JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - Heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, learned Government Pleader 23 along with Mr Rajesh Kumar Sinha, learned Assistant Counsel to GP 23 for the State, and; Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned counsel for the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University (hereinafter referred to as the "University").

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

".....for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s) or direction and thereby to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent University, particularly the Coordinator (Respondent No.5) to allow the petitioner to appear in Interview in PAT/19/NET/JRF, to appear before Interview board of the University for taking admission in Research methodology class along with PAT-19 qualified candidates for this purpose, since she (petitioner) has already successfully passed Pre-Ph.D. Test held in Sept. 2017, Result of which has been declared in January, 2018.

(I) The petitioner being eligible candidate be allowed to appear before the Interview board for admission in Ph.D. course along with PAT-19 (Pre-Admission Test for Ph.D.) qualified candidates.

(ii) The petitioner being entitled for taking admission in Research Methodology class as per Regulation of T.M.B. University be allowed to face interview and to take admission in Ph.D. course.

(iii) After being successful in interview she be also permitted to participate in online classes for Research Methodology class (Course).

(iv) The petitioner be paid the cost of legal proceeding throughout.

(v) The petitioner be also granted any other relief/s permissible under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. The moot question for consideration in the present application is whether the concerned regulation of the University Grants Commission, as adopted by the University on 27.01.2018, would be applicable with regard to the examination viz. Pre-Admission Test for PhD 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "PAT 2017") insofar as the period of validity of the result of the said examination is concerned for admission into the PhD Course.

4. The following facts are not in dispute The process for conducting the PAT 2017 examination began with publication of notice on 23.05.2017; pursuant to the same, the petitioner also applied for taking the examination, which was held on 14.09.2017, and; the result was declared on 09.01.2018.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the examination result of the petitioner is required to be considered valid for three years in view of the subsequent regulation adopted by the University on 27.01.2018, which stipulated such period of validity of the result of the concerned examination, and clearly specified that the same would come into effect from the 2017-18 Session. Learned counsel submitted that as the examination was held and result declared after Session 2017-18 had begun, it would but naturally cover the case of the petitioner and she has to be given such benefit and, accordingly, allowed to take admission in the PhD programme without having to again clear such examination under the new regulation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the University submitted that the process for the PAT 2017, which the petitioner appeared for and cleared, having started in May, 2017, and governed at the relevant time by the ordinance which was issued prior to the later ordinance, clearly stipulating that the period for which the result of the examination would be valid for only one year, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel clarified that based on that result, people were counselled and had taken admission in the PhD programme within one year, but the petitioner did not take any initiative within time for taking admission in PhD programme for the next two years and suddenly, she has woken up. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was now attempting to take advantage of the new regulation. It was submitted that