IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) x ,‘ f WRIT PETITION No. Mé‘j /2oo5 l PETITIONER fDr. L.K. Thethwar, aged about 65 years, son of Late Shri Gangadhar T. Retired Principal, Government College,_Kota, R/o. near Joratalab, Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Thethwar, VERSUS RESPONDENTS Gurughasidas University, through — Its Registrar, Gurughasidas University, Koni, Dit. Bilaspur (C.G.) Registrar , Gurughasi Das University, Koni, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . / ’1’ 4" WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 222;/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, st ' ‘' 1§4 CWRT’OF CHHAT11&H AT LA5PUR WrH Pzlition No. 3164 of. 2005 Petitioner Dr. L.K. Thefhwar Versus s Respondem Gar-ughasidas University & anoiher- singic Bench: Hon’bie Mr. Justice satish K. @nihotri. Psent: Shri Sameer Behar, Advocae for the pener Shri Neerqj Choubey, Advocate for the respondent (Pond on 8" bay «January, 2007) The following order of the Cour was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Learned counsel ppewing for the petitioner stits that tho petitioner was empioyed as Principal in the éovernment College, Kata, District- Bilaspur affiliated with respondents-University. The potitioner was appointed as Supewisor/Co-supewisor also to guide research scholws. The \\ ‘ petitioner, on attaining the age of stiperamuation, retired from the service on 1.10.2003. Learned Counsel ¢pearing for the respondenteUnivorsity on the bwis of the return of the respondents submuts that before retirement of the petitioner the respondents-University had panmtted the petitioner to guide 6 research sohoiws in their research work. Those 6 research scholars are as under:- 1. Ku, Reena Rqiabhoj, 2. Shri Shailesh Sharma, . 3, 5hri Harishanka- Dewmgon, re t titio- s ORDER t a bm ‘ 4. Shri Nand Kumnr Tripaihi, 5. Shri Anil Kumar Bavwia, and 6. Smt sangita eupfa. Two of them have already stbmi‘hed PhD. Ms for award of Ph.D., remaining four are sim confirming under- guidcnce of me pe'mioner. I? appear-s thu‘r the pefifioner- after his reiiremem, requested the respandenf No. 2 for pemiffing him #o email some more persons as research schoiars ro guide fhem. Respondent No. 2, vlde order dared 17.9.2004 (Annexure P-1), rejected fhe applioarion fiied by fhe po'rifioner on 26.8.2004 on the ground iho'r no new persons con be per-named for enrollment after his retirement and 4 research scholws, who were enrolled during his service would be permitted to continue their resemch work under the guidance of the petitioner to complete their research work. The petitioner has impugned the said order dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure P-l) on the ground that there is no bar to guide the research scholws after retirement. The Ordinance (Annexure _P~2), dealing ‘with PhD. Degree provides for recommendation for appointment of 5upervisor/Co-supervisor to guide the resewch scholars. Clwse 7(a)(i) of the Ordinmoe clewly provides that the person recommended as Supervisor/Co-supervisor to guide the Research Scholar must be a Professor/Reader in the a Univemity Teaching Department/School of Studies or a College affiliated to the University possessing either Doctorate degree or has published five resemch papers in Standard Research Journals, or a teacher of a University Teaching Depw'tment/School of Studies/Colleges affiliated to the University who hw obtained a Doctorate degree in the stbject and ha ublished «Hens? five Eeseareh papers in stmdard Research Jams and has aflensf five yew-s Teaching experience affer- Ph.D. Clause 7 (aXiiiXc) of fhe Ordinance dew-[y provides fhaf a recognized supervisor who fails 1o pubiish cry research paper over n duration of Five veers shall nof be eligible io enroll any new cmdidafe under his mpewision. provided fhaf me persons who have been recognized as Supewisors/Co-wpervisors shall be eligible fa super-vise even affer- iheir' wpermmaiien. On reading clause 7 of ihe O~dimnce, i? is clear 'ihai a Supervisor/Co- supervisor hoe to be wking Profesaar/Reader/Teacher/Sciemisf efc. No oiher person, who has refired on sweramuation, can be recommended/appointed as Supewisor/Co-supervisor. The pei-iiioner has 5. Thus, ihis wrii pefifion is dismissed. No order as fo oasis l l I ' 1 Satish Judge K. Sd/— Agnihotrl _‘ l subimh FR“ .l p