Ankit Sinha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt.

Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Utsav Mishra Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Sudeep Seth Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi learned Counsel for Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Advocate, Rehabilitation University and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.5.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents to enable the petitioner to submit his Ph.D. thesis and to conclude the Ph.D. Course, in which the petitioner was admitted by the respondent University.

3. The petitioner has also sought issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the oppsite parties to take necessary action in order to facilitate the disbursement of the JRF Scholarship of the petitioner by the UGC from the period commencing 01.04.2019 until 19.08.2020.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner got admitted to Ph.D. course in the aforesaid University in the Academic Year 2016-17 in the category of persons with disabilities (VI and OH) and he deposited fee for the Session 2016-17.

5. Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University had issued Ph.D. Ordinance 2014, Clause 8 whereof contains provisions regarding duration of Ph.D. It provides that the duration of Ph.D. shall commence immediately after depositing the first installment of the fee. The maximum duration for completing Ph.D. course will be 5 years. Clause 8.6 of the said ordinance provides that the duration of Ph.D. course can be extended on the basis of 2 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 recommendation of research guide and Head of Department and after approval of Vice Chancellor and also after depositing the prescribed fee. Ph.D.

6. The Academic Council of Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University had taken a decision in its meeting dated 03.10.2015 that for reserving 10% seats in Ph.D. course for staff of the University and their dependents and it further decided that such teachers of the University, who cleared JRF/GATE/NET/SLET/M.Phil from UGC or CSIR and the serving officers and reputed experts, whose research work might be beneficial for the University and the society and might be helpful in policy planning, be enrolled for Ph.D. course, directly, after creating additional seats, and it decided to authorize the Vice Chancellor of the University for the purpose. This decision of the Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 05.05.2017. degree

7. On 16.11.2018 the Registrar of the University issued an Office Memorandum stating that a decision had been taken by the Academic Council of the University that such research students, who had secured admission as per Clause 1.7 of Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 of the University, without appearing in any entrance examination/interview and research scholars, who are outsiders to the University and who had not participated in any admission process and had secured direct admission, could not be awarded Ph.D. degree as per the Rules and Regulations of the University Grants Commission. An inquiry was being conducted in furtherance of the decision of the Academic Council. Till completion of inquiry, such candidates should not be allowed to participate in any further proceedings relating to R.D.C./D.R.C./Research.

8. On 15.10.2019, the Registrar sent a letter to all the Heads of the Departments of the University stating that all the research scholars, who had secured admission during the years 2014 to 2017, should be directed to submit affidavits on the prescribed proforma, which required particulars relating to admission of the students.

9. The petitioner submitted his affidavits stating that they had appeared in the Entrance Examination for Ph.D. course held in the year 2016 and was selected on merit under the category of Persons with Disabilities (VI and OH).

10. On 01.11.2019 the Registrar of the University issued another Office Memorandum stating that the earlier Office Memorandum dated 16.11.2018 was kept in abeyance with immediate effect. However, the petitioner kept depositing the fees for the academic session 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-, 2023-24. 3 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025

11. Meanwhile, due to spread of Covid-2019 pandemic, the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice on 16.03.2021 providing that Universities may grant an extension of six months for submission of thesis. A further extension was also granted by another similar public notice issued by the University Grants Commission on 17.05.2022.

12. Shri Utsav Misra submitted that the petitioner being desirous of seeking employment had applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Economics) in the examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board. Thereafter, the petitioner, on being selected, vide Appointment Order dated 17.08.2020 was allotted Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Sant Kabir Nagar. The petitioner, vide application dated 21.12.2020, addressed to the Registrar of the University, apprised of his appointment on the post of Lecturer (Economics) in Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Sant Kabir Nagar and requested for an NOC in order to continue his Ph.D course with his employment. The Research Degree Committee, in its meeting convened on 23.03.2021, inter alia resolved that the petitioner was required to submit his NOC from his present employer with regard to continuance of his Ph.D. course. This decision was communicated to the petitioner vide application dated 19.06.2021. In pursuance of the letter dated 19.06.2021, the petitioner obtained an NOC dated 16.11.2021 from his employer i.e. Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Shihatikar, Sant Kabir Nagar.

13. Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 promulgated by Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University provides that the maximum time-limit for completing Ph.D. course is five years and it can be extended by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Research Guide and the Head of the Department. The petitioner had applied for extension of time, but their requests have not been considered ignoring the provisions contained in Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several other research scholars had also given application for extension of time. One of the candidates Pallavi Singh, who was not working in the University, had filed Writ-C No. 23756 of 2021, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 31.05.2023 and a Mandamus was issued to the University to consider her application for extension of time for a period of one year, after completion of five years of Ph.D. course and to permit her to deposit fee in accordance with law. The aforesaid order dated 31.05.2023 has been complied with by means of an office order dated 15.06.2023 issued by the Registrar of the University.

15. Another research scholar, namely, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, had filed 4 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 Writ-C No. 3799 of 2023. During hearing of this Writ Petition on 29.05.2023, the learned counsel for the University informed this Court that the university had already constituted a Committee to visit the issue of continuation of Ph.D. course of the petitioner - Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and other similarly situated persons and a decision was expected to be taken within four weeks. The committee submitted its report on 01.07.2023 wherein it recommended that research scholars working in the University, who have cleared NET/SLET/JRF and who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly, without participating in any admission test/interview, may be permitted to continue the Ph.D. course. The teachers or special teachers working in the University, who have pursued Ph.D. course and who have not qualified NET/SLET/JRF and who had been admitted directly without participating directly in any admission test/interview, be permitted to participate in the next Ph.D. entrance examination and in case they qualify in the same, they may be permitted to continue their Ph.D. course. All such teachers and other persons, who are permitted to complete Ph.D. course, were recommended to be granted extension for a period of one year to enable them to complete their Ph.D. course.

16. The reasons for making the aforesaid recommendations, as mentioned in the report, include a reason that a decision was taken in a meeting of the Executive Council of the University held on 04.07.2019 that the teachers working in the University, who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly without participating in any admission test/interview, have already been recommended by the Executive Council to continue their Ph.D. course. Dependents of teachers, and non-teaching staff, special teachers and other outside candidates, who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly without participating in any admission test/interview by the then Vice Chancellor of the University, will be given an opportunity to participate in the upcoming Ph.D. Entrance Examination and in case they qualify in the same, they may be recognized as Ph.D. students and be given permission to complete the Ph.D. course. It is mentioned in the recommendations that cancelling admission of any student after expiry of a period of 7, 8 or 9 years would be violative of his human rights as well as the principles of Natural Justice.

17. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations, an Office Order dated 07.07.2023 was issued by the Registrar of the University providing that the teachers working in the University, who have been directly admitted to Ph.D. course, without participating in any admission test/interview, after qualifying NET/SLET/JRF, should be permitted to continue their Ph.D. course. Those Teachers/Special Teachers, who are pursuing Ph.D. course, who have not qualified NET/SLET/JRF and who had been admitted directly, without participating in any admission test/interview, were recommended to 5 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 be granted an opportunity to participate in the upcoming Ph.D. entrance test, and on being successful in it, they should be permitted to continue their research work.

18. All the teachers, who were pursuing Ph.D. course, were recommended to be granted extension of one year period for completing their Ph.D. course. Accordingly, writ petition of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary was allowed by means of an order dated 17.07.2023 in view of the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2023.

19. Yet another Ph.D. student Sanjay Kumar had filed Writ-C No.3800 of 2023, which too was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 and the University has complied with the order dated 17.08.2023 by issuing an order dated 02.09.2023 permitting Sri Sanjay Kumar to submit his thesis. It has also been stated that Sanjay Kumar is not NET qualified, yet the benefit of extension has been granted to him.

20. The 22nd meeting of the Departmental Research Committee took place on 06.03.2024 in which it was decided that petitioner would be granted the time till 22.08.2024 in order to complete his Ph.D. course, therefore, the relevant department be informed about the decision and the petitioner may complete the requisite formalities for the completion of his pre submission viva. Thereafter, the 23rd meeting of the Departmental Research Committee took place on 10.08.2024 wherein it was decided that the petitioner would be permitted to appear for the pre submission viva and complete the remainder of his research work for his Ph.D. thesis. The pre submission viva for the petitioner took place on 10.08.2024. The Research Supervisor prepared the pre submission report in which the petitioner's work was considered "satisfactory" and the petitioner was also recommended as being eligible to complete his Ph.D. course.

21. In light of the aforesaid facts, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the University has granted extension of time to all other candidates and the request for extension of time has been rejected only so far as the petitioner is concerned, which establishes that the University has acted in an arbitrary manner and has discriminated against the petitioner.

22. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent-University stated at the outset that the University is not treating this case as an adversarial litigation, but the University is bound to act as per the provisions of the relevant Rules and Regulations. He has submitted that Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 provides a maximum limit of five years for completion of Ph.D. course, which period expired in the year 2021 in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner has not assailed validity of Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 6 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025

2014. In absence of a challenge made to the aforesaid Clause 8.5, the petitioner cannot challenge validity of the order rejecting extension of time only. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the University has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. v. Devi Ratan & ors.: (2010) 1 SCC 417.

23. The learned counsel for the University next submitted that a committee constituted by the University has considered the request for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course and has recommended extension of time in respect of certain classes of students, including teachers of the University who are pursuing Ph.D. course and have completed NET/SLET/JRF and teachers and special teachers, working in the University who have not qualified NET/SLET/JRF, but the Committee has not recommended extension of time in respect of employees of the University other than teachers. Therefore, the petitioner's request for extension of time has rightly not been considered in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

24. Regarding the judgments in the cases of Pallavi Soni, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the University has submitted that all those cases have been decided without taking into consideration the provisions contained in Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014. Therefore, those judgments fall within the category of sub silentio judgment, which do not amount to binding precedents. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.: (2024) 5 SCC 481.

25. In reply to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the University, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 specifically authorizes the Vice Chancellor to extend the period for completing the Ph.D. course. The sole reason assigned for rejecting the petitioner's request for extension of time is that the time fixed by the relevant regulations/ordinance for completing the Ph.D. course has expired, without adverting to the provision authorizing the Vice Chancellor to extend the period. When there is a specific provision in Clause 8.6 for extension of time, the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved by the provisions contained in Clause 8.5 fixing the time limit for completion of Ph.D. course and, therefore, they have no reason to challenge the validity of the Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the facts that (1) Sanjay Kumar is not NET qualified, and the benefit of extension has been granted to him. (2) Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary was NET qualified and he was admitted to Ph.D. course for the Session 2014-15 alongwith the petitioner and he has also been granted the benefit of extension, (3) Pallavi 7 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 Soni is neither an employee nor Faculty Member of the University, but she is a NET qualified and she has been granted the benefit of extension of time and (4) Nishant Bhola who was granted extension of time for completing Ph.D. course without any order of the court. Further, the university has permitted regular teachers and faculty members of the university to complete their Ph.D. course examples being Sanjay Kumar, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sneh Lata, who is a teacher in a government school in Delhi.

27. The eligibility for admission to Ph.D. programme, enumeration of seats, eligibility for Ph.D. Supervisor, registration procedure, duration of Ph.D., Ph.D. presentation etc. are governed by Doctor of Philosophy Ordinance 2014 issued by Dr. Shakuntala Mishra University. Clauses 8 of the Ordinance contains provisions for duration of Ph.D. Clause 8.5 provides that the maximum duration for completing Ph.D. course will be five years and Clause 8.6 provides that the duration of Ph.D. can be extended after approval of the Vice-Chancellor granted on the basis of the recommendation of the Research Guide and the head of Department and after depositing the requisite fee and taking into consideration the progress report of the research work.

28. The sole reason for not considering the petitioner's request for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course is that the maximum period of six years stipulated under course 4.2 of Ph.D. regulation 2016 of UGC, under course clause 8.2 of Ph.D. ordinance 2018 of the university and subsequent permissible extension under the effect of public notice of UGC dated 17.052022 has ended on 31.12.2022 and that the petitioner is a lecturer in Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Shihatikar, Sant Kabir Nagar .

29. The petitioner got admitted to Ph.D. course in the year 2016, when Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 issued by the University was in force. Therefore, the Ph.D. course of the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 and not by the Ph.D. Ordinance 2018.

30. A request for extension of time is made only when the time available for completion of the course has expired. In other words, the time permissible for completing Ph.D. course would be a ground for seeking an extension of time and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the request for extension.

31. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the University that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014, is misconceived, as when Clause 8.6 of the Ordinance contains a provision for extension of time, the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved by the provision contained in Clause 8.5 and he need to challenge the aforesaid provision.

32. The University Grants Commission has issued University Grants 8 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 Commission (Minimum Eligibility and Procedure for granting M.Phil/Ph.D. Drgree) Regulations 2016. Clause 4.2 of the aforesaid Regulations provide that the maximum period for completing Ph.D. course will be six years. Clause 4.3 thereof provides that extension of time beyond the period prescribed by Clause 4.2 aforesaid will be governed by the relevant provisions contained in the statutes/ordinance of the concerned University. Therefore, even as per the U.G.C. Regulations the petitioner is entitled to claim extension of time as per the provisions contained in Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 issued by the University.

33. As has already been noted above, ten research students of the University, including the petitioner, admitted during the period 2014 to 2017, had sought extension of time for completion of Ph.D. Degree. Three candidates, namely, Pallavi Soni, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar had filed writ petitions in this court, which have been allowed and the orders passed by this court have been complied with by the University. Pallavi Soni is neither an employee nor Faculty Member of the University. Sanjay Kumar is not NET qualified, and the benefit of extension has been granted to him. Nishant Bhola has been granted the benefit of extension without any order of the court. However, Sanjay Kumar, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Nishant Bhola along with Kaushalendra Kumar and Vikas Chadra Kushwaha are all faculty members of the university who have been permitted to continue with their Ph.D. along with their jobs.

34. During hearing of Writ-C No. 3799 of 2023, filed by a student Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the University had informed this court that a committee constituted by the University for considering the requests of several students for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course, has submitted a report dated 01.07.2023, recommending that the research scholars working the University, who have cleared NET/SLET/JRF and who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly, without participating in any admission test/interview, may be permitted to continue the Ph.D. course.

35. The petitioner is a Research Scholar working in the University, and he has cleared N.E.T. and as per the recommendation of the University the petitioner is entitled to get extension of time, but his request for extension of time has been rejected.

36. Although the learned counsel for the University has tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner by stating that all the other persons, to whom extension has been granted, are working as teachers, whereas the petitioner is a lecturer in Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Sant Kabir Nagar. Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid distinction drawn by the learned counsel for the University is against the recommendations made by the Committee 9 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 constituted by the University itself and discriminatory to the petitioner.

37. It also significant to note that in its meeting held 06.03.2024 and 10.08.2024, the departmental research committee of the University has unanimously recommended for extension of time available to the petitioner for depositing fee, completing his research work and for taking pre- submission of his viva.

38. The action of the University in not considering extending time for completion of Ph.D. course of the petitioner appears to be discriminatory from the fact that all other Ph.D. students, including Pallavi Soni, who is neither an employee nor Faculty Member of the University and Sanjay Kumar, who is not NET qualified, Nishant Bhola, Vikas Kushwaha, who are teaching faculty, have been allowed.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the action of the University in denying to extend the petitioner's time for completing Ph.D. course as per the provision contained in Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. course 2014 is unsustainable in law. The petitioner is also entitled to be granted extension of time of one year like other students.

40. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

41. A writ of Mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to grant extension of time of one year to the petitioner for completing his Ph.D. course, to permit him to deposit his fee within a period of one month from the date of this order, if any, and to permit the petitioner to complete his research work and submit his thesis within the extended period and the university to take necessary actions to facilitate the disbursement of the JRF Scholarship of the petitioner by the UGC from the period commencing 01.04.2019 until 19.08.2020.

42. The parties shall bear their own costs of litigation. November 12, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Utsav Mishra Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Sudeep Seth Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi learned Counsel for Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Advocate, Rehabilitation University and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.5.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the respondents to enable the petitioner to submit his Ph.D. thesis and to conclude the Ph.D. Course, in which the petitioner was admitted by the respondent University.

3. The petitioner has also sought issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the oppsite parties to take necessary action in order to facilitate the disbursement of the JRF Scholarship of the petitioner by the UGC from the period commencing 01.04.2019 until 19.08.2020.

4. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner got admitted to Ph.D. course in the aforesaid University in the Academic Year 2016-17 in the category of persons with disabilities (VI and OH) and he deposited fee for the Session 2016-17.

5. Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University had issued Ph.D. Ordinance 2014, Clause 8 whereof contains provisions regarding duration of Ph.D. It provides that the duration of Ph.D. shall commence immediately after depositing the first installment of the fee. The maximum duration for completing Ph.D. course will be 5 years. Clause 8.6 of the said ordinance provides that the duration of Ph.D. course can be extended on the basis of 2 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 recommendation of research guide and Head of Department and after approval of Vice Chancellor and also after depositing the prescribed fee. Ph.D.

6. The Academic Council of Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University had taken a decision in its meeting dated 03.10.2015 that for reserving 10% seats in Ph.D. course for staff of the University and their dependents and it further decided that such teachers of the University, who cleared JRF/GATE/NET/SLET/M.Phil from UGC or CSIR and the serving officers and reputed experts, whose research work might be beneficial for the University and the society and might be helpful in policy planning, be enrolled for Ph.D. course, directly, after creating additional seats, and it decided to authorize the Vice Chancellor of the University for the purpose. This decision of the Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 05.05.2017. degree

7. On 16.11.2018 the Registrar of the University issued an Office Memorandum stating that a decision had been taken by the Academic Council of the University that such research students, who had secured admission as per Clause 1.7 of Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 of the University, without appearing in any entrance examination/interview and research scholars, who are outsiders to the University and who had not participated in any admission process and had secured direct admission, could not be awarded Ph.D. degree as per the Rules and Regulations of the University Grants Commission. An inquiry was being conducted in furtherance of the decision of the Academic Council. Till completion of inquiry, such candidates should not be allowed to participate in any further proceedings relating to R.D.C./D.R.C./Research.

8. On 15.10.2019, the Registrar sent a letter to all the Heads of the Departments of the University stating that all the research scholars, who had secured admission during the years 2014 to 2017, should be directed to submit affidavits on the prescribed proforma, which required particulars relating to admission of the students.

9. The petitioner submitted his affidavits stating that they had appeared in the Entrance Examination for Ph.D. course held in the year 2016 and was selected on merit under the category of Persons with Disabilities (VI and OH).

10. On 01.11.2019 the Registrar of the University issued another Office Memorandum stating that the earlier Office Memorandum dated 16.11.2018 was kept in abeyance with immediate effect. However, the petitioner kept depositing the fees for the academic session 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2022-, 2023-24. 3 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025

11. Meanwhile, due to spread of Covid-2019 pandemic, the University Grants Commission had issued a public notice on 16.03.2021 providing that Universities may grant an extension of six months for submission of thesis. A further extension was also granted by another similar public notice issued by the University Grants Commission on 17.05.2022.

12. Shri Utsav Misra submitted that the petitioner being desirous of seeking employment had applied for appointment on the post of Lecturer (Economics) in the examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board. Thereafter, the petitioner, on being selected, vide Appointment Order dated 17.08.2020 was allotted Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Sant Kabir Nagar. The petitioner, vide application dated 21.12.2020, addressed to the Registrar of the University, apprised of his appointment on the post of Lecturer (Economics) in Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Sant Kabir Nagar and requested for an NOC in order to continue his Ph.D course with his employment. The Research Degree Committee, in its meeting convened on 23.03.2021, inter alia resolved that the petitioner was required to submit his NOC from his present employer with regard to continuance of his Ph.D. course. This decision was communicated to the petitioner vide application dated 19.06.2021. In pursuance of the letter dated 19.06.2021, the petitioner obtained an NOC dated 16.11.2021 from his employer i.e. Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Shihatikar, Sant Kabir Nagar.

13. Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 promulgated by Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University provides that the maximum time-limit for completing Ph.D. course is five years and it can be extended by the Vice Chancellor on the recommendation of the Research Guide and the Head of the Department. The petitioner had applied for extension of time, but their requests have not been considered ignoring the provisions contained in Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that several other research scholars had also given application for extension of time. One of the candidates Pallavi Singh, who was not working in the University, had filed Writ-C No. 23756 of 2021, which was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 31.05.2023 and a Mandamus was issued to the University to consider her application for extension of time for a period of one year, after completion of five years of Ph.D. course and to permit her to deposit fee in accordance with law. The aforesaid order dated 31.05.2023 has been complied with by means of an office order dated 15.06.2023 issued by the Registrar of the University.

15. Another research scholar, namely, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, had filed 4 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 Writ-C No. 3799 of 2023. During hearing of this Writ Petition on 29.05.2023, the learned counsel for the University informed this Court that the university had already constituted a Committee to visit the issue of continuation of Ph.D. course of the petitioner - Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and other similarly situated persons and a decision was expected to be taken within four weeks. The committee submitted its report on 01.07.2023 wherein it recommended that research scholars working in the University, who have cleared NET/SLET/JRF and who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly, without participating in any admission test/interview, may be permitted to continue the Ph.D. course. The teachers or special teachers working in the University, who have pursued Ph.D. course and who have not qualified NET/SLET/JRF and who had been admitted directly without participating directly in any admission test/interview, be permitted to participate in the next Ph.D. entrance examination and in case they qualify in the same, they may be permitted to continue their Ph.D. course. All such teachers and other persons, who are permitted to complete Ph.D. course, were recommended to be granted extension for a period of one year to enable them to complete their Ph.D. course.

16. The reasons for making the aforesaid recommendations, as mentioned in the report, include a reason that a decision was taken in a meeting of the Executive Council of the University held on 04.07.2019 that the teachers working in the University, who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly without participating in any admission test/interview, have already been recommended by the Executive Council to continue their Ph.D. course. Dependents of teachers, and non-teaching staff, special teachers and other outside candidates, who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly without participating in any admission test/interview by the then Vice Chancellor of the University, will be given an opportunity to participate in the upcoming Ph.D. Entrance Examination and in case they qualify in the same, they may be recognized as Ph.D. students and be given permission to complete the Ph.D. course. It is mentioned in the recommendations that cancelling admission of any student after expiry of a period of 7, 8 or 9 years would be violative of his human rights as well as the principles of Natural Justice.

17. On the basis of the aforesaid recommendations, an Office Order dated 07.07.2023 was issued by the Registrar of the University providing that the teachers working in the University, who have been directly admitted to Ph.D. course, without participating in any admission test/interview, after qualifying NET/SLET/JRF, should be permitted to continue their Ph.D. course. Those Teachers/Special Teachers, who are pursuing Ph.D. course, who have not qualified NET/SLET/JRF and who had been admitted directly, without participating in any admission test/interview, were recommended to 5 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 be granted an opportunity to participate in the upcoming Ph.D. entrance test, and on being successful in it, they should be permitted to continue their research work.

18. All the teachers, who were pursuing Ph.D. course, were recommended to be granted extension of one year period for completing their Ph.D. course. Accordingly, writ petition of Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary was allowed by means of an order dated 17.07.2023 in view of the aforesaid order dated 07.07.2023.

19. Yet another Ph.D. student Sanjay Kumar had filed Writ-C No.3800 of 2023, which too was allowed by means of a judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 and the University has complied with the order dated 17.08.2023 by issuing an order dated 02.09.2023 permitting Sri Sanjay Kumar to submit his thesis. It has also been stated that Sanjay Kumar is not NET qualified, yet the benefit of extension has been granted to him.

20. The 22nd meeting of the Departmental Research Committee took place on 06.03.2024 in which it was decided that petitioner would be granted the time till 22.08.2024 in order to complete his Ph.D. course, therefore, the relevant department be informed about the decision and the petitioner may complete the requisite formalities for the completion of his pre submission viva. Thereafter, the 23rd meeting of the Departmental Research Committee took place on 10.08.2024 wherein it was decided that the petitioner would be permitted to appear for the pre submission viva and complete the remainder of his research work for his Ph.D. thesis. The pre submission viva for the petitioner took place on 10.08.2024. The Research Supervisor prepared the pre submission report in which the petitioner's work was considered "satisfactory" and the petitioner was also recommended as being eligible to complete his Ph.D. course.

21. In light of the aforesaid facts, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the University has granted extension of time to all other candidates and the request for extension of time has been rejected only so far as the petitioner is concerned, which establishes that the University has acted in an arbitrary manner and has discriminated against the petitioner.

22. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent-University stated at the outset that the University is not treating this case as an adversarial litigation, but the University is bound to act as per the provisions of the relevant Rules and Regulations. He has submitted that Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 provides a maximum limit of five years for completion of Ph.D. course, which period expired in the year 2021 in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner has not assailed validity of Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 6 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025

2014. In absence of a challenge made to the aforesaid Clause 8.5, the petitioner cannot challenge validity of the order rejecting extension of time only. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the University has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. v. Devi Ratan & ors.: (2010) 1 SCC 417.

23. The learned counsel for the University next submitted that a committee constituted by the University has considered the request for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course and has recommended extension of time in respect of certain classes of students, including teachers of the University who are pursuing Ph.D. course and have completed NET/SLET/JRF and teachers and special teachers, working in the University who have not qualified NET/SLET/JRF, but the Committee has not recommended extension of time in respect of employees of the University other than teachers. Therefore, the petitioner's request for extension of time has rightly not been considered in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

24. Regarding the judgments in the cases of Pallavi Soni, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar, the learned counsel for the University has submitted that all those cases have been decided without taking into consideration the provisions contained in Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014. Therefore, those judgments fall within the category of sub silentio judgment, which do not amount to binding precedents. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors.: (2024) 5 SCC 481.

25. In reply to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the University, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 specifically authorizes the Vice Chancellor to extend the period for completing the Ph.D. course. The sole reason assigned for rejecting the petitioner's request for extension of time is that the time fixed by the relevant regulations/ordinance for completing the Ph.D. course has expired, without adverting to the provision authorizing the Vice Chancellor to extend the period. When there is a specific provision in Clause 8.6 for extension of time, the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved by the provisions contained in Clause 8.5 fixing the time limit for completion of Ph.D. course and, therefore, they have no reason to challenge the validity of the Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014.

26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the facts that (1) Sanjay Kumar is not NET qualified, and the benefit of extension has been granted to him. (2) Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary was NET qualified and he was admitted to Ph.D. course for the Session 2014-15 alongwith the petitioner and he has also been granted the benefit of extension, (3) Pallavi 7 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 Soni is neither an employee nor Faculty Member of the University, but she is a NET qualified and she has been granted the benefit of extension of time and (4) Nishant Bhola who was granted extension of time for completing Ph.D. course without any order of the court. Further, the university has permitted regular teachers and faculty members of the university to complete their Ph.D. course examples being Sanjay Kumar, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sneh Lata, who is a teacher in a government school in Delhi.

27. The eligibility for admission to Ph.D. programme, enumeration of seats, eligibility for Ph.D. Supervisor, registration procedure, duration of Ph.D., Ph.D. presentation etc. are governed by Doctor of Philosophy Ordinance 2014 issued by Dr. Shakuntala Mishra University. Clauses 8 of the Ordinance contains provisions for duration of Ph.D. Clause 8.5 provides that the maximum duration for completing Ph.D. course will be five years and Clause 8.6 provides that the duration of Ph.D. can be extended after approval of the Vice-Chancellor granted on the basis of the recommendation of the Research Guide and the head of Department and after depositing the requisite fee and taking into consideration the progress report of the research work.

28. The sole reason for not considering the petitioner's request for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course is that the maximum period of six years stipulated under course 4.2 of Ph.D. regulation 2016 of UGC, under course clause 8.2 of Ph.D. ordinance 2018 of the university and subsequent permissible extension under the effect of public notice of UGC dated 17.052022 has ended on 31.12.2022 and that the petitioner is a lecturer in Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Shihatikar, Sant Kabir Nagar .

29. The petitioner got admitted to Ph.D. course in the year 2016, when Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 issued by the University was in force. Therefore, the Ph.D. course of the petitioner would be governed by the provisions of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 and not by the Ph.D. Ordinance 2018.

30. A request for extension of time is made only when the time available for completion of the course has expired. In other words, the time permissible for completing Ph.D. course would be a ground for seeking an extension of time and it cannot be a ground for rejecting the request for extension.

31. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the University that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of Clause 8.5 of the Ph.D. Ordinance 2014, is misconceived, as when Clause 8.6 of the Ordinance contains a provision for extension of time, the petitioner has no reason to be aggrieved by the provision contained in Clause 8.5 and he need to challenge the aforesaid provision.

32. The University Grants Commission has issued University Grants 8 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 Commission (Minimum Eligibility and Procedure for granting M.Phil/Ph.D. Drgree) Regulations 2016. Clause 4.2 of the aforesaid Regulations provide that the maximum period for completing Ph.D. course will be six years. Clause 4.3 thereof provides that extension of time beyond the period prescribed by Clause 4.2 aforesaid will be governed by the relevant provisions contained in the statutes/ordinance of the concerned University. Therefore, even as per the U.G.C. Regulations the petitioner is entitled to claim extension of time as per the provisions contained in Ph.D. Ordinance 2014 issued by the University.

33. As has already been noted above, ten research students of the University, including the petitioner, admitted during the period 2014 to 2017, had sought extension of time for completion of Ph.D. Degree. Three candidates, namely, Pallavi Soni, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Sanjay Kumar had filed writ petitions in this court, which have been allowed and the orders passed by this court have been complied with by the University. Pallavi Soni is neither an employee nor Faculty Member of the University. Sanjay Kumar is not NET qualified, and the benefit of extension has been granted to him. Nishant Bhola has been granted the benefit of extension without any order of the court. However, Sanjay Kumar, Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary and Nishant Bhola along with Kaushalendra Kumar and Vikas Chadra Kushwaha are all faculty members of the university who have been permitted to continue with their Ph.D. along with their jobs.

34. During hearing of Writ-C No. 3799 of 2023, filed by a student Mahesh Kumar Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the University had informed this court that a committee constituted by the University for considering the requests of several students for extension of time for completing Ph.D. course, has submitted a report dated 01.07.2023, recommending that the research scholars working the University, who have cleared NET/SLET/JRF and who have been admitted to Ph.D. course directly, without participating in any admission test/interview, may be permitted to continue the Ph.D. course.

35. The petitioner is a Research Scholar working in the University, and he has cleared N.E.T. and as per the recommendation of the University the petitioner is entitled to get extension of time, but his request for extension of time has been rejected.

36. Although the learned counsel for the University has tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner by stating that all the other persons, to whom extension has been granted, are working as teachers, whereas the petitioner is a lecturer in Aadarsh Krishak Inter College, Sant Kabir Nagar. Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid distinction drawn by the learned counsel for the University is against the recommendations made by the Committee 9 WRIC No. 10168 of 2025 constituted by the University itself and discriminatory to the petitioner.

37. It also significant to note that in its meeting held 06.03.2024 and 10.08.2024, the departmental research committee of the University has unanimously recommended for extension of time available to the petitioner for depositing fee, completing his research work and for taking pre- submission of his viva.

38. The action of the University in not considering extending time for completion of Ph.D. course of the petitioner appears to be discriminatory from the fact that all other Ph.D. students, including Pallavi Soni, who is neither an employee nor Faculty Member of the University and Sanjay Kumar, who is not NET qualified, Nishant Bhola, Vikas Kushwaha, who are teaching faculty, have been allowed.

39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered view that the action of the University in denying to extend the petitioner's time for completing Ph.D. course as per the provision contained in Clause 8.6 of the Ph.D. course 2014 is unsustainable in law. The petitioner is also entitled to be granted extension of time of one year like other students.

40. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

41. A writ of Mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to grant extension of time of one year to the petitioner for completing his Ph.D. course, to permit him to deposit his fee within a period of one month from the date of this order, if any, and to permit the petitioner to complete his research work and submit his thesis within the extended period and the university to take necessary actions to facilitate the disbursement of the JRF Scholarship of the petitioner by the UGC from the period commencing 01.04.2019 until 19.08.2020.

42. The parties shall bear their own costs of litigation. November 12, 2025 -Amit K- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench