KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for the direction to the respondents to accept the No Objection Certificate dated 09-05-2002, the order dated 22-02-2003 and the order dated 17-06-2003 of the petitioners department as sufficient compliance with the alleged requirement of the respondents. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Commandant / Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Border Security Force, Dantiwada, Banaskantha. The petitioner applied for admission to respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Agricultural University for Ph. D. course for the academic year 2002-2003. The petitioner was informed by the university about the schedule of written test for admission and personal interview for Ph. D. course vide letter dated 29-11-2002 i. e. date 17-10-2002 for written test and date 18-12-2002 for personal interview with instruction that if a candidate is serving in any other institute, he/she will have to produce NOC with the details of the date of joining and total years of service, experience from present employer otherwise he/she will not be allowed to appear in the written test/personal interview. The petitioner submitted his application with the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 09-05-2002 issued from his employer for prosecuting study of Ph. D. After written test and interview, the petitioner was admitted by respondent No. 2 - University to the Ph. D. decree course at the respondent No. 1 College and issued a Provisional Admission Memo dated 17-12-2002. Thereafter the petitioner had deposited the required fees for the first semester for his degree course and joined the respondent No. 1 - College. Thereafter the petitioner was granted a Registration No. 4-5541-2002 in the category of O/s, Veterinary Medicine, Ph. D. under Dr. P. R. Patel. The respondent No. 1 - College vide order dated 18-02-2003 called upon the petitioner to produce certain documents including a relieving order from the petitioners service department. The petitioner was granted certificate dated 22-02-2003 wherein it is mentioned that permission is hereby accorded to the petitioner for joining for Ph. D. at Vet College Sardar Krishinagar, Dantiwada for 03 years. That was approved subject to the NOC dated 09-05-2002. The petitioner again received a letter dated 01-04-2003 from respondent No. 2 asking the petitioner to produce relieving letter and NOC from the petitioners department. D. at Vet College Sardar Krishinagar, Dantiwada for 03 years. That was approved subject to the NOC dated 09-05-2002. The petitioner again received a letter dated 01-04-2003 from respondent No. 2 asking the petitioner to produce relieving letter and NOC from the petitioners department. The petitioner states that even though he had supplied the said documents, he again submitted the said documents to the respondents along with his letter dated 21. 04. 2003. The petitioner again received a letter dated 12-05-2003 from the respondent No. 1 informing the petitioner to submit a relieving letter from his department otherwise he will not be registered for second semester and his admission will be cancelled. The respondent No. 1 - College sent a letter dated 30-04-2003 to the Commandant of the petitioner requesting the Commandant to give information as to whether the petitioner has been relieved from his job to prosecute Ph. D. course at the respondent No. 1 - College. The Commandant replied vide letter dated 17-06-2003 that the petitioner has already been granted permission to do his Ph. D. course. The respondent No. 1 again sent letters dated 29-08-2003 and 10-09-2003 calling upon the petitioner to submit study leave/deputation letter and relieving letter from the department concerned. The petitioner was also informed that if the petitioner does not supply those documents, the petitioner will not be permitted to register for the second semester in his decree course and hence, this petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondent an affidavit-in-reply has been filed wherein it is stated that after considering verification of the petitioner, the petitioner was called upon for written test and personal interview with all necessary documents. By letter dated 17-12-2002 the petitioner was provisionally granted admission to the Ph. D. decree course in the subject of Veterinary Medicines at College of Veterinary Science at Dantiwada subject to fulfillments of Rules and Regulations of the Gujarat Agricultural University regarding the Ph. D. decree course. As per Section 43 of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969, "every student of the University shall reside in a hostel or other accommodation maintained, recognized or approved by the University or under such conditions as may be prescribed". D. decree course. As per Section 43 of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, 1969, "every student of the University shall reside in a hostel or other accommodation maintained, recognized or approved by the University or under such conditions as may be prescribed". As per Statute 42 "no student of the University shall be permitted to reside outside the hostel maintained or recognized by the University except with the permission of the Director of Student Affairs". Regulation 3. 5 (b) of Regulation 3 regarding Post-Graduate Studies, 1976 requires that "a student who is not in service, student who has joined post graduate programmes of the University joins a regular service before submitting thesis, his registration shall automatically be cancelled. The major professor will report immediately this to the University". ( 4 ) AS the petitioner had not submitted the required documents, immediately the petitioner was asked vide letter dated 18-02-2003 to produce relieving letter from his department. As the petitioner had produced certain documents but did not produce the relieving order from his employer, again, by letter dated 01-04-2003, the petitioner was asked to produce the relieving letter and no Objection Certificate from the department but the petitioner had not produced the same. Again by reminder dated 30-04-2003, the petitioner was called upon to produce relieving order from his department and he was also informed that if the relieving order is not produced, he will not be allowed to appear in the examination. In spite of the repeated reminders to submit the relieving order from his department, the petitioner had not submitted the same for the reason best known to him. By another letter dated 10-09-2003, the petitioner was asked to produce relieving order or to produce certificate for study leave or certificate of deputation from his department otherwise the petitioner would not be allowed to register for second semester for Ph. D. degree course. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed an affidavit dated 10-10-2003 stating therein that three persons had been permitted to prosecute their study for the postgraduate and Ph. D. course while working in their respective jobs/services by the respondent No. 2 - University and he gave three names - Dr. A. G. Dixit, Shri A. K. Makwana and Shri Shivaji H. Talekar. D. course while working in their respective jobs/services by the respondent No. 2 - University and he gave three names - Dr. A. G. Dixit, Shri A. K. Makwana and Shri Shivaji H. Talekar. ( 6 ) THE respondents have filed an affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder stating therein that the facts mentioned in the affidavit dated 10-10-2003 are wholly incorrect and it was denied that three persons have been permitted to do their PG and Ph. D. courses while working in their respect jobs/services of the respondent No. 2 University. It is also stated that Dr. A. G. Dixit, Dy. Director of Agriculture, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, prosecuted his Ph. D. course in Agricultural College while he was Dy. Director of Agriculture of Gujarat State in the year 1991. Thereafter, he was deputed as Assistant Profession at Water and Land Management Institute (Walmi) at Anand and that institute is situated within the Campus of Gujarat Agricultural University at Anand. Dr. Dixit was on deputation during the process of his Ph. D. studies and he was residing within the Campus of the Agricultural University. So far as Shri A. K. Makwana is concerned, he does not prosecute his Ph. D. Decree in the Gujarat Agricultural University while in his service. In fact, he prosecuted his Ph. D. studies in S. P. University at Vallabh Vidyanagar and his Ph. D. study is governed under the Rules and Regulations of S. P. University at Vallabh Vidyanagar. Moreover, Shri Makwana is an employee of the respondent - University and is working in Dairy Science College at Anand and he was deputed to prosecute his Ph. D. study outside the university. So far as Shri Shivaji H. Talekar is concerned, he was working with Gujarat Samachars Animal Help Lines and thereafter he left the employment of Gujarat Samachar in the month of July, 2002. Thereafter, he was admitted to Ph. D. study in the subject of Veterinary Surgery in the University in the month of December, 2003. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Academic Council, an authority of the University in its meeting held on 22-07-2003 and it is resolved in the said meeting that he was informed to produce necessary orders from BSF Department relieving him either on study leave or on deputation for prosecuting the Ph. D. study in the University, till then he should not be registered for Second Semester. D. study in the University, till then he should not be registered for Second Semester. ( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Barot, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at the time of provisional admission given to the petitioner there was no condition requiring the petitioner to produce deputation order, study leave or relieving order. There is no rule and regulation which provides that the Ph. D. students should provide deputation or relieving order from their employer if he is an employment an employer viz. Chief was allowed to do Ph. D. while he was in job. It is also contended that mistake has been committed in making Provisional Admission Memo that the petitioner is to obtain a study leave or deputation order from his employer. There is a proposal for the amendment in the regulation. Item No. 38. 7 requires Admission to the employees of the Government / Universities / other institutes on the basis of NOC from his/her employer. The Board of Studies has resolved that the Academic Council be recommended to insert Regulations No. 2. 6. 2 (c) as under after Regulation No. 2. 6. 2. (b) of P. G. Regulations. " if an employee of any State Government, Government of India, ICAR or any University other than GAU, serving within the limit of 10 Km. from the constituent colleges of GAU, is permitted by his/her department to continue in his/her service and simultaneously accord NOC to avail admission for higher studies leading to Master degree or Ph. D. shall be admitted (i) on merit basis on seats reserved for the nominees of employees of Government etc. as per Regulation No. 2. 6. 2 (a) and (ii) subject to fulfillment of the residential and other requirements of admissions in P. G. programs. Regulation 2. 6. 2 (a) requires" twenty percent of the total available seats in a year will be available for (i) candidates who are not residents of Gujarat; (ii) nominees of Government of India/icar/other State Government/other Agricultural Universities and (iii) Basic Sciences and Technology on merit. For the admission it is not required that the candidate must be resident of Gujarat, outsider of the Gujarat State can also be admitted. ( 8 ) IT is also pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Regulation 3. For the admission it is not required that the candidate must be resident of Gujarat, outsider of the Gujarat State can also be admitted. ( 8 ) IT is also pointed out by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Regulation 3. 5 (b) does not require that any person who is in service cannot be given admission in the university. This Regulation is as under:"3. 5 (B) A student who is not in service, student who is joined post graduate programmes of the University joins a regular service before submitting thesis, his registration shall automatically be cancelled. The major professor will report immediately this to the University. ( 9 ) ON the basis of this regulation the contention of the learned petitioner is that this regulation does not require that in case the petitioner is in service he cannot be permitted to prosecute his study in P. G. and Ph. D. course. It is also argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in absence of the Rules and Regulations the petitioner cannot be insisted to produce such documents and in absence of those documents study of the petitioner cannot be discontinued and under the facts and circumstances the petitioner should be permitted to continue his study. ( 10 ) I have considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the parties. The learned advocate for the respondents submitted that they have no objection to continue the petitioner in the Ph. D. course provided he produces three years study leave or order of deputation as it is a full time course and hence, the student is supposed to attend the Ph. D. course full time. The admission was granted on the application form subject to the condition to produce study leave or deputation order. The petitioner is a member of Border Security Force working as Assistant Commandant / Veterinary Surgeon, he is supposed to be present all the time in the defence at Head Quarter. He was required by interview call letter dated 29-11-2002 to submit NOC from the department concerned. If the candidate is in employment NOC means it must be unconditional on the date of the written test the admission of the petitioner was made subject to production of study leave or deputation order on the same day he was given provisional admission on 17-12-2002. If the candidate is in employment NOC means it must be unconditional on the date of the written test the admission of the petitioner was made subject to production of study leave or deputation order on the same day he was given provisional admission on 17-12-2002. By letter dated 18-02-2003 he was asked to produce relieving order meaning thereby that permission was granted by the department concerned to the petitioner to prosecute study subject to the conditions set out in NOC dated 09-05-2002. The Conditions mentioned in the NOC are as follow : (A) It must not hamper the performance of this official duties; (B) He must not insist to grant leave for appearing in the above exam in case the situation is not congenial; (C) He will not represent against his position/transfer making it an issue; and (D) The permission so granted can be cancelled by the competent authority if he desires to do so. ( 11 ) ON the basis of these conditions the contention of the learned advocate for the respondents is that the post of the petitioner is transferable, he can be transferred at any time at anywhere. The petitioner being a member of defence his services can be required at any place and he can be asked to join his duties at any place immediately. In case he is transferred to somewhere else, the petitioner would not be able to prosecute his study. The eligible person would suffer for prosecuting his study. Moreover, while attending official duties in the Head Quarter, it can not be said in all probabilities that the petitioner would be available in the University for devoting his full time. By letter dated 18-08-2003 immediately within two and half months, the petitioner was asked to produce relieving order for prosecuting the study. Further vide letter dated 12-05-2003 the petitioner was again required to produce the relieving order otherwise he would not be allowed to appear in the examination and his registration will be cancelled. The respondent also sent letter to the Commandant asking for the relieving order otherwise the admission of the petitioner will be cancelled. The Commandant sent a letter dated 17-06-2003 to the effect that the NOC for prosecution of his study subject to the conditions mentioned therein the NOC dated 09-05-2002 has already been granted. The respondent also sent letter to the Commandant asking for the relieving order otherwise the admission of the petitioner will be cancelled. The Commandant sent a letter dated 17-06-2003 to the effect that the NOC for prosecution of his study subject to the conditions mentioned therein the NOC dated 09-05-2002 has already been granted. The College referred the matter to the Academic Council particularly in respect of the petitioner. Academic Council passed a resolution on 22-07-2003. At Item No. 98. 7 it is clearly mentioned that till the petitioner produces the study leave, deputation order or relieving order, he should not be registered for Second Semester. Once any resolution passed by the Academic Council it becomes Regulation and the same is binding to all the parties. Even then a letter dated 29-08-2003 pursuant to the resolution was sent to the petitioner asking for the said documents and another letter dated 10-09-2003 was again sent to the petitioner for the production of the aforesaid documents otherwise he would not be allowed to register for the Second Semester. ( 12 ) I have thoroughly considered the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Assistant Commandant / Veterinary Surgeon in the BSF and he had also applied for the higher study i. e. Ph. D. course. According to the respondents, Ph. D. course is a full time course. No doubt permission has been granted by the department vide order dated 09-05-2002 subject to the conditions that it must not hamper the performance of his official duties; he must not insist to grant leave for appearing in the above examination in case the situation is not congenial; as his post if transferable, in case he is transferred to somewhere else he will not represent against his position/transfer making it an issue. The right was also reserved by the department to cancel the permission so granted to the petitioner in any facts and circumstances. The right was also reserved by the department to cancel the permission so granted to the petitioner in any facts and circumstances. The official duties of the petitioner is also full time and he is required to attend his duty full time, if he is permitted to have further higher study then, in ordinary course of nature, he cannot be remain present in educational institute as well as in the head quarter where he is posted and can be transferred to any other place then it is very difficult for the petitioner to continue his study and at that time permission granted by the department to continue his study will be deemed to have cancelled and in these facts and circumstances the eligible person who could have prosecuted study will be debarred as the petitioner having not granted the deputation order, relieving order or study leave. The educational institute is insisting to produce the study leave, deputation order and relieving order so that his study should not be interfered by the official duty of the petitioner and he may continue his study seriously. Various opportunities have been given to the petitioner as well as the department of the petitioner to submit the aforesaid documents, but no such documents have been produced by the petitioner as, in fact, the petitioner has not been granted study leave nor he has been deputed for the purpose of study by the office nor he has been relieved from his head quarter to continue the study. Even the Regulation 3. 5 (b) requires that a student who is not in service and permitted to join the PG programma of the university thereafter joins regular service before completing his course or submitting his thesis, his registration shall automatically be deemed to have cancelled immediately. The purpose to only in this Regulation is that study of the student should not be interfered or disturbed by any activities if he joins service before submission of thesis then automatically his study of the student will be disturbed by attending official duties. Hence, in that respect the Regulation has been framed that as soon as he joins service before completing his course the registration shall automatically be cancelled. In the present case the petitioner is already in service and he has been permitted to join higher study subject to certain conditions and those conditions are considered by the educational institution. Hence, in that respect the Regulation has been framed that as soon as he joins service before completing his course the registration shall automatically be cancelled. In the present case the petitioner is already in service and he has been permitted to join higher study subject to certain conditions and those conditions are considered by the educational institution. This regulation also does not permit the student to continue study after he joins service. The object in forming this regulation is only that the study should not be interfered anyhow either by official duty or in any manner that is why this regulation has been framed. The petitioner could not be able to produce the study leave, deputation order or relieving order from the department concerned. As such I do not find any substance in contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that there is no Rules and Regulations debarring the petitioner for continuation of the study. This regulation itself sufficient for achieving object and the petitioner has failed to produce the aforesaid documents. Moreover, the University has shown very sympathetic attitude and referred the matter to the Academic Council, if the Academic Council permits the petitioner could be permitted to continue his study but when the college referred the matter to the Academic Council particularly in respect of the petitioner the Academic Council after considering the facts and circumstances passed resolution dated 22-07-2003 whereby the petitioner was required to produce study leave, deputation order and relieving order. Unless those documents are not produced, he should not be registered for the Second Semester. This Academic Council is the competent authority to take such decision. Such decision has been taken, the learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out that the decision taken by the Academic Council is illegal or irrational or against any statutory provisions of law. Hence, this Court finds it very difficult in grant permission to the petitioner for the continuation of his study in the respondent No. 1 College. ( 13 ) HAVING considered the entire material on record, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the respondent - authorities and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. .