released on Monday. The bench further noted that the university failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the single bench.The ruling came as the court dismissed MDU’s appeal against a Feb 11 order. That order had granted relief to Pradeep Deswal, who had sought directions for the university to award him his PhD degree.The primary contention in the case revolved around MDU vice-chancellor’s decision to grant Deswal his PhD only upon the refund of Rs 4,95,833, the full amount of the University Research Scholarship he had received. The university’s counsel argued that while MDU had no objection to granting the degree, Deswal needed to repay the scholarship due to his enrolment as an advocate and his pursuit of the tabla course during his PhD studies. The university maintained that Deswal failed to disclose his enrolment as a lawyer and the tabla course, and the vice-chancellor’s refund requirement was “fair and balanced”.After examining the matter, the division bench observed that it was the specific case of the petitioner (Deswal) that as he was active in politics apart from regular studies, a complaint was filed against him due to extraneous considerations. Though he enrolled with the Bar Council in 2011, he filed his first power of attorney in a court of law in 2020, having concentrated solely on his studies prior to that. The division bench noted that Deswal’s averment regarding his delayed legal practice was not specifically refuted by the university. The court observed, “Counsel for appellants was unable to point out any bar, which may be applicable upon the writ petitioner to pursue his PhD while being enrolled as an advocate.”Regarding the tabla diploma, the bench reiterated that Deswal undertook the course on a part-time basis in the same university, specifically in evening classes. “It has been correctly held by the learned single bench that such would not interfere with the studies of the writ petitioner in so far as his pursuit in the doctorate in laws was concerned. Thus, in our considered opinion, the order dated February 11 has been correctly passed, and the writ petitioner is indeed entitled to a degree in doctorate in the programme of laws without insistence upon refund of the scholarship amount,” the high court ordered.MSID:: 122813620 413 |
