1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 103/2008 (Ku. Kabitabai Mamraj Agrawal Vs. R.S.T.M. Nag.Uni. & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.R. Bhise, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Adv. for respondents. CORAM :D.D. SINHA & SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 29, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to approve the synopsis submitted by the petitioner and allow her to submit her thesis and same may be considered for current academic year. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the respondents, has brought to our notice that the notification dated 9th October, 2007 issued by the Assistant Registrar of the respondent-University shows that the petitioner has prepared her synopsis properly under the guidance of Dr. Jaikisan Santoshi and submitted to the 2 University on 20/12/2004. The petitioner also made necessary corrections in the synopsis and submitted the same to the University on 9/12/2005. It is also observed that the petitioner did not adopt any malpractice while preparing her synopsis and, therefore, the Disciplinary Action Committee recommended that her synopsis be assessed on merit by a Research Recognition Committee and if Research Recognition Committee approves her synopsis on merit, she should be allowed to prosecute her study for research activity under the guidance of any other approved guide in the faculty of Physical Education. In view of the recitals in the notification issued by the University, it is evident that the petitioner is permitted to prosecute her studies in research activity except with the change in the guide. Looking to the facts and circumstances involved in the present writ petition, notification issued by University cannot be said to be bad in law and hence no case is made out for showing any indulgence in the writ petition. Therefore, the petition is 3 dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE RMP