1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 21.03.2025 Judgment Delivered on 13.06.2025 WPC No. 543 of 2023 1 - Ratan Kumar Khatwani S/o Late Shri Arjun Das Khatwani Aged About 46 Years R/o H. No. 5, Subham Vihar, Near Vijay Nagar Chowk, Awanti Vihar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indian Institute Of Management, Raipur(Autonomous College) Atal Nagar, Kurru (Abhanpur) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Governing Council Indian Institute Of Management Raipur (Autonomous College) Atal Nagar Karru (Abhanpur) Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Kumar Khatwani, Petitioner in person. For Respondents : Dr. Shiv Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Judgment VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the memo dated 11.10.2022, the order dated 06.07.2022, and the order dated 01.05.2022, all issued by respondent No. 1, i.e., the Indian Institute of Management, Raipur. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to constitute a Committee comprising 5 to 7 members from other IIMs or other eminent Professors, for considering the petitioner’s case in a lawful and fair manner. 2. The case, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner was admitted to the Executive Fellow Programme in Management (EFPM) at IIM Raipur in 2017 and completed all academic requirements under the EFPM Manuals applicable from 2017 to 2019. This included coursework, approved research publications, and submission of his Ph.D. thesis before the new EFPM Manual 2020 came into force. However, IIM Raipur illegally cancelled his admission by applying the 2020 Manual retrospectively, citing non-compliance with new publication-related rules, including prior approval for journal publication fees. These rules were not in force when the petitioner published his work or submitted his thesis. The petitioner challenges this arbitrary and retrospective action on the part of respondent authorities as a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The petitioner seeks quashing 3 of the cancellation, restoration of admission, and completion of the Ph.D. viva process as per the earlier applicable EFPM rules. 3. 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 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 4 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. 4. It is argued by the petitioner that the action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice and the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 deserves to be quashed. He submits that the petitioner was admitted to the Executive Fellow Program in Management (EFPM) in 2015, with due acceptance by Respondent No. 1, and successfully published his thesis work in reputed and approved journals in 2018 and 2019, well within the prescribed four-year period. These publications were made as per the EFPM Manuals of 2017 and 2019, which did not prohibit payment of mandatory journal processing fees. However, Respondent No. 1 later issued a letter dated 01.05.2020, introducing a new requirement under the EFPM Manual 2020, demanding a declaration that no processing fees were paid which retrospectively affected the petitioner’s valid publications. It is argued that this retrospective application of the 2020 Manual is legally impermissible and has been used unjustly to cancel the petitioner’s registration. Furthermore, the internal thesis seminar, a prerequisite for completion, was never conducted by the Institute despite repeated requests and TAC recommendations, and now the blame for delay is wrongly attributed to the petitioner. 5 It is stated that such conduct of the respondent authorities is unreasonable, lacks justification, and the orders passed by them deserves to be set-aside/quashed and the present petition deserves to be allowed. 5. While submitting the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in the present petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the reply to the representation of petitioner on 11.10.2022 (Annexure P-1), order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 01.05.2020 (Annexure P-21) and passed by the Respondent no. 1, by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to constitute a committee of 5-7 Professors of other IIM Colleges/University/UGC in the country along with the inclusion of petitioner's TAC chairman as one of the committee members, opportunity to be given to petitioner and heard & committee submit their report before Hon'ble Court for early disposal of the matter. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and declare the decisions taken by the Respondent no.1 were beyond their powers and functions by over stepping on the decision of the TAC was illegal, arbitrary and void. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the committee, so constituted, to check whether the action taken by the FPM Committee of 6 IIM Raipur/ IIM Raipur administration is inappropriate action in light of the manual/guidelines in the instant case of the Petitioner. And may submit report before Hon'ble Court in a month. 10.5 That the Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to direct the committee to examine functions, scope, right & responsibility of the FPM committee in the instant matter in context of entire EFPM/PhD course based on Guideline/Manual framed by Respondent no 1. 10.6 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to compensate the Petitioner for the monetary loss, pain and mental agony caused by the Respondent to the Petitioner. 10.7 That, any other order of orders or Direction or Relief though just and fit in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 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 7 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 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended to the writ petition. 8. Upon perusal of the manual of the Executive Fellow Programme in Management (EFPM), 2017, it appears that there is a specific provision regarding the registration of any aspirant for the EFPM programme, which is intended for the award of a Ph.D.-equivalent degree. The manual makes it clear that the concerned person is required to follow each and every guideline issued therein, and that no deviation from the said manual is permissible. 9. In the present case, the petitioner got himself registered for the EFPM/Ph.D. and, in accordance with the programme requirements, published academic journals. He was awaiting further steps to be taken, including the organization of an internal 8 seminar, which is a necessary component before the conferment of the EFPM/Ph.D. award. However, when the internal seminar was not conducted, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a petition, in which directions were issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. According to the respondents, the petitioner’s registration in the EFPM programme was cancelled on the grounds that he had paid for the publication of his journals, which is strictly prohibited under the manual. Due to this violation, the respondents proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s EFPM/Ph.D. registration. The respondent authorities have repeatedly informed the petitioner of this fact in advance. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim that he was not granted an opportunity to be heard does not appear to be correct. Furthermore, while canceling the registration and passing the order dated 12.05.2015, it was categorically stated that the petitioner was provisionally admitted based on the information provided by him. 10. Upon discovering that the petitioner had failed to comply with the norms laid out in the manual, his representation was rejected with the following statements :- “You have also been communicated that such journal publications cannot be accepted for fulfilling the EFPM requirements. Moreover, the FPM committee sought a declaration from you that you have not paid any publication or processing fees to publish your paper on 17th March 2020 9 (see Annexure B), but you did not give any declaration in this regard. On the contrary, you gave another representation on 04th January 2021 that your paper should be considered to fulfil EFPM requirement. Your representation was discussed in the FPM committee and the committee recommended that as the scholar has 1.5 year (with possible extension), he should write another paper and publish to fulfil the EFPM requirement. It was communicated to you on 28th January 2021, but you did not publish another paper. After receiving order of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, the FPM.committee again verified all your course work compliances and documents pertaining to your EFPM. Course carefully. The Committee reaffirmed as under: - Firstly, you have submitted one same paper to multiple journals. It is unethical to submit one same paper to multiple journals at the same time. Moreover, it has come to the notice that you also forced a journal editor to accept the same on 1" November 2019 (see Annexure C (Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal)). Ultimately, under pressure your above-mentioned paper got published in that journal. Secondly, the scholar has plagiarized 52% in one of his papers from another paper (sec attached report). Plagiarism is not acceptable, as s plagiarized percentage was above the tolerance level of 10%, per the UGC guidelines (Annexure 10 D). This is one of disqualifications in study of the Scholar for EFPM Course. It may also be intimated that your registration has been cancelled after due notice to you for the reasons that firstly, even after completion of 7 years from the date of registration and secondly, in accordance with provisions of the EFPM manual, that, "The scholar is expected to complete the program in four years. Under special circumstances, an extension may be granted to the scholar. In any case, the entire program should finish within six years. If a scholar fails to complete the requisite academic works for the Executive Fellow Programme within this specified period, then she has to withdraw from the program. The scholar's registration will be terminated on the completion of six years." It is a matter of fact that you were given an extension of 3 years after completion of the first 4 years of registration for EFPM Course. First extension for a period of one year (5th year) was granted in 2019, the second extension for another year (6th year) was given in August 2020, the third and the last extension for another year (7th year) was given in July 2022. Whenever extension was granted, you were duly intimated and cautioned to complete all the pending stages before the specified date, otherwise, your registration would be cancelled (Annexure E). In view of above facts and circumstances, your registration has been cancelled. This is for your information.” 11 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 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. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha