t^ 'l^^ SR , i_; i^;:^^.;!^ IN THE HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITIQN (C) NO,_1_0%A OF 2010 PETITIONER Mahendra Kumar Chatruvedi, S/o. Late, M. P. Chaturvedi, aged about 51 years, R/o. House No. 33, S.B.I. Colony, Mahoba Bazaar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1. H!!r" Xlo^oy <A0.-'" /y^,oy <>M<y -^p1' ^.v .(^'..•\ .^i? 0'.. 2. Kushabhau Thakre, Patrakarita avam Jan Sanchar, Vishwavidyalaya, through its Registrar, Kota Stadium, Raipur, (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Higher Educadon Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marfi, New Delhi- 110002. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICI.E 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDLA The petitioner above naraed, respectfully beg to submit as under : - 1. PARTICULARS QFTHE PETITIQNER(S) : As shown in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT[S1 : As shown in the cause title. K HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (0 N0.1222 QF 2010 Mahendra Kumar Chaturvedi RESPONDENTS Versus Kushabhau Thakre Patrakarita Avam Jansanchar Vishwavidyalaya & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 15th day of June,2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the basis of Ordinance No.14 (Annexure - P/1 page No.23), the petitioner has deposited the registration fee of Rs.2,000/- along with the application form for registration as Ph.D. candidate. Thereafter, no meeting of the Research Degree Committee (for short "the RDC") was held for a period of one and half years registering the petitioner as a Ph.D. candidate. 2. In the meantime, on 1-6-2009 (Annexure - D/1) a new Regulation namely; University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of M.Phil/Ph.D. Degree), Regulation, 2009 (for short "the Regulation, 2009"} was brought into force providing eligibility criteria and procedure for registration to Ph.D. programme. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication (Annexure - P/2) whereunder he was advised to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,000/- deposited by him as registration fee for Ph.D. programme. The petitioner was further advised to take steps for admission to Ph.D. programme as per the Regulation, 2009 issued by the UGC. Thus, this petition impugning the communication- •;K^.. S "-ii.r (Annexure - P/2) and further seeking a direction to convene the RDC meeting as per the old Regulation. Shri Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further^ submits that the RDC was under an obligation to convene a meeting in every six months. The application form atong with the fee was deposited by the petitioner way back on 10-12-2007, thus the petitioner could not be directed to take recourse to the Regulation, 2009, as issued by the UGC for admissionto the Ph.D. programme. Learned counsel next submits that delay on the part of the RDC by not holding the meeting twice in a year preferably in every six months cannot cause prejudice to the petitioner for admission to Ph.D. programme. On the other hand, Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General, appearing for the State, submits that it is evident from the records supplied by the petitioner himself that the petitioner wa's not registered or admitted to Ph.D. programme, pursuant to his application along with the registration fee of Rs.2,000/-. When the meeting of the RDC was not held within six months the petitioner ought to have raised the issue either before the Court or before the appropriate authority within the stipulated period. At this stage, when the Regulation, 2009 has come into force, the petitioner may not be permitted to raise the argument that he should be registered under the old Regulation, which is not in existence today. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Mere deposit of application form with the registration fee does not confer any right on the petitioner for admission to Ph.D. programme. Filing of an application form with the registration fee is the first step of admission process. The student is admitted only after his application is considered by the RDC in its meeting. Thus, the petitioner has not acquired any right on the basis of submission of application form with the registration fee when admittedly the RDC has neither consjdered nor recommended the suitability of •^ J '? ff Gowri the topic of research and the registration of the candidate for the Ph.D. programme. Ph.D. programme is not any course wherein common course programmes are available to all the candidates. The proposal of research paper has to be examined by the RDC and thereafter if it is found that the proposed programme may be admitted for Ph.D. programme, in that case alone, a candidate is normally admitted to Ph.D. programme. This fact is evident from Annexure - P/1, which is a proposed research programme for Ph.D. submitted by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner may again make an application under the Regulation, 2009 for the same programme, as the Regulation, 2009 has come into force. Under these circumstances, no writ or direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the old Regulation can be issued/passed. 1 In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Nb order asto costs. _—— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge