New Delhi, May 24 The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought Delhi University's (DU) stand on a petition by the Congress student wing, NSUI's national secretary Lokesh Chugh alleging that the varsity was not accepting his PhD thesis even after the debarment order was set aside.
Chugh was debarred from taking examinations for one year over his alleged involvement in organising a screening of the banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued notice on the petition.
Justice Kaurav had on April 27 ordered: "Impugned order is set aside. The admission of the petitioner is restored. Necessary consequences will follow."
Chug's counsel Naman Joshi, informed the court that the petitioner's PhD thesis was being processed in contravention of the court's ruling due to inaction and delay.
He said no appeal was filed against the high court's order but his thesis was yet to be accepted.
In his plea he states that he was running from pillar to post in an attempt to submit his PhD thesis but there was no response from the authorities.
"The Respondents are trying to thwart the Petitioner by being vague, unresponsive, and enforcing a decision that has been set aside by this Hon'ble Court," the plea read.
"Petitioner cannot be subjected to such whimsical conduct of the Respondents, as delay in submission of PhD thesis affects the Petitioner's career prospects each day and Petitioner is prevented from applying for post-doctoral positions and teaching positions due to the Respondents' callous attitude," it added.
The DU authorities be directed to accept Chugh's thesis and notify a date for his viva-voce, the plea stated.
The matter has been posted for the next hearing on July 17.
Chugh had urged the high court on April 27 to permit him to submit his PhD thesis before the retirement of his supervisor on April 30.
Appearing for Chugh, senior advocate Kapil Sibal had apprised Justice Kaurav that the varsity will later "appoint a supervisor of its own choice" if interim relief was not granted.
However, counsel for the university M. Rupal argued that no prejudice would be caused and interference by the court will send a "wrong message".
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor