Judgment :- The petitioner challenges the order of the respondent/University which has cryptic Order. 2. The petitioner is a practising Lawyer. He has sought for permission to register for Degree in the respondent/University on 01.02.1990. By its letter dated 09.11.1990, University has stated that his request for permission to register for Ph.D.Degree complied with. The petitioner is before me against this order. 3. Notice of motion was ordered by me on 17.12.1990 and Mr.Veluswamy appears University/ respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the judgment reported Sampath v. Registrar, University of Madras, 1988 Writ L.R. 247, is in his favour and this Court should straightaway allow the writ petition setting aside the order Respondent. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the University states that the Laws (Statutes and Ordinances) of the respondent/University in Chapter XXVIII (Statute 17) states that Fellow shall be a full-time research worker while holding the Fellowship and shall not other remunerative work without the previous sanction of the Vice-Chanceller. In this, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the judgment relied on learned counsel for the petitioner will not apply to the facts of this case. 6. After going through the relevant statutes pointed out by the learned counsel respondent/ University, I am of the view that the judgment reported in Sampath 1988 Writ L.R. 247, cited supra, will not apply to the facts of the case. In that judgment Court has stated if certain rules and regulations are made by the University prohibiting lawyers and the professionals like the petitioner from attending the Ph.D. Degree then it may be open to the University to contend that the petitioner is not entitled himself registered. 7. In this case, as already extracted above, there is already a prohibition in the laws University Under Chapter XXVIII (Statute 17),that each fellow shall be a full-time worker while holding the Fellowship shall not accept other remunerative work. However, not an absolute prohibition. The Vice-Chancellor has got a discretion to permit anybody has any other remunerative work. But at the same time, he shall be a full-time worker. Since the order impugned before me is very cryptic and no reason is given order, it has got to be set aside as it is well-settled now that any order administratively also should contain reasons. The Vice-Chancellor has got a discretion to permit anybody has any other remunerative work. But at the same time, he shall be a full-time worker. Since the order impugned before me is very cryptic and no reason is given order, it has got to be set aside as it is well-settled now that any order administratively also should contain reasons. Hence, the order is set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent/University to pass a fresh order on merits according if necessary after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, on or before 30.11.1991. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Petition allowed.