ORDER 1. The petitioner who was a convenor of the IIIrd Board of Studies. constituted for the Rohilkhand University is aggrieved by the nomination of Dr. Diwakar Upadhyaya by the Vice-Chancellor as the convenor of the Board of Studies in Military Studies. The petitioner was himself the convenor of the Board of Studies in Military Studies for two years from 1985 to 1987. The contention of the petitioner is that Dr. Upadhyaya is not eligible for being appointed as the convenor under the relevant Ordinance. 2. We are unable to agree. For convenience sake we are extracting here the relevant part of the Ordinance 5(a) which reads as follows : "5(a) No teacher, except the Director of an Institute or the principal of a Medical or Homeopathic Medical or Engineering College, shall be eligible to be convenor of a Board of Studies until he has taught the subject (or one or more of the subjects) assigned to the Board in any one or more of the affiliated colleges for the post-graduate level if the. subject is taught at the post-graduate level. Provided that a teacher not possessing experience of conducting or guiding research work in the subject shall not be eligible to be the convenor of the Board of Studies in a subject in the Faculty of Science." 3. Stressing the words 'experience of conducting or guiding research work in the subject' occurring in the proviso to Ordinance, 5(a) quoted above, learned counsel contended that Dr. Upadhyaya has had no experience of conducting or guiding research work in the subject and consequently he could not be considered eligible to be nominated as convenor of the Board of Studies in Military Science. 4. We cannot agree. One who holds a Doctorate in the subject necessarily has experience in conducting research work in the subject and it was not disputed that Dr. Upadhyaya holds a Doctorate in the subject of Military Science. For taking Doctorate in the subject the individual has to conduct certain amount of research work in the subject of his thesis. The words used in the proviso are conducting or guiding research work' i. e. for eligibility to be appointed as convenor i will be sufficient if the teacher has experience of having conducted research work in the subject. Consequently in view of the admitted fact that Dr. The words used in the proviso are conducting or guiding research work' i. e. for eligibility to be appointed as convenor i will be sufficient if the teacher has experience of having conducted research work in the subject. Consequently in view of the admitted fact that Dr. Upadhyaya held a doctorate i the subject he must be deemed to possess experience of conducting research work in the subject. Further it was not disputed that Dr. Upadhyaya took the Doctorate in the subject an year or so prior to his nomination as the convenor of the Board of Studies under the impugned order. That being so, he must have gained experience even of guiding research work. He was hence clearly eligible in any view. 5. Another reason why we are declining to interfere is that the office of the convenor of the Board of Studies goes by rotation in order of seniority. The petitioner has already functioned as the convenor of the IIIrd Board of Studies for two years which is the term prescribed for the office and Dr. Upadhya is admittedly senior to him. It is time that he makes way, for others to function as a convenor of the Board of Studies in Military Science. 6. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.