1. Petitioner, who is working as Associate Professor in Hindi, in DB Pampa College, seeks to quash Exts.P26, P28 and P29 and to direct the 1st respondent to issue further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P10 accepting the petitioner's Ext.P2 application for guideship as early as possible.

2. The petitioner states that in Clause 18.4 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Ph.D Regulations 2016, qualifications of a Teacher to be eligible for supervising the scholars in approved research centres are prescribed. The petitioner is fully qualified to supervise scholars in approved research centres and therefore submitted Ext.P2 application for recognition as Research Guide. An officer of the University informed the petitioner that the journal produced along with the application is not sufficient and that the petitioner has to produce some other approved journals from the UGC CARE list. The petitioner therefore submitted two other UGC CARE list journals.

3. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that those two journals were not considered and therefore another set of journals should be produced. The petitioner thereupon submitted two other journals. The petitioner was called for a hearing on 11.08.2023. The petitioner produced four journals including the two produced along with the application. The Dean of Language and Literature recommended to consider the journals for guideship of the petitioner.

4. Syndicate meeting held on 19.03.2024 directed the petitioner to appear before the Convenor of Syndicate Standing Committee for Research and Development. Till date, the Convenor of Syndicate Standing Committee has not called for any explanation or heard the petitioner. The petitioner was later served with Ext.P14 order to the effect that on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 7th respondent, the genuineness of the journals submitted by the petitioner has to be examined and hence it is decided to seek explanation from respondents 3 and 4. The 4th respondent-Principal sought explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her explanation.

5. The College Council meeting discussed the issue and it was decided to recommend the Management to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. The 4th respondent gave Ext.P20 letter to the Registrar of the University stating that disciplinary proceedings are being taken against the petitioner.

6. Later, the 1st respondent-University issued Ext.P28 letter dated 31.05.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application for guideship on the ground that the petitioner misled the University by submitting false journals and hence decided to obtain legal opinion for taking action against the petitioner. The 1st respondent by Ext.P29 decided to constitute an Institutional Academic Integrity Panel as per Clause 11 of the UGC Regulations 2018.

7. The petitioner states that Ext.P26 Minutes and Exts.P28 and P29 orders arise out of political vengeance. The qualification and eligibility prescribed in Clause 18.4 of Ext.P1 Regulations 2016 are satisfied by the petitioner. The Dean of Language and Literature has satisfied himself of the genuineness of the journals and the petitioner's eligibility, and therefore recommended the petitioner for guideship for Ph.D as per Ext.P8. The petitioner is therefore fully qualified and eligible for the guideship on the basis of the journals submitted by the petitioner along with Ext.P2.

8. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that the list of journals relied on by the petitioner as per Ext.P4 materially differs from the list of articles actually submitted by the petitioner along with her application. When the application was pending, two complaints were received from the 7th respondent regarding the authenticity of certain articles submitted by the petitioner.

9. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Syndicate which decided to obtain detailed report. At the time of hearing, the petitioner produced a different set of journals and publications. The recommendation of the Dean of Languages did not address the issue of authenticity of the publications originally submitted along with guideship application. On scrutiny, the Syndicate found that the said articles submitted by the petitioner were not genuine.

10. The petitioner's application for recognition as Research Guide was rejected as per Ext.P28 not on the ground of insufficiency of publications or lack of qualifications, but solely on account of the finding that the petitioner had submitted forged and unauthentic documents along with her guideship application. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-Board.

12. The petitioner has acquired Ph.D in the year 2001 from the Mahatma Gandhi University. The petitioner submitted application for recognition as Research Guide. Along with her application, the petitioner submitted two journals “Shodh Disha” (mein payal upanyas mein kinnar vimarsh) and “Shodh Disha” (bazar mein ramdhan kahani ke sandarbh mein).

13. The petitioner was required to produce some other approved journals from the UGC CARE list journals. The petitioner then submitted “Shodh Sanchar Bulletin” and “Shodh Saritha” in August, 2022. Since those two journals were not considered, the petitioner submitted two other journals by name “Sahithya Amruth”.

14. The Dean of Languages issued Ext.P10 letter indicating that the publications in “Shodh Disha-55”, “Shodh Disha-59”, “Gaveshana” and “Shodh Disha-60” are included in the UGC CARE list and therefore can be considered for guideship. It is seen that the 7th respondent filed complaints regarding genuineness of the journals submitted by the petitioner. Now, the College Council has instituted proceedings against the petitioner and the University has also initiated action by constituting an Institutional Academic Integrity Panel as per Clause 11 of UGC Regulations 2018.

15. The petitioner contends that the complaint against the petitioner was politically motivated. The journals submitted by the petitioner along with his application were UGC approved and therefore any lacuna or complaint about the journals subsequently submitted by the petitioner need not be a reason not to process the guideship application of the petitioner.

16. It is to be noted that the rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner for recognition as Research Guide was not on the ground of insufficiency of publications. The reason is the alleged submission of forged and unauthentic documents along with her guideship application. The question is whether the petitioner has submitted forged and unauthentic documents. If the allegations against the petitioner are true, then it will be a fit case to initiate proceedings under the UGC Regulations on Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism, 2018.

17. Considering the nature of the allegations raised, I am of the view that it is not proper for this Court to interfere in the proceedings in academic matters, at this stage. Respondents 1 and 2 are the competent and expert bodies/officers who can take a decision on the basis of the proceedings initiated as per the UGC Regulations on Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism, 2018.

                  The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to conclude the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P29 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months. Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner for recognition as Research Guide should be reconsidered on the basis of the outcome of the action under the Regulations 2018.