The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the acceptance of a PhD Chemistry scholar's resignation by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Ropar, ruling that the resignation was not voluntary but submitted under compelling circumstances. The court directed the institute to allow the scholar to continue her doctoral programme.
Court's Observations on the Resignation
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, presiding over the case, noted that the resignation was tendered on November 22, 2025, and accepted on the same day with what he described as “lightning speed.” The court observed that the scholar had submitted a complaint of harassment against faculty members on November 21, 2025, which remained unaddressed. The resignation letter explicitly stated that it was due to “continued misbehavior and misconduct” causing “undue harassment” to the scholar and her 67-year-old father.
The court held that the resignation was not a resignation simpliciter but one submitted under compelling circumstances, especially since no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the scholar. Justice Tiwari remarked: “This Court has no hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary, rather, it was under the compelling circumstances.”
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a PhD Chemistry scholar at IIT-Ropar, joined the programme under normal conditions until October 2025, after which she allegedly faced harassment from faculty members. On November 21, 2025, she emailed a complaint to the IIT-Ropar Director seeking action against certain faculty members. The complaint stated: “I have experienced multiple incidents of harassment from the faculty members of the Chemistry Department. The situation escalated severely when they went so far as to send me to PGI.”
When no action was taken, she submitted her resignation the next day, stating: “I am officially resigning from my position due to the continued misbehavior and misconduct. Their actions have caused undue harassment to both me and my 67-year-old father with no relief. Under these circumstances, I find it impossible to continue, and therefore I am compelled to resign.”
Institute's Opposition and Court's Rejection
IIT-Ropar opposed the petition, arguing that the scholar was habitual of filing complaints against faculty, guides, and fellow students. They cited subsequent developments, including her admission to CSIR–Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu, and emails allegedly sent from there. However, Justice Tiwari held that these subsequent events had no bearing on the legality of the order accepting her resignation. The court noted that the scholar had never been served with any notice for misconduct or that the institute had initiated disciplinary proceedings against her.
The court further observed: “Surprisingly, without making any efforts to redress the grievance of the petitioner, the request of her resignation was duly recommended by the Supervisor and endorsed by the Head of the Department, and thereafter, the competent authority accepted the resignation, on the same very day.” The bench added that the institute “was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner.”
Undertaking by the Scholar
The petitioner filed an affidavit before the court, undertaking that if permitted to resume her studies, she would not make complaints by email or otherwise against anyone within the institute and would focus on her academic work. The court directed her to abide by this undertaking and clarified that the institute remains at liberty to take appropriate disciplinary action in case of any violation.
Court's Directions
Allowing the petition, the court set aside the November 22, 2025 order accepting the resignation and issued a mandamus directing IIT-Ropar to permit the scholar to continue her PhD Chemistry programme forthwith. In a parting observation, the court requested the Director of IIT-Ropar to sympathetically consider the circumstances of the case and “try to create an atmosphere allowing the petitioner to resettle and complete her studies.”
The Bench also appreciated advocate Amit Kumar Goyal for assisting the court as free legal aid counsel “that too on a short notice.”
