The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the qualifications and appointment process for guiding teachers and external examiners as outlined in the University's ordinance OB-9.6 and OB-9.7.

G.S. Patel, J.

1. Rule; by consent made returnable forthwith. The Respondents waive service. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It seeks our intervention in respect of a letter dated 31st December 2014, a copy of which is at page 80. It also seeks a direction for implementation of a decision of the Goa University’s Faculty Research Committee dated 8th September 2014 at page 70.

3. In essence, the Petitioner, who holds two LLM degrees, one from Pune University and one from Goa University, of the years July and May 2004, has been denied acceptance of a doctoral thesis on the ground that she did not fulfil mandatory requirements. The Petitioner was, thus, denied the opportunity of a viva voce examination and faced a consequential rejection of the doctoral thesis.

4. The facts are these. The Petitioner is employed with the State Government as a Deputy Director of Vigilance. The 1st Respondent is the Goa University through its Vice Chancellor. The 2nd Respondent is the University’s Registrar. The 3rd Respondent is a PhD guide. The 4th Respondent is the State Government.

5. There seems to be no doubt that the Petitioner’s educational career has been unblemished and even exemplary. The Petitioner served as a part-time Lecturer at the VM Salgaonkar College of Law, Miramar Goa and that St. Xavier’s College in Mapusa till 2001. In February 2002 the Petitioner was recruited to the post of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar for the State Government. The Petitioner never lost sight of her educational aspirations. The Petitioner aspired to acquiring a PhD in law and, after obtaining permission from the State Government, applied to the Goa University for registration for a Research Degree. The Petitioner was enrolled as a PhD Research Student in Law at the Goa University through its recognized research centre at the VM Salgaonkar College of Law in July 2006. At the Petitioner’s request, the 3rd Respondent agreed to be the Petitioner’s PhD guide.

6. It appears that the Goa University had issued or had got issued an Ordinance No.OB-9 that regulates and governs the conduct of the PhD programme at the Goa University. This was amended and Ordinance OB-9A came to be made applicable to students registered after 12th July 2010, with the previous ordinance applying to those registered before that date.

7. Under this ordinance, a special Faculty Research Committee (“FRC”) was constituted by the Goa University. This is in terms of the Ordinance OB-9.4(ii) and it consists of the Dean as Chairman, Head of the University Department, the PhD Guide (in this case, the 3rd Respondent) a co-guide, if any, and, importantly, one or two subject experts to be nominated by the 1st Respondent from a panel suggested by the 3rd Respondent. The submission from Mr. Desai for the Petitioner is that the FRC thus plays a crucial role in the PhD conferment process.

8. The Petitioner was registered for a PhD Degree in Law as a Post-Graduate Research Student in July 2006. As such, the Petitioner was and is governed by the unamended ordinance and about this there is no dispute. The Petitioner was required to select a subject for research in consultation with the Guide. The Petitioner chose the following subject: “A Critical Study of the Mundkar Act vis-à-vis the Socio Economic Situation in Goa”. On 12th July 2012, the Petitioner submitted a synopsis. This was accepted by the FRC, which recommended the Petitioner for provisional registration and confirmed the topic as a suitable PhD Research subject. This was in terms of Ordinance OB-9.4(iii). As required by that Ordinance, the Petitioner conducted library work for a literature survey for six months, submitted the necessary reports through the 3rd Respondent in the prescribed format for review of the FRC and these were then accepted.

9. Paragraph 13 of the petition candidly states that the Petitioner was unable to complete the research mandated within