RAJNEESH Vs. JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the Resolution No. 6/93 dated 3-3-1993 (Annexure 18) whereby the research scholarship has been awarded to respondent No. 3 may be quashed and the respondent University may be directed to grant this scholarship in favour of the petitioner who is on the top of the waiting list. It is also prayed that the respondent University may be directed to record 10-12-1990 as the date of registration of the petitioner for Ph.D. work.

(2.) The petitioner passed the M.A. (Final) Philosophy examination with first division in the year 1991 from the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the University'). The petitioner appeared in the theory papers of M.Phil. (Philosophy) from the University in the month of September, 1992 and the dessertation thereof is still to be completed. The petitioner wanted to do the Ph.D. (Philosophy) from the University with the aforesaid M.Phil. and therefore, he started synopsis work for the said Ph.D. after selecting the title of the thesis. The synopsis was completed and was got approved from the supervisor and the same was submitted along with the application for registration to the Head of the Department, Department of Philosophy of the University on 6-1-1992. It is alleged that the synopsis of the petitioner was placed in the meeting on 30-1-1992 and thereafter on 18-2-1992. The registration fees was accepted from the petitioner. The matter was ultimately placed in the meeting dated 13-5-1992 before the Research Board of the University and the Research Board approved the research work of the petitioner. Though according to the petitioner he commenced the research work from 10-12-1991. The petitioner also applied for the research scholarship in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 23-9-1992 issued by the University in time and submitted all necessary documents required in the prescribed form. The respondent No. 3 also submitted her application for scholarship. The respondent No. 3 was granted the scholarship and the petitioner was not granted though his name was placed on the top of the waiting list. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the grant of scholarship to respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 3 is not entitled for the scholarship as she was gainfully employed and as per Ordinance 296 of the University a research scholar will not be permitted to engage himself/ herself in any work other than research work. The petitioner made protest against the grant of scholarship to respondent No. 3 on the ground that she is working as announcer in the All India Radio and therefore, she is not entitled to the scholarship. Secondly, the petitioner has submitted that the date of registration in the case of the petitioner should be 10-12-1991 and not 18-2-1992. In that connection learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted Ordinance 211 should be read down. According to him the expression 'the date of the commencement of research work shall be the date of forwarding of the application by the Head of Department or the date of the actual starting of the work whichever is later.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the University and so also by the Union of India (All India. Radio). They denied the allegation that the respondent No. 3 is in the regular employment of the All India Radio. It is submitted that she was a casual announcer and such casual performances do not fall within the expression engagement so as to disentitle her any scholarship. The University has also filed reply and contested the writ petition.