IIMA asks PhD student to quit, gets HC notice

The Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad’s (IIMA) decision asking a PhD student to withdraw from the doctoral programme has been challenged in the Gujarat high court.

The court has issued notice to the institute seeking an explanation from it regarding its decision in the matter.

The matter concerns GV Radhakrishnan, a former officer of the Indian Navy, who had enrolled in the doctoral programme in June 2011 to do research in the Public Systems Group (PSG). He had enrolled directly in the second-year as he already had an MBA from an IIM.

According to the petitioner (Radhakrishnan), he had joined directly in the second-year of the doctoral programme and, in his enthusiasm, had ‘overcommitted’, taking 16 courses, far in excess of 11 courses that most students take. All the course selections were done in consultation with his academic advisor, a senior faculty member from the PSG field, the petitioner has stated.

In his studies, Radhakrishnan had performed adequately in all courses except two categories of courses, and overwhelming in one subject (econometrics). Econometrics was offered in both the categories — as a compulsory course in Fellow Programme in Management (FPM) and also as a ‘Related Area Course’ and by the ‘same junior faculty’ member, the petitioner has stated.

He, however, had a small shortfall in the ‘average grade points’(less than 1/6th of a grade) in these two categories of courses.

On June 11, 2012 when he was still in the second-year course viz. ‘Seminar Course on Transportation Policy (STP)’ and the grades of this course were yet to be reported by the instructor, he received a letter from the FPM chairperson regarding his ‘Performance Review’.

It was stated in the letter that the petitioner’s end-of-the-year review had been done and that, in some courses, he had scored less than the minimum grade specified in the FPM Manual for promotion to the next stage of the programme. Hence, he should withdraw from the programme, the letter said.

Radhakrishnan challenged the decision and wrote a letter to the IIMA director saying that in the Faculty Committee for Programmes meeting held on June 06, 2012 (where the decision was taken) only 19 members were present. This was in violation of Regulation 11.2 (4) which ‘specifically’ requires that there should be at least one-third of the total voting members (90) of the committee (i.e. 30 members) be present at the time of the decision, the petitioner said in his letter to the IIMA.

He further said in his letter that he had come to know that the initial review by the instructors was done by only one instructor, when it was to be done by instructors of all the courses taken during the year by him. Further, the review was done even before the grades of all the courses of the year were reported by the instructors, Radhakrishnan said in his letter.

However, after a couple of appeals, the IIMA director did not entertain his representation and approved the decision of the FPM chairperson, the petitioner has stated.

Radhakrishnan’s lawyer, Mukul Sinha, said: “The court has issued a notice seeking an explanation from the institute. Further, it has directed the institute not to ask the petitioner to vacate the hostel room in which he currently stays.”