Gurugram: A PhD scholar complained about faculty harassment at IIT Ropar on a Friday in November 2025. By Saturday, her PhD was over—resignation submitted and accepted within hours, with no inquiry, no questions asked.
Now the Punjab and Haryana High Court has torn into that “lightning speed” exit, ordering the institution to take back the Chemistry scholar and pulling up its lawyers for still fighting tooth-and-nail to keep her out even after she had sworn an affidavit promising to stop complaining.
The scholar, Fatima Maqsood, had written to the director of IIT Ropar on 21 November, 2025, naming eight faculty members and alleging that the director’s own earlier reprimands to them had not stopped the harassment. The faculty members she named were Dr Mandal, Dr Tharamani, Dr Arun, Mr Deepak, Ms Gargi, Dr Naidu, Dr Charanjit and Dr Reena, according to the court order document.
The very next day, on 22 November, she submitted her resignation, citing “continued misbehaviour and misconduct” that had caused “undue harassment” to her and her 67-year-old father. It was accepted the same day.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, hearing her writ petition, noted that the resignation moved through the system, recommended by her supervisor, endorsed by the Head of Department, and accepted by the registrar, all “on the same very day”, which, the court said, “reflects that the respondent/Institute was in a hurry to get rid of the petitioner”.
No inquiry, no notice
The judge asked IIT Ropar’s counsel Vivek Singla a direct question: Had the petitioner ever been served any notice for misconduct? The answer, on record, was no. The court noted it was undisputed that no complaint had ever been filed against her, and the institute had neither contemplated nor initiated any disciplinary action.
Yet, IIT Ropar continued to resist her plea to withdraw the resignation, even after Maqsood, represented by legal aid counsel Amit Kumar Goyal, had filed an affidavit on 25 May this year, undertaking not to make “any complaint by email or otherwise against anyone within the Institute” and to “focus on my studies”.
The undertaking came after the petitioner, who was present in the court, agreed to file an affidavit stating that she would not press her complaint.
The institute’s lawyer told the court the request for revocation was “pending consideration” and had been for months. He also argued that the petition concealed that Maqsood had since joined CSIR-Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu, and that the institute had received a complaint about her conduct there, too.
The court rejected this as irrelevant to the legality of the 22 November order. “The subsequent events, even if disclosed, would not have any impact,” Justice Tiwari observed.
‘Attempt to get rid of petitioner’
The court was particularly critical of IIT Ropar’s continued opposition in the courtroom despite the affidavit.
“The irrelevant objection raised before this Court… clearly reflects their conduct, that they still do not wish the petitioner to join back,” the order states, adding that the institute’s “attempt is only to get rid of the petitioner”.
Leaning on a 2022 Supreme Court ruling on resignations by judicial officers and a 2025 Allahabad High Court judgment, the bench held that a resignation submitted under “compelling circumstances” is not voluntary and can be withdrawn.
“This Court has no hesitation to declare that the resignation was not voluntary,” Justice Tiwari ruled, setting aside the 22 November 2025 order and directing IIT Ropar to let Maqsood resume her PhD Chemistry programme “forthwith”.
The court also asked the institute’s director to “sympathetically consider all the circumstances”, and help create an atmosphere for her to resettle and complete her studies, while making clear that if she breaches her undertaking not to file further complaints, the institute is free to take disciplinary action against her.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Madras HC order loosens a shackle in surrogacy law. Why it’s a big win for reproductive autonomy