SUNIL JASWAL Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent-University in rejecting his case for consideration of his candidature for Ph.D. in Biotechnology. As urged before us by learned counsel for the respondent-University that the form Annexure R-1/A is not complete for the reason "without the consent of the faculty from the Department of Biotechnology who intends to be your supervisor" which is a specific pre-requirement for selection. Learned counsel in particular urges that consent is required from the Supervisor as provided under the form, who will guide the particular candidate in Ph.D. We are not entering into the other issues as this point is sufficient, including second point urged by the RespondentUniversity that the petitioner has not appeared in the entrance test, for decision of this case.

(2.) Adverting to the first ground for rejection, we find that Ordinance 16.3, according to the Hand Book Form-1 (the 1st Ordinance of University) (1st Amended upto 2002) clearly provides that:-

(3.) It clearly provides that Standing Committee may permit registration or reject the application or may order the postponement of registration, as the circumstances may warrant. If the registration is accepted, the Standing Committee shall appoint a supervisor(s) to guide the candidate. We find that there is no mandatory requirement of the Supervisor to accept the candidate as Ph.D. student and then consideration of his case. It is only the Standing Committee which has to consider the merits of a candidate and then permit a Supervisor. We further find that it is open for the Standing Committee to change the Supervisor in certain contemplated circumstances. We find no explanation as to why the Standing Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner. We cannot accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected.