IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9831 of 2002 DR. PUNAM KUMARI W/O Dr. Awadhesh Prasad Thakur, resident of village Ratanpura, P O. Dubiyahi, P.S. Saraiya District MUzaffarpur, at present New C 1/8 Rajendra Agricultural University Campur, Pusa Samastipur, Bihar. Versus 1.THE V.C.,RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar. 2.Dean, Post Graduate Section, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. 3.The Nodal Officer, National Agriculture Technology Project, Bihar, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar. 4.Dr. Baleshwar Singh, Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist, Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Rajendra Agricultural university, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar. 5.The Director, Indian Council of Agriculture Research Centre, NATP, lal Bahadur Shastri Centre, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi 110012. ----------- 6 23/6/2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Mr. Samir Kumar Sinha appears for the Rajendra Agricultural University, but he too has no intruction. This case was earlier dismissed for default by order dated 21.1.2003. Though, the case had been later on restored but when today the case has been called out there is again the same situation. This Court instead of dismissing the case on default would examine the materials on record for disposal of this case. From reading of the following prayer in paragraph no.1 of the writ application:- “(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions to the appropriate respondents that why the order dated 30.7.2002 contained in memo No. 356/ R.A.U. Pusa be not quashed whereby and whereunder Major 2 Advisor of petitioner’s two students have been changed and it was given to Respondent no. 4 and 5 and revert back the students to the petitioner. (ii)For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding upon the respondents that why not order dated 26.7.2002 contained in Memo No.344/ PIM Cell/ RAU be quashed whereby and whereunder the project of this petitioner has been taken over arbitrarily and has been handed over to respondent No.6. (iii)For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent to not interfere in the research work of this petitioner, scientist which has been assigned to her by National Agriculture Technology Project under competitive grant programme i.e, “Development of improved Apicultural Technology Package for Honey Production and Promotion of crops pollitation in field Crops” and by N H B “Promotion of beekeeping as a Rural Enterprises” and further direct the respondents autority to release the fund of the project earmarked by NATP/ICAR.” it would become clear that a purely academic matter relating to research and training of the students is sought to be made subject matter of this writ petition. It is not for this court to lay down as to how the students will be allocated a teacher or guide for the purpose of research leading conferment of their Ph.D. degree inasmuch as the same is well defined under the statute of the University. Similarly, grant of project to a teacher of the University or its change and allocated to another teacher of the University (respondent no.6), can also not be made subject matter of judicial review in a writ petition unless there be a specific assertion as with regard to violation of any statutory provision. From reading of the writ application it is however clear that the petitioner has not made out a case of violation of any such 3 statutory provisions. In that view of the matter, merely because the petitioner has alleged certain motives of arbitrariness on the part of the authorities of the University as with regard to change of project for its being allocated to respondent no.6 or replacement of the students undergoing research they cannot be interfered by this Court in view of such being purely academic matters. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised for scrutinizing the academic affairs of the University and they must be left to the best decisions of the authorities of the University. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)