JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY Vs. SHASHI KALA PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-non-petitioner against the judgment dt. 18.12.2007 passed in SBCWP No.265/2005 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent and directed the appellant-non-petitioner to accept the thesis of the petitioner and examine the same in accordance with law by the Research Board and proceed further, obviously to consider whether it is fit case for grant of PHD to the petitioner - respondent or not.

(2.) THE petitioner, who was eligible to conduct research on a subject given by her was permitted by the appellant - University to conduct research on the subject under the supervision of Dr.PK Kapil vide order dated 25.8.1995, but with effect from 15.5.1995. THEreafter, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the History on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and she was appointed as Lecturer in the Government Girls College, Sri Ganganagar on 6.11.1995. Admittedly, as per Ordinance 211 of the appellant University, the research scholar is required to reside in University for at least two years. According to the petitioner, she fell ill after joining at Sri Ganganagar and she came back to Jodhpur and during entire session, she could not join the duties. However, she joined the duties on 31.7.1996 at Sri Ganganagar and was transferred to Pali and since 1.8.1996 she was working at Government Bangad College, Pali. According to the petitioner, during period from 7.11.1995 to 31.7.1996 because of her sickness she remained at Jodhpur and there she was sick but yet she did her research work at Jodhpur for submitting PHD. According to the petitioner, even after her posting at Pali, during all holidays, may those holidays were festival holidays and vacations, she continued to work on the subject for completing her thesis. THErefore, one of the pleas of the petitioner is that she did reside at Jodhpur for requisite period of two years if days are counted on which she remained at Jodhpur in above circumstances.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that mere sympathy cannot help the petitioner and that too in a matter of research work by a student. It is also submitted that in the affairs of the University the court should not have interfered because of the reason that there are statutory provisions made by the Ordinance framed by the appellant - University, which are just and required conditions for research work because in the opinion of the experts body, research scholar is required to do the actual research work under the guidance of his guide and mere stay without work is not the purpose of Ordinance 211. It requires research work to be done while remaining in the University or in the institution approved by the University for a period of not less than 2 years from the date of commencement of the research work and this provision cannot be taken lightly looking to the nature of course, which is required to be done by research scholar to do the PHD. Not only this, the power of Vice-Chancellor is also limited only under Ordinance 211A by which the Vice-Chancellor of the University on the recommendation of the Supervisor may permit the candidate to work outside the University, ordinarily for a maximum duration of not more than six months (during the period residence required) for collection of material or field study or library work as directed by the Supervisor. Such is not the case of petitioner.