S.N. Phukan, J. — By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ petitioner has prayed for appropriate Mandamus directing the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar and the Director of Post Graduate Studies, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam to hold viva-voce examination for the purpose of Ph D Degree of the petitioner and has further prated for quashing the resolution of the Academic Council of the said University adopted in the meeting held on 27.11.89 by which the earlier resolution of the said Council dated 2.5.86 was revised and it was also decided that writ petitioner should re-submit hit thesis through Dr. P K Sarma, Retired Director, Post Graduate Studies of the University, Co-guide. 2. The writ petitioner who was a lecturer of Statistics in the Assam Vaterinary College was permanently absorbed as an employee of the Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat as per section 47 of the Assam Agricultural University Act, 1968. He was serving as Assistant Professor of the University, which post was upgraded as Associate Professor and since January, 1979 he has been serving under the University as Associate Professor. For sometime he was holding the post of Deputy Registrar of the University. A synopsis of research problem of Ph D Degree was prepared by the petitioner under the guidance of Dr. P C. Goswami, respondent No. 5, a renouned economist as well as known academician of the country, who is also a Professor of Gauhati University and a recognised guide of Assam Agricultural University and the said synopsis was submitted to the University on 24.10.84. The relevant part of the methodology of the research problem has been quoted in the writ petition (Para 7). According to petitioner as there was a column of co-guide (if any) in the application form for registration, Dr. P. K Sarma, respondent No. 6, who received the application gave his name as co-guide although neither the petitioner approach him or suggested his name. The writ petitioner was informed on 19th December, 1985 that the Ph D Committee permitted him to enroll provisionally as Ph D Candidate of the University. Thereafter, the said Ph D Committee in its meeting held on, 5.9.88 recommended the name of the, petitioner alongwith other candidates for final registration and on 2.5.86 the same was approved by the Academic Council of the University. 3. Thereafter, the said Ph D Committee in its meeting held on, 5.9.88 recommended the name of the, petitioner alongwith other candidates for final registration and on 2.5.86 the same was approved by the Academic Council of the University. 3. It is not disputed that while giving final approval, the Academic Council in the above meeting specifically directed that it was not necessary for Dr. P K. Sarma, the co-guide for guiding candidates including the writ petitioner, as due to his retirement on 9.10.85 his services would not be available. The approval of the Academic Council for final registration of the petitioner was duly notified on 11.8.86 and the said notification is available at Annexure B to the writ petition. Petitioner prayed for extension of time which was recommended by his guide Dr, P C Goswami. After completion of his work under the guidance of Dr. Goswami respondent No. 5, the thesis was prepared which was duly certified by the guide Dr. P.C.Goswami for submission. However, before submission of the thesis the petitioner made an application on 20.3.89 to Director, Post Graduate Studies, respondent No. 4, requesting him for necessary instruction as to whether the thesis could be submitted only with the certificate of Dr. P.C. Goswami. Photo copy of the application is at Annexure D and from the note of respondent No. 4 and orders of the Vice-Chancellor, respondent No. 2, it appears that writ petitioner was allowed to submit his thesis only with the certificate granted by his guide Dr. PC Goswami. According to petitioner two examiners were approved by the Vice Chancellor out of five recommended by the guide Dr PC Goswami. The said two examiners approved the thesis, but no viva-voce examination has been held as requited under the relevant Regulation. Suddenly, Dr. PK Sarma, respondent No. 6 raised objection for submitting the thesis without his signature and the Academic Council discussed this matter on 5.5.89. According to petitioner, the Academic Council ignored/ommitted to consider the actual facts and the relevant Regulation of the University and also the fact that name of Dr.P K Sarma was deleted co-guide Thereafter, in the meeting held on 27.11.89, by the impugned resolution, the petitioner was directed to re-submit his thesis through Dr. PK Sarma by amending the earlier resolution of the Academic Council dated 2.5.86. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. PK Sarma by amending the earlier resolution of the Academic Council dated 2.5.86. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University and its officials. It may be stated that though various personal allegations have been made against Dr. PK Sarma, respondent No. 6, no counter affidavit has been filed. 5. The main stand on behalf of the University is that the writ petitioner, in view of his letter dated 8.9.89 addressed to Dr. P K Sarma vide Annexure V to the counter, it is clear that writ petitioner got guidance from Dr. P K Sarma and as such the resolution of the Academic Council directing the writ petitioner to submit his thesis through Dr. P K Sarma is right and proper. According to University, after deletion of name of Dr. P K Sarma another guide from A PM Department should have been provided in terms of clause 6.022.05 of the Regulation and further Dr. P K Sarma, continued to be guide of the writ petitioner as the earlier resolution deleting the name of Dr. P K Sarma was not communicated to him. Dr. Sarma also attended the Ph D Committee meeting for grant of extension of time to the writ petitioner and the initial application for provisional registration was signed by Dr. P.K. Sarma. According to the contesting respondents as the thesis was submitted irregularly and contrary to the provisions, writ petitioner was directed to re-submit his thesis by the subsequent resolution. Regarding the averments of the writ petitioner that his thesis was approved by two external examiner appointed by the Vice Chancellor it has been only stated that the penal of names of examiners is a confidential one. Finally the University has taken the stand that as the mode of submission of the thesis was contrary to the Regulation, holding of vive voce test does not arise. Annexure 5A to the writ petition is the form for 'Synopsis' of research problem of Ph D Degree under Traditional System. The writ petitioner has also submitted his thesis under the Traditional System. From the said form it appears that in addition to the name of the guide 'name of the co-guide (if any)'has to be furnished. Annexure 5A to the writ petition is the form for 'Synopsis' of research problem of Ph D Degree under Traditional System. The writ petitioner has also submitted his thesis under the Traditional System. From the said form it appears that in addition to the name of the guide 'name of the co-guide (if any)'has to be furnished. Reading this form we find that a co-guide is not a must for doing research work under Traditional System and is optional for, the candidate to give the name of the co-guide if any. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 13th August, 1990 at para 7 it has been specifically stated after quoting clause 6.02.04 of the Academic Council Regulation of the University that there are some guides recognised by the University for Ph D students under the Traditional System of the University although they do not belong to the said University and under these guides many Ph D students have obtained their degree without any co-guide. In the writ petition a specific averment has been made that Dr. PC Goswami, No. 5 is a recognised guide of the University and under his guidence students from the said University obtained Ph D degree. This has not been denied. In the said affidavit-in-reply (para 7) names of the candidates WHO obtained Ph D Degree under the guidance of recognised guides of the University although they were not working under the University have been stated. The said para 7 also discloses that candidates who obtained Ph D Degree without any co-guide. These statements of the petitioner have not been denied by the University. We, therefore, hold that the stand of the University that when the name of Dr. PK Sarma was deleted as a co-guide resolution dated 2.5.86 another guide from APM Department should appointed in his place is not at all tenable. 6. In the writ petition it has been specifically stated that the two external examiners appointed by the Vice Chancellor have approved the thesis which was submitted under the signature of the guide. The fact that the external, examiners approved the thesis have not been denied. It is also not denied that the thesis was submitted under the certificate issued by the guide respondent No. 5. The fact that the external, examiners approved the thesis have not been denied. It is also not denied that the thesis was submitted under the certificate issued by the guide respondent No. 5. In the final approval for registration given by Academic Council vide notification dated 11.8.86 Annexure B to the writ petition only the name of guide Dr. PC Goswami was shown. From the letter addressed Id the Director, Post Graduate Studies of the University by the petitioner dated 20.3.89 vide Annexure D to the writ petition, petitioner wanted to know whether he could submit his thesis only under the certificate of his guide Dr. PC Goswami. From the endorsement and the orders passed on the said letter a copy of which is available at Annexure D to the petition it was accepted that the name of Dr. PK Sarma was deleted and petitioner could do so. In view of these facts the subsequent resolution of the Academic Council, in its meeting held on 27.11.89 is arbitrary, inasmuch as, right already vested on the petitioner was sought to be taken away. 7. By the aforesaid resolution, the petitioner was directed to submit the thesis through co-guide Dr. PK Sarma by revising the earlier decision of the Academic Council dated 2.5.86. In arriving at the above decision, the Academic Council took into account clause 6.02.05 of the Academic Council Regulations that a candidate's guide should be from the same discipline under which the candidate registered himself for the Ph D Degree and one guide should not be allowed to guide more than 4 students. The Academic Council also took note of the facts that although the name of Dr. PK Sarma as a guide was deleted by its resolution taken in the meeting on 2.5.86, another guide in his place was not recommended and moreover Dr. Sarma was not informed. The Academic Council also noted that Dr. Sarma attended the Ph D Committee meeting even after deletion of his name as a guide and further from the letter received from Dr. Sarma it was learnt that the candidates continued to receive his guidance for a considerable long time even after his name was deleted. 8. Normally writ Court is slow in interfering with matters of the University or other educational authority. Sarma it was learnt that the candidates continued to receive his guidance for a considerable long time even after his name was deleted. 8. Normally writ Court is slow in interfering with matters of the University or other educational authority. But in the case in hand the reasons for which writ petitioner was directed to submit his thesis through co-guide are not only arbitrary but also based on extraneous matters. Admittedly, the name of Dr. Sarma was shown only as co-guide and as stated above co-guide is not a must for this purpose. That the guide should be from the same discipline under which the candidate got himself registered for Ph D Degree is also not based on facts, as held by us earlier. There is also nothing to show that at the relevant time Dr. PC Goswami acted as a guide for more than four students. If the Director, Post Graduate Studies failed to recommend any name in place of Dr. PC Sarma, the petitioner could not be penalized and that too after more than 3 years and after his thesis was approved by the external examiners. The petitioners also cannot be allowed to suffer even if Dr. Sarma was not informed that his name was deleted co-guide. 9. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the resolution of the Academic Council adopted in its meeting held on 27 11.89 directing the writ petitioner to submit his thesis through Dr. PK Sarma as a special case has to be quashed, which we hereby do. We may also add that what was the special case has not been stated. 10. Lot of stress has been given in the letter dated 8.9.89 Written by, writ petitioner to Dr. PK Sarma. The said letter is at Annexure V to the counter filed. According to the University authority, this letter would show that although writ petitioner has denied that he got any guidance from Dr. PK Sarma, he actually got such guidance from Dr. Sarma, the co-guide. 11. In the writ petition, the circumstances which compelled the writ petitioner to write this letter has been clearly stated. According to writ petitioner as this matter was pending and to expedite it and as suggested by Vice Chancellor, Dr. JM Bujarbaruh, Ex. Director Vaterinary Department Govt. of Assam took up the matter with Dr. PK Sarma for early and favourable solution. According to writ petitioner as this matter was pending and to expedite it and as suggested by Vice Chancellor, Dr. JM Bujarbaruh, Ex. Director Vaterinary Department Govt. of Assam took up the matter with Dr. PK Sarma for early and favourable solution. According to writ petitioner on 8th September, 1989 he accompanied Dr. Bujarbaruah to the house of Dr. Sarma as advised by the Vice Chancellor and as Dr. Sarma was adamant, the petitioner bad to write the above letter. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Vice Chancellor by the petitioner by his letter dated 18.10.89 vide Annexure G to the petition. Although Dr. PK Sarma has been made respondent no counter affidavit has been filed and therefore, the statements made in the writ petition have to be accepted. 12. In the writ petition it has been stated that Dr. Sarma told the writ petitioner that the thesis was wrong and it needed major correction, this fact would also show that Dr. Sarma did not guide the writ petitioner, other-wise the question of major correction would n6t have been there. 13. In his write petition a specific allegation has been made against Dr. Sarma respondent No.6 that he was acting to frustrate the valid approval given by the two external examiners of the thesis and to deprive the petitioner from getting the Ph D Degree. In the writ petition it has been stated that Dr. P K Sarma raised objection before the University (regarding the thesis of the petitioner as it was submitted without his signature. This was discussed in the meeting of the Academic Council held on 5.8.89 and relevant extract is at Annexure F to the writ petition and Annexure VI to the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent. On going through the records of the said meeting it appears that Dr. PK Sarma submitted another representation to the Vice Chancellor to critically examine the whole matter. Dr.PK Sarma who retired from service and whose name was deleted as co-guide ought not to have unnecessarily interfere with the matter of the University. We, therefore, accept toe statement of the petitioner and hold that decision of the Academic Council that Dr. PK Sarma used to guide the petitioner even after his name was deleted is based on no evidence at all. We, therefore, accept toe statement of the petitioner and hold that decision of the Academic Council that Dr. PK Sarma used to guide the petitioner even after his name was deleted is based on no evidence at all. We further hold that re-opening the matter by the University after the thesis was submitted by the writ petitioner under the certificate from his guide and after the same was approved by the two external examiners is absolutely arbitrary. From what has been stated above, we allow the writ petition by quashing resolution of the Academic Council of the University adopted in its meeting held on 27.11.89 directing the petitioner to re-submit his thesis through Dr.P K Sarma as a special case. We direct respondents 1 to 4 to hold the viva voce examination for declaring Ph D Degree of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.