The cancellation of Ph.D. registration was upheld based on the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner and the university's adherence to proper procedure.

JUDGMENT

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a student of Ph.D. challenging the orders dated 30.01.2016 and 02.01.2017 cancelling registration of the petitioner for doing Ph.D. Course from the respondent-University of Rajasthan (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the respondent-University"). The petitioner has also prayed in the writ petition that a direction may be issued to revive his Ph.D. registration and further permit the change of Guide for completing Ph.D. Degree.

2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the petitioner in his writ petition, are that the petitioner after acquiring the qualification of M.Phil. and Post Graduation in Philosophy & Political Science, qualified UGC-NET Examination for eligibility for Lectureship in Political Science. The petitioner appeared in the pre-Ph.D. Entrance Examination for undergoing Ph.D. Course in the year 2012 and cleared the said Examination.

3. The petitioner received his registration letter whereby he was informed by the respondent-University that he was to do his Ph.D. Degree under the supervision of Dr.Naresh Dadhich, Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan (hereinafter shall be referred to as "the respondent No.4"). The petitioner has pleaded that he was pursing his research work but his Supervisor, the respondent No.4, showed his inability to continue as Supervisor of the petitioner due to his busy schedule and as such, the petitioner submitted an application on 29.06.2015 to change his Supervisor and Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal had given his consent to be the Supervisor of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has pleaded that application of the petitioner dated 29.06.2015 was sent to the Deputy Registrar (Research) whereby the petitioner had made a request that permission may be granted to change the Guide and research work may be permitted to be undertaken under the supervision of Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal.

5. The petitioner has pleaded that Dr.Shyam Mohan Agarwal, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan on 01.07.2015 had given his consent to permit the petitioner to undergo Ph.D. research work under him and the said consent letter was countersigned by the Head, Department of Political Science, University of Rajasthan - the Supervisor of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.4.

6. The petitioner has pleaded that a letter dated 26.11.2015 was received by him whereby he was asked to submit his explanation within 30 days as why his registration may not be cancelled, as per the report submitted by the Supervisor of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has pleaded that by the impugned letter/order dated 30.01.2016, the petitioner was informed that his registration of Ph.D. was cancelled, as was recommended by his Supervisor.

8. The petitioner submitted his representation on 09.02.2016, 02.05.2016 & 09.08.2016 and thereafter, the petitioner was communicated vide impugned order dated 02.01.2017 that his request for revival of Ph.D. registration, was not accepted by the respondent-University.

9. Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders dated 30.01.2016 and 02.01.2017, has submitted that these orders have been passed in arbitrary manner and the petitioner was not at fault, as the earlier Guide was busy with his official work and he refused to continue as Guide of the petitioner and the petitioner had also sent the consent of the new Guide.

10. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent- University has passed a non-speaking order and no reason has been assigned as what was the basis for passing the impugned orders and as such, the University authorities have misused their powers to harass the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category.

11. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that revival of Ph.D. registration of the petitioner was not undertaken by keeping in mind the irrelevant factors and the University authorities have deprived the petitioner to pursue h