CAV JUDGMENT

Heard learned advocate Mr.Sudhanshu Jha for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Divyangna Jhala for respondent No.1-State, and learned advocate Mr.B.H. Kher for respondent Nos.2 and 3-Junagadh Agricultural University and College of Agriculture. It was stated by learned advocates appearing for the parties that respondent No.4-Indian Council of Agricultural Research is a formal party, therefore the petition could be considered for decision therein in absence of the said respondent.

2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate the process of awarding degree of Ph.D. to the petitioner. It is therefore prayed to set aside order of the respondents cancelling the registration for Ph.D. of the petitioner. The petitioner has next prayed to declare the action on part of the respondent-Junagadh University in granting Grade-I to the petitioner to be illegal and contrary to the provisions.

3. Presently working as an Assistant Professor at Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University as an academically qualified person, petitioner had registered herself in the year 2009 as a student of Ph.D. with respondent No.3 Agricultural College under respondent No.2-Junagadh University. The petitioner was allotted Ph.D. Registration No.G- 4-00532-2009. The subject of research work of the petitioner was Gene expression of castor genetype using fungal infectino (Macrophomona phaseolina) and identification of disease resistant genes.

3.1 While continuing the research work for Ph.D. as above, petitioner came to be selected as an Assistant Professor in 2012 in the Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada University. It is the case of the petitioner that at that juncture, she had completed most of the course for Ph.D. and was in the last semester. The petitioner could not complete the Ph.D. studies in view of her becoming Assistant Professor and that respondent No.2 cancelled the registration. It is stated by the petitioner that only few portions of her Ph.D. course was left out, and that she wanted to complete her Ph.D. studies. The Dantiwada University where the petitioner had joined, did not have any objection to the petitioner continuing the Ph.D. studies under respondent No.2 to complete the course. The said University addressed communication to respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to continue her research work and re-register the petitioner for Ph.D. making several requests pointing out that continuation of studies by the petitioner was permissible under the statutes and regulations.

3.2 It is not in dispute that post-graduate student in any degree programme can be re-registered within a period of three years in the same semester from which he or she had left. Respondent No.2 accepted the request of the petitioner for completion of her Ph.D. studies on 20th August, 2014. Petitioner completed the necessary procedures and rejoined the Ph.D. course. She submitted the kachha thesis and presentation. Her viva voce was also completed, she pleaded. What was next to follow was that respondent No.2 University was required to arrange the final viva voce, to allot pucca number thereof to the thesis of the petitioner and to consider the case of the petitioner for awarding Ph.D. degree.

3.3 It is the say of the petitioner that post- presentation, that is, viva voce of the petitioner, after keeping the issue of awarding degree pending for long, issue of shortfall in attendance was raised by respondent Nos.2 and 3 cancelling the registration and denying the degree. It was stated that though the kachha thesis was submitted and petitioner was presented herself in the seminar, Grade-I was awarded to the petitioner in the marksheet. It is the case that Grade-I is given to such student where research work is incomplete, even though petitioner has completed all her research work including of submission of thesis. Thus, on the ground of shortfall in atte