1 2025:CGHC:51049-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 726 of 2025 Ratan Kumar Khatwani S/o Late Shri Arjun Das Khatwani, Aged About 48 Years R/o H.No. 5, Subham Vihar, Near Vijay Nagar Chowk, Awanti Vihar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Age Wrongly Mentioned As 46 Years In Annnexure A/1- Impugned Judgment Dated 13/06/2025 In WPC/543/2023) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Indian Institute Of Management Raipur (Autonomous College) Atal Nagar, Kurru (Abhanpur) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Governing Council Indian Institute Of Management Raipur (Autonomous College) Atal Nagar Karru (Abhanpur) Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Details Of Parties As Mentioned In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment Dated 13/06/2025 In WPC/543/2023) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/ State : Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Senior Advocate through V.C. along with Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.15 10:11:28 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.10.2025 1. The appellant/petitioner in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 543 of 2023, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner applied and was admitted to the EFPM (Executive Fellow Programme in Management) at IIM Raipur during the 2017–2018 academic session, having successfully cleared the due process of selection. At the time of admission and during the course of the programme until mid-2020, the rules and regulations governing the petitioner were those laid down in the EFPM Manuals of 2017–2019, none of which prescribed or made it mandatory for the candidate to pay journal publication fees. The petitioner diligently complied with all academic requirements as per the existing EFPM Manuals, including but not limited to coursework, TAC formation, comprehensive viva, thesis proposal approval, paper presentations, and publications in UGC/Scopus-indexed journals. The petitioner’s TAC (Thesis Advisory Committee) approved the research proposal and supervised the entire research process, including approving the publications. The petitioner’s thesis was submitted for evaluation in early 2020, well before the introduction 3 of the new EFPM Manual 2020, which for the first time included a clause requiring prior approval for publication fees or treating such payments as misconduct. However, based on the retrospective application of the 2020 Manual, the petitioner’s EFPM admission was cancelled arbitrarily, without following principles of natural justice or affording an opportunity of hearing. The action taken was not only without jurisdiction but also violated the legitimate expectations and accrued rights of the petitioner, who had already completed all academic formalities under the then-prevailing guidelines. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “11. In light of the aforesaid statements, this Court cannot adjudicate any case unless there is a violation of the principles of natural justice or a deviation from the prescribed manual. The respondent authorities have published a manual for the course to which the petitioner has applied, and the petitioner is required to comply with all the conditions stated therein. If there is any deviation or failure to meet the prescribed criteria for the conferral of the EFPM degree, the respondent authorities, particularly Respondent No. 1, are duly authorized to take appropriate action. The Respondent 4 No.1 has indeed passed such an order, and in the opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the Respondent No. 1 either in canceling the petitioner's registration or in issuing the orders dated 06.07.2022 and 01.05.2022, or in rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2022. The other reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the conditions prescribed in the manual. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. “ 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner with the prayer that the cancellation of the appellant registration is illegal and arbitrary and learned Single Judge has erred by dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the Petitioner's Ph.D. was arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was argued that the Petitioner, having enrolled in May 2015, was governed by the EFPM Manual of 2015, and all academic requirements, including the submission of the draft thesis in February 2020, were duly fulfilled in accordance with the rules applicable at the time. The delay in organizing the internal thesis seminar, a mandatory 5 step following submission, was entirely attributable to the Respondents, despite several representations by the Petitioner. It was further submitted that the Respondents' attempt to retrospectively apply the EFPM Manual 2020-21, including the requirement for a publication-related undertaking was impermissible and contrary to settled legal principles. The journal in which the Petitioner published was listed in the Respondent's own official classification under the ABDC and Scopus indexes, and had been accepted for the same purpose in other scholars’ cases, giving rise to a legitimate expectation and estoppel against the Respondents. The learned counsel also pointed out that the allegations regarding "predatory publication" and plagiarism were raised for the first time years after publication and thesis submission, despite the thesis and papers being approved by the Thesis Advisory Committee and the Petitioner having obtained plagiarism clearance reports at the time of submission (showing only 15–16% similarity). Moreover, the Respondents never communicated any direction requiring a second publication or rejection of the first paper. It was contended that the belated plagiarism checks (conducted in 2021 and 2022) were neither relevant nor reliable for determining compliance at the time of publication and submission. The Petitioner’s work was peer- reviewed, published in journals recognized by the Respondent, and accepted by the TAC. Therefore, the learned counsel 6 submitted that the cancellation of the Petitioner’s candidature is not only unjustified but also indicative of mala fide on the part of the Respondents and further the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the facts of the case in its true spirit and therefore prays that the impugned order be set side and the present appeal be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reliefs sought by the petitioner are untenable as they are contrary to the well-documented course norms and policies of IIM Raipur, an autonomous body under the IIM Act, 2017. The petitioner was admitted to the EFPM 2015 program, failed to complete the course within the stipulated maximum period of 6 years plus a special COVID extension of 1 year (total 7 years) and his registration was cancelled after due notice. He submits that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirement under Clause 6.10 of the EFPM Manual 2015 for thesis defence, including the publication of two papers in IIM Raipur-recognized journals. His submitted publications were rejected due to high plagiarism levels (15% and 51%) violating UGC norms, and he paid EURO 1100 to a predatory journal, which was against course policy. It is stated that further, the petitioner failed to provide the required declaration regarding non-payment to journals. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for the internal thesis seminar or Ph.D. award. He was repeatedly informed but failed to act even during the extended 7 period. It is further stated that the petitioner’s unethical conduct and non-compliance with academic norms led to the cancellation of his registration, accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available in the record. 8. For ready reference the Publication Requirements of the year 2018 is quoted below:- Publication Requirements Following are the pre-requisites for submitting the doctoral draft thesis: 1. One Journal Papers acceptance in the classified list of IIM Raipur (A, B or C Category only) 2. Scholar should be first author in the publications 3. The publication must be from the thesis work of the Scholar. 9. For ready reference the Publication Requirements of the year 2020 is also quoted below: 6.7.1 Publication Requirements Following are the pre-requisites for presenting and submitting the doctoral draft thesis: (a) One Journal Papers acceptance in the classified list of IIM Raipur (A, B or C Category only) (b) Scholar should be first author in the publications 8 (c) The publication must be from the thesis work of the Scholar. If the journal seeks article processing charges, it will not be considered for the fulfillment of this requirement. Scholars should submit paper acceptance or publication form. 10. It is the trite law that every statute is prima facie prospective, and an amendment or new rule cannot affect substantive rights unless the legislature intended it to. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and upon careful perusal of the record and applyig the well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the core issue regarding retrospective application of the EFPM Manual 2020-21 to the Appellant, who had enrolled in May 2015 and submitted his draft thesis in February 2020, i.e., well within the academic session 2019-20. The Appellant had fulfilled all academic requirements under the EFPM Manual 2015, including publication in journals that were then recognized and classified by the Respondent institution itself. The allegation of predatory publication and high plagiarism was raised belatedly, without any objection by the Thesis Advisory Committee (TAC), which had duly 9 approved the Appellant's submissions. The Appellant had also obtained plagiarism reports prior to submission, showing similarity levels within acceptable limits at the time. The requirement for an undertaking regarding non-payment to journals was introduced only in the EFPM Manual of 2020-21 and could not be applied retrospectively. The delay in organizing the internal thesis seminar, a mandatory procedural step, was on part of the Respondent institution and not attributable to the Appellant. The impugned cancellation of the Appellant’s registration, therefore, appears to be arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of principles of natural justice. In the given circumstances, this Court finds merit in the present appeal and holds that the Appellant’s candidature ought not to have been cancelled in the manner done. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed, the order dated 06.07.2022 cancelling the registration of the Appellant is set aside, and the Respondents are directed to take appropriate steps to conduct the internal thesis seminar and proceed further in accordance with law, as per the EFPM Manual applicable at the time of the Appellant’s enrollment and thesis submission. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti