HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Present: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA WPA 30092 of 2024 Masud Rana -vs- The State of West Bengal & others. For the petitioners Mr. Samim Ahammad Mr. Arka Maiti Mr. Enamul Islam For the Aliah University Mr. R. N. Chakraborty Ms. Amrita De For the State respondents Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay Mr. Ritesh Kr. Ganguly For the respondent no.9 Mr. Mijanul Kabir Ms. Luna Khatoon Heard on 07.02.2025 Judgment on 07.02.2025 2 JAY SENGUPTA, J: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was enrolled as a PhD scholar at Aliah University in the Department of Biological Sciences on 16th June, 2021. The petitioner was allotted the private respondent as his PhD guide through an official notice in 2023. However, the private respondent refused to sign the petitioner’s fellowship form for the Swami Vivekananda Merit Cum Means Scholarship. The private respondent even changed the lock of the laboratory, barring the petitioner’s access. Upon returning from Eid holidays, the petitioner discovered the fish stocking room lock was changed and all research specimens had died. The Dean convened a meeting in 2024 and instructed the private respondent to restore the petitioner’s lab access, which was ignored. The private respondent has again refused to sign fellowship and contingency forms, threatening the petitioner’s academic career. The petitioner emailed the Vice Chancellor requesting intervention for completing his PhD, but no action has been taken in this regard. The petitioner has been harassed in diverse ways by the private respondent. The private respondent even asked the petitioner to perform her household chores, which the petitioner refused. All these infuriated her and led her to take such destructive action against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.9 denies the allegations and submits that it was the petitioner who had misbehaving with the private respondent, which resulted in certain misunderstandings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, the University is agreeable to co-operate with the petitioner in every manner to have his PhD programme completed. If 3 required, necessary documents will be signed by the Supervisor or by anyone else authorized by the Registrar. If the private respondent had any complaint against the petitioner about misbehavior or the like, she could have approached the University authorities for initiating an action or if such alleged indiscretion on the part of the petitioner had amounted to criminal offence, she could have approached the police. Instead of doing so, it is not open to her to try to prevent the petitioner from completing his PhD degree. In view of the above and considering the stand taken by the University, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to complete his PhD programme at the earliest. The respondent no.9 and the University shall co-operate with the petitioner in this. If there is any delay caused by the private respondent in signing any paper for such purpose, without prejudice, the Registrar shall be at liberty to engage any other person to do the needful. No further order need be passed in this regard. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As affidavits were not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. ( Jay Sengupta, J. ) ssi 4