JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned Memo made in F. No. 021/CARE/Ph.D/2020 dated 09.11.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant extension of time to the petitioner to complete his Ph.D. Programme (Part-time) in History within the time frame fixed by this Court.

1. The petitioner has questioned the impugned memo dated 09.11.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, in this writ petition. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant extension of time to the petitioner to complete his Ph.D. Programme (Part-time) in History.

2. The case of the petitioner is that after he completed Post Graduation in History, he joined the services of the respondent University as a Lecturer in the year 2008. The surplus faculty belonging to the respondent University were deputed to other Colleges and accordingly, the petitioner was deputed as an Assistant Professor to Sri. Subramaniya Swamy Government Arts College, Thiruthani, Thiruvallur District in the year 2016.

3. The petitioner applied for registration before the respondent University to do part-time Ph.D. Programme during the academic year 2010-2011. The candidature of the petitioner was approved by the 3rd respondent and he was also placed under a Guide. In the meantime, in the year 2016, the petitioner was deputed to Government Arts College, Rasipuram and he continues to work there at present.

4. The petitioner was supposed to complete the thesis work in five years from the date of registration. The maximum extension of period that is contemplated is for a further period of three years under the Regulations. The petitioner, due to various reasons, was not able to complete his research work within the maximum stipulated duration of eight years. The petitioner made a representation in this regard to the 2nd respondent by explaining the circumstances under which he was not able to complete the thesis work on time. The 3rd respondent through the impugned memo dated 09.11.2020 canceled the Ph.D. registration of the petitioner with immediate effect on the ground that the maximum period of eight years was over on 02.09.2018 and the petitioner did not submit the thesis within the stipulated period. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent has explained the various regulations governing Ph.D. programme. After explaining the Regulations, the 2nd respondent has stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not submit his Ph.D. thesis within the time limit of five years that is on or before 03.09.2015. In such an event, the petitioner should have applied for extension of time within three months before the completion of the five years and the petitioner has not fulfilled this requirement. The petitioner has submitted the letter for extension of time only on 15.05.2019 which is well beyond eight years. Therefore, the Regulations do not permit any extension for re-registration of the programme. In view of the same, the Ph.D. registration of the petitioner was canceled through the impugned memo dated 09.11.2020. The 2nd respondent has therefore pleaded that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard Mr. S. Sathia Chandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Godson Swaminath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

7. The petitioner is governed by the Regulations which regulate the Ph.D. Programme. For proper appreciation, Regulations 7 and 12 are extracted hereunder:

7. Duration

The Minimum period of residence required before submission of the thesis is three years for Master's degree holders and two years for M.Phil Degre