JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner got herself registered for the award of Ph.D. Degree, with the University of Rajasthan, on 11.10.93. She pursued her research-work from 28.5.93, upto 17,6.96, when she submitted her thesis. The thesis was evaluated and was approved on 3.2.97. The petitioner applied for admission to three years' Diploma Course in Modern Office Management and was admitted by the Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. She passed her First Year Examination of Modern Office Management, in the Academic Session 1995-96. She was then admitted to Second Year of the above-said course. A notice was issued to the petitioner, by the respondent No. 1. In the said show-cause notice, a reference has been made to the Term & Condition No. 9(Ja) of the circular, attached to the application-form. It has been alleged that while pursuing the three years' Diploma Course in Modern Office Management, the petitioner has obtained the Degree of Ph.D. and thus violated the aforesaid term & condition, and as such, her admission is liable to be cancelled. The petitioner, therefore, apprehends that her admission is likely to be cancelled and she would not be allowed to appear in the Second Year Examination of the Modern Office Management. Feeling aggrieved thereby, she has preferred this writ petition. 2. The respondents Nos. 1 & 3, in their reply to the writ petition, have contested the petition. They have contended that the Condition No. 9(Ja) of the brochure, containing the relevant rules/instructions, governing admission to Diploma Course in Modern Office Management, provides that the student would not be permitted to appear in any other examination, conducted by any other Board or University, during the period he/she remains in the study with the Board, and that if it is found that the student has appeared in any examination, held by other Board or University, then, his/her admission & enrolment is liable to be cancelled. According to the said respondents, while the petitioner was pursuing her Diploma Course in Modern Office Management, she was simultaneously studying & appearing for the examinations for the award of Ph.D. Degree, and thus, the Term & Condition No. 9(Ja) has been violated. The said respondents have also alleged that the petitioner did not divulge this information and thus concealed the material facts. The respondents Nos. The said respondents have also alleged that the petitioner did not divulge this information and thus concealed the material facts. The respondents Nos. 1 & 3 have also contended that the impugned show-cause notice has not been issued to the petitioner, at the instance of the respondent No. 2, as alleged by the petitioner. 3. The respondent No. 2, in his separate reply, has denied to have anything to do with the impugned show-cause notice. He has also denied that he is annoyed with the petitioner and as such he is instrumental in the issue of the show-cause notice. 4. The petitioner, in her writ petition, has alleged that the show-cause notice has been issued at the instance of the respondent No. 2. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated her writ petition. 5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 6. In the impugned show-cause notice, it has not been alleged that the petitioner has concealed any material facts. Therefore, the contention of the respondents, in their reply to the writ petition that the petitioner has made concealment of material facts, is not tenable, because, the show-cause notice does not mention anything with regard to concealment of material facts. The impugned show-cause notice is mainly based on the breach of the term & condition, mentioned in para 9(Ja) of the brochure/circular, attached to the application-form for admission to Diploma Course in Modern Office Management. Condition No. 9(Ja) provides that the students, pursuing studies in polytechnic institutions, shall not appear in any examination, conducted by any other Board or University. In case, any student does so, his/her admission & enrolment is liable to be cancelled. According to the respondents, since the petitioner has obtained her Degree of Ph.D. while she was pursuing her Diploma Course in Modern Office Management, she has violated the Term & Condition No. 9(Ja), and as such, her admission & enrolment is liable to be cancelled. A perusal of Condition No. 9(Ja) would show that what has been prohibited, is the appearance in the examination, conducted by any other Board or University. Pursuing studies and research-work is not prohibited under the said condition. The Polytechnic Brochure/Rules, or Condition No. 9(Ja) does not define the term/word 'examination', occurring in Condition No. 9(Ja). 7. A perusal of Condition No. 9(Ja) would show that what has been prohibited, is the appearance in the examination, conducted by any other Board or University. Pursuing studies and research-work is not prohibited under the said condition. The Polytechnic Brochure/Rules, or Condition No. 9(Ja) does not define the term/word 'examination', occurring in Condition No. 9(Ja). 7. Ordinances 137 & 138, framed by the University of Rajasthan, show that the candidates, admitted for the Ph.D. Degree, are required to pursue the research-work, and thereafter, a thesis is required to be submitted by the candidate. On the receipt of that thesis, it is referred to the Supervisor and two external examiners, for evaluation of the thesis. Thereafter, a viva-voce examination is conducted in relation to the thesis, submitted by the candidate. Ordinance 138 further provides that if all the referees evaluating the thesis as well as those conducting the viva-voce examination, recommend the award of degree to the candidate, the Degree is awarded. If the majority of the referees recommend rejection of the thesis, the thesis is rejected. In case of divergence of opinion among the three referees, evaluating the thesis, a special procedure has been prescribed. Ordinance 140 provides that the reports of the referees and of those, conducting the viva-voce examination, are placed before the Syndicate, for acceptance or rejection of the thesis. A minute perusal of these ordinances would show that if the referees, evaluating the thesis, reject the thesis, the degree is not awarded, even if the viva-voce examination is cleared by the candidate. Therefore, the evaluation & approval of thesis plays a dominant role rather than the viva-voce examination. Therefore, in my opinion, for the award of Ph.D. Degree, no examination is held by the University. What is done is the evaluation of the thesis and viva-voce examination with regard to the thesis is a process of evaluating the thesis, for its final approval or rejection. The Ph.D. Degree is awarded mainly on the basis of thesis. Viva-voce is not the sole basis on which the degree of Ph.D. is awarded. On the other hand, the examinations are held for other degrees/diplomas which are awarded solely on the basis of such examinations. The examination, referred to in Condition No. 9(Ja), means such examinations on the sole basis of which degrees/diplomas/certificates are awarded. Viva-voce is not the sole basis on which the degree of Ph.D. is awarded. On the other hand, the examinations are held for other degrees/diplomas which are awarded solely on the basis of such examinations. The examination, referred to in Condition No. 9(Ja), means such examinations on the sole basis of which degrees/diplomas/certificates are awarded. In my opinion, therefore, awarding of Ph.D. Degree to the petitioner in the instant case, cannot be held to mean that the petitioner has appeared in any examination, conducted by the University, within the scope of Condition No. 9(Ja). The impugned show-cause notice is, therefore, not sustainable. 8. There is nothing on the record, to show that the impugned show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, at the instance of the respondent No. 2. No mala fide on the part of the respondent No. 2, is inferable in the case. The writ petition, against the show-cause notice, is maintainable in this case, because, mala fides have been alleged by the petitioner in the issue of impugned show-cause notice even though, on the scrutiny, it is found that no mala fide is inferable. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned show-cause notice is quashed.Writ Petition Allowed. *******