Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 107 (ORI)

Sobhan Kumar Sahu v. Chancellor

2006-02-07

J.P.MISHRA, P.K.MOHANTY

body2006
JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. : In this batch of writ applications, the petitioners had all applied for registration for Ph.D. Degree in their respective subjects and allege inaction of the opposite party No.3 in not assigning them registration numbers although they had filed their applications in the prescribed form together with the bank drafts between March, 2001 and September, 2002. The petitioners call in question the impugned notification dated 14.8.2003 (Annexure-8) notifying all concerned that as per the order of the Chancellor dated 30.7.2003, Ph.D. candidates, who have applied prior to the ban and have not been given registra¬tion number are required to apply afresh to the University as per the new Regulation under Correction Slip No.1169 which came into effect from 4.6.2003. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that they are all First Class Masters’ Degree-holders in different subjects and intend to undertake research and study for a Ph. D. Degree under the Utkal University and accordingly applied in the prescribed form together with fees to opposite party No.3 for getting registration number according to Regulations of the University contained in Correction Slip No.1167 which had come into effect from 30.4.1999. The names of candidates, subject/percentage of marks and year of passing, the Master’s Degree examination and the date of application have been given in detail in the body of the writ applications. It is alleged that even though the applications in the prescribed form had been submitted during March, 2001 and September, 2002 with all enclo¬sures as required together with the signature of the guide and the recommendation of the Heads of the Institutions, the matter remained pending with the University for years in assigning registration numbers and in registering the petitioners for Ph.D. Degree in accordance with Regulations of the University. It is stated that the opposite party No.2 on 5.12.2002 issued a Notification on the basis of the order of opposite party No.1 that no registration for Ph.D. should be allowed till the new Regulations are framed and implemented. The petitioners allege that the Notification has no application so far as the petitioners are concerned as they have applied much before the date of this Notification. Some of the petitioners sent a repre¬sentation praying for registration under Regulation in Correction Slip No.1167, but to no effect. 3. The petitioners allege that the Notification has no application so far as the petitioners are concerned as they have applied much before the date of this Notification. Some of the petitioners sent a repre¬sentation praying for registration under Regulation in Correction Slip No.1167, but to no effect. 3. The Hon’ble Chancellor of the University and opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 have filed their separate counter affidavits refuting the claim made by the petitioners. In the counter affi¬davit filed on behalf of the Chancellor of the University, it has been stated that after the issue of U.G.C. guidelines in Decem¬ber, 1998 on revision of pay scales and making Ph.D. the minimum qualification for promotions under Career Advancement Scheme, there was a visible upsurge in the number of applications for Ph. D. registration. In addition to multiplying pressure on the recognized guides and impacting the class room education in an adverse manner, the craze has contributed to the dilution of the standard of Ph.D. work in an alarming manner. In some cases, unscrupulous and manipulative practices were resorted to for obtaining Ph.D. degrees by undeserving candidates. Blatant pla¬giarism, collusive evaluation of dissertations, physical prepara¬tion of the thesis by the Guide without real involvement of the scholar, prolonged span of thesis work etc. were the most common aberrations noticed. Redtapsim in disposal of applications for registration, non-referral of thesis to examiners etc. also made it difficult for the scholars. A fool-proof procedure to guard against this was a felt need and, as such, it was put to debate during three consecutive Vice-Chancellor’s Conference since August, 2000. Heads of the related departments of the Government and the Chairman, U.G.C. also participated in the deliberations. During the Vice-Chancellors’ Conference on 29th September, 2001, the Vice-Chancellor, Sambalpur University was requested to pre¬pare a paper on Ph.D. admission and circulate the same among all other Universities. All the Vice-Chancellors were requested to send their study papers on Ph.D. admission to the Chancellor’s office before the next Vice-Chancellors’ conference. The study paper prepared by the Vice-Chancellor, Sambalpur University was put to debate during the Vice-Chancellors’ Conference on 13th May, 2002. There was a broad consensus on the essentiality of the qualifying examination and empaneling a foreign expert in the panel of examiner of the Ph.D. thesis. The study paper prepared by the Vice-Chancellor, Sambalpur University was put to debate during the Vice-Chancellors’ Conference on 13th May, 2002. There was a broad consensus on the essentiality of the qualifying examination and empaneling a foreign expert in the panel of examiner of the Ph.D. thesis. Thus a model regulation adopted by the Vice-Chancellor’s Conference on 13th May, 2002 was with the professed intention of making the pursuit of doctoral degree a serious business. It meant to ensure that the scholar physically works for the degree, acquaints himself with the latest knowledge in the field and contributes his bit. The new regulation envisages a four stage research career for a candi¬date. At the outset, the candidate has to take a qualifying examination meant for identifying scholars with aptitude. In the second stage, he has to go through a full fledged course work for a period of one year for acquiring latest knowledge in the field, acquaintance with research methodology and preparation of a re¬search project and dissertation. Candidacy examination at the end of course work for recognizing the candidate as a bona fide research scholar is the next important stage. The fourth and final phase is the actual stage of research scholarship which would span over about two years. The thesis submitted after the research work will be put to an evaluation for quality by the examiners including one foreign examiner. Candidates who have cleared NET and GATE examinations conducted by U.G.C. would be exempted from qualifying examinations, but those having M.Phil degree will enjoy credits for the same. The above broad policy framework drafted by the Vice-Chancellors of Utkal University, Sambalpur University and North Orissa University after the Confer¬ence, was expected to put an end to the elements of casualness in research pursuits and confine the research span to three years. The above broad policy framework drafted by the Vice-Chancellors of Utkal University, Sambalpur University and North Orissa University after the Confer¬ence, was expected to put an end to the elements of casualness in research pursuits and confine the research span to three years. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Hon’ble Chancellor that the Vice-Chancellor of a University is the Chairman of the Academic Council as per Statute 24 of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 and it was expected that the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities in the State would convene meeting of the Academic Council immediately after the Conference to take action in this direction, but on the other hand, the Chancellor’s office received several petitions alleging that steps are being taken surreptitiously to enroll Ph.D. schol¬ars under the old Regulation in large numbers at the behest of some unscrupulous employees of the University with a view to dodge the new Ph.D. Regulation which was going to be tough for casual researchers. The Chancellor having received complaints and having noticed that there has been unusual delay by the Universi¬ties to frame and adopt Ph.D. Regulations in terms of the deci¬sion in the Vice-Chancellor’s Conference, it was decided to intervene in the matter and to stop process of receipt of appli¬cations for registration by the Universities till the new Regula¬tions were adopted. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Chan¬cellor, therefore, vide letter No. 9431(8).SG dated 11.10.2002 issued the Chancellor’s directives to all the Universities that no registration of Ph.D. be allowed till new Regulations are framed and implemented. A copy of the directives has been annexed as Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit. The Universities have ultimately framed the Regulations and the Utkal University in Correction Slip No.1169 has incorporated the new Regulations which have been given effect to from 4.6.2003 and as such, the applicants are to be governed thereunder. 4. The Controller of Examinations, Utkal University fur¬nished the required information subjectwise by letter dated 7.7.2003 to the Office of the Hon’ble Chancellor which has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-C/1. It appears from the counter affidavit that 70 applications for Ph.D. registration were pending prior to 1999, 31 applications since 2000 and 60 applications since 2001 with the University. In the year 2002 prior to contemplation of new Regulation in the Chancellor’s Conference on 13.5.2002, 111 applications had been filed. It appears from the counter affidavit that 70 applications for Ph.D. registration were pending prior to 1999, 31 applications since 2000 and 60 applications since 2001 with the University. In the year 2002 prior to contemplation of new Regulation in the Chancellor’s Conference on 13.5.2002, 111 applications had been filed. Between 14.5.2002 and 11.10.2002, when the Chancellor directed not to allow fresh registration of Ph.D. till new Regulations are framed and implemented, 305 applications were filed. The counter affida¬vit of the Chancellor discloses that the University advanced two reasons for the pendency of the applications, namely, (1) non-compliance of objections by the scholars and (2) ban order on fresh registration by the Chancellor’s Office but it is submitted that the ban order was clamped only 11.10.2002 and, as such, all the applications are pending due to non-compliance of objections till that date. None of the cases had been cleared by the Subject Research Committee prior to 13.5.2002. Between 13.5.2002 and 11.10.2002, 32 applications were cleared, most of them on 7th, 9th and 11th October, 2002. Only 23 applications pertained to post Doctoral Research and those applications were not covered under the provisions of the Revised Ph.D. Regulations. It is submitted that on consideration of all these aspects the Chancel¬lor directed as under : (1) Out of the 577 applications, 23 cases pertain to post doctoral research. The revised regulation does not contemplate any restriction in these cases. As such, the cases may be dis¬posed of by the University as per its Regulation. (2) 32 cases have been cleared by the Subject Research Committees in five departments, understandable after compliance of the objects by the applicants. Out of the same, the applicants in respect of the applications filed before 13.5.2002 may be exempted from eligibility test. (3) Rest of all the cases have to be processed under new Regulations. (4) The cases, which are pending due to non-compliance of objections by the applicants as per the report of the University may be rejected and returned to them. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that an application should be complete in all respect and should be free from defect before it is accepted. (4) The cases, which are pending due to non-compliance of objections by the applicants as per the report of the University may be rejected and returned to them. It is the specific case of the opposite parties that an application should be complete in all respect and should be free from defect before it is accepted. Mere submission of an applica¬tion does not entitle an applicant for registration for Ph.D. The directive issued from the Chancellor’s Office on 11.10.2002 only prevented fresh registration of Ph.D. under the Old Regulation (Correction Slip No.1167), Annexure-3 to the writ petition till framing and implementation of the new Regulation in the light of the decision taken at the Vice-Chancellors’ Conference. Opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 have reiterated the stand taken by opposite party No.1. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder affidavit and additional affidavit denying the assertions made therein. 5. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the moot ques¬tions that falls for determination are: (A) Whether in view of the fact that the petitioners had applied for Ph.D. registration and their applications were pending con¬sideration under the existing Regulation in correction slip No.1167 of the University, they had a vested right for considera¬tion of their applications under those Regulations irrespective of the fact that the new Regulation in correction slip No.1169 had come into force since 3.6.2003 ? (B) Whether the Hon’ble Chancellor was vested with the power under the Universities Act to issue direction to the University to accept or register any application after 11.10.2002 ? 6. The Regulation for Doctor of Philosophy in Arts, Science, Education, Agriculture, Commerce and Engineering Exami¬nation and the Doctor’s Degree in Literature or Science Examina¬tions are contained in Correction Slip No.1167, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application giving details of eligibility of the candidates, eligibility of Supervisor and the procedure to be followed by the Research Committee etc. Clause 1.0 of the Regulation prescribes eligibility of candidates and they are set forth under Clause 1.1. to 1.3, which reads thus : “1.0. ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATE 1.1. Any candidate having secured at least 55% of marks in the Post-Graduate examination of a relevant subject(s) shall be eligible for applying for registration as a Ph.D. scholar. 1.1.1. Clause 1.0 of the Regulation prescribes eligibility of candidates and they are set forth under Clause 1.1. to 1.3, which reads thus : “1.0. ELIGIBILITY OF CANDIDATE 1.1. Any candidate having secured at least 55% of marks in the Post-Graduate examination of a relevant subject(s) shall be eligible for applying for registration as a Ph.D. scholar. 1.1.1. In case of inter-disciplinary subject(s) the Board of Studies of inter disciplinary subject(s) will consider the suit¬ability of the proposed research project as well as the eligibil¬ity of the candidates for the purpose of registration for Ph.D. 1.1.2. If any candidate wishes to Register for Ph.D. in any other subject other than his subject at Post Graduate level he will be allowed if he can show evidence of original published Research work in that field. The evidence of the Research work will be decided by the Subject Research Committee. 1.2. For the proposed registration either the candidate or the supervisor or the place of research should be within the jurisdiction of the Utkal University. 1.3. The place of research shall be any recognized Research Institute/Post-Graduate Department(s), or College(s) where ade¬quate research facilities are available.” Clause 1.4 stipulates that candidates, who satisfy the above conditions, may apply for registration of Ph.D. Degree in the prescribed form available in the University on payment of a prescribed fee. Clause 1.5, however, stipulates that after the applications, completed in all respect, are received and have been considered, candidates shall be eligible for registration, in which event the date of submission of application will be taken as the date of registration. Clause 1.5 of the Regulation clearly stipulates that after the applications, completed in all respect, are received and have been considered, the candidates shall be eligible for registration. The date of submission of the application in that event would be taken as the date of registra¬tion. Clause 3 of the Regulation stipulates that there shall be two Research Committees to discharge the functions specified, namely, (1) Research Committee of the University (R.C.P.) and (2) Subject Research Committee (S.R.C.) The quorum for such Committee shall be 1/3 of its total number of membership. Clause 3 of the Regulation stipulates that there shall be two Research Committees to discharge the functions specified, namely, (1) Research Committee of the University (R.C.P.) and (2) Subject Research Committee (S.R.C.) The quorum for such Committee shall be 1/3 of its total number of membership. The Research Committee shall consist of the Vice-Chancellor as the Chair Person, four members of the Syndicate which would ordinarily meet once every month and its function shall be (a) to decide on the eligibility of an Institution as a place of research, (b) to oversee the appointment of examiners for Ph.D. Thesis, (c) in case of adverse reports of the examiners it shall decide whether the Thesis should be revised and resubmitted or rejected, (d) if the Thesis is to be revised and resubmitted the candidate can do so only after six months and (e) if one of the external examiners recommends the thesis and the other external examiner rejects the thesis then the candidate shall be given one chance for evalua¬tion of the thesis by another examiner from the above panel. The Subject Research Committee is to be appointed by the Syndicate and it shall consist of five members expertise in the area concerned from the Post-Graduate Teaching Departments/Insti¬tutions. The functions of the Subject Research Committee (S.R.C.) are contemplated in Clause 3.2. of the Regulation. Under Clause 3.2 (ii) (a), the Subject Research Committee is to scrutinize all applications for registration for Ph.D. Degree on the basis of eligibility and forward the applications of the candidates to the Controller of Examinations, who is to intimate the candidates about their selection along with the names of supervisor/’guide. Clause 4 of the Regulation in Correction Slip No.1167 (Annexure-3) came into effect from 1.1.1999 and it was ratified by the Academic Council on 30.4.1999. It remained in force till 3.6.2003. 7. The Regulation for Doctor of Philosophy in Arts, Science, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Law and Engineering Examinations and Doctor’s Degree in Literature or Science Exami¬nations of Utkal University in Chapter LXIV contained in Correc¬tion Slip No.1167 was replaced by the Regulation in Correction Slip No.1169. The new Regulation was given effect to from 4.6.2003. 8. Thus, a candidate, who had the aforesaid eligibility condition laid under clause 1.3 was eligible for consideration of his/her candidature for a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Doctor’s Degree in Literature or in science examination. The new Regulation was given effect to from 4.6.2003. 8. Thus, a candidate, who had the aforesaid eligibility condition laid under clause 1.3 was eligible for consideration of his/her candidature for a Degree of Doctor of Philosophy or Doctor’s Degree in Literature or in science examination. Undis¬putedly, the petitioners had made applications in the prescribed format along with prescribed fees for registration and their applications were pending consideration before the University for quite a considerable period of years. According to the Universi¬ty, usually, Ph.D. applications are received at the general counter of the University and sent to the establishment of the Controller of Examinations. Then a diary entry is made by the Ph.D. Section and sent to the Examination General Section, which deals with examinations of various professional courses along with Ph.D., wherein the dealing assistant sorts out the applica¬tions subject-wise and thereafter, it is sent to the Controller of Examinations for intimation to be sent to the Subject Research Committee, which either approves the applications or gives certain suggestions which has to be complied with by the candidate. But by the time the procedural requirement was being met with, the ban order of the Hon’ble Chancellor came in. It has been asserted in the writ petition that the applications were filed by the petitioners sometimes between March, 2001 and Sep¬tember, 2002 for registration of their names for Ph.D. Degree in their respective subjects, duly received and acknowledged by the University. The assertions made by the petitioners have not been controverted rather according to the University in Para-6 of the counter affidavit, these are matters of record and no specific reply is necessary. Thus, the assertion of the petitioners with regard to the date of their applications has been more or less admitted by the University and the same remained pending with the University since then till the order of the Hon’ble Chancellor was received on 11.10.2002 banning registration for Ph.D. till new Regulations were framed. The Controller of Examinations, Utkal University on 16.5.2003 intimated the Office of the Chan¬cellor that there were 579 Ph.D/D.Sc/D.Litt. applications pending due to ban in registration and he sought for permission of the Hon’ble Chancellor for disposal of the applications. The Controller of Examinations, Utkal University on 16.5.2003 intimated the Office of the Chan¬cellor that there were 579 Ph.D/D.Sc/D.Litt. applications pending due to ban in registration and he sought for permission of the Hon’ble Chancellor for disposal of the applications. A subject-wise and year-wise break up was provided in the report of the Controller indicating therein that 70 applications for Ph.D. registration were pending prior to 1999, 31 applications since 2000 and 60 applications since 2001. In the year 2002, prior to contemplation of new Regulation in the University, 111 applica¬tions had been filed. Between 14.5.2002 and 11.10.2002 (when the Hon’ble Chancellor directed not to allow fresh registration of Ph.D. till new Regulations are framed and implemented) 305 appli¬cations were filed. 9. Undisputedly, by the time the ban order of the Hon’ble Chancellor was received, applications numbering 272 were pending consideration before the appropriate authority of the University for Ph.D. Registration by 11.10.2002. Out of such applications, the Hon’ble Chancellor allowed 23 cases pertaining to Post-Doc¬toral Research and 32 cases had been cleared by the Subject Research Committee, but rest of the applications were directed to be processed under new Regulations by the Hon’ble Chancellor, which is the bone of contention in the present set of writ peti¬tions. 10. In such view of the matter, the question that is necessary to be determined is as to whether the petitioners having applied for Ph.D. registration in accordance with the Regulations in force in correction slip 1167, had a vested right to be considered in accordance with the existing Regulations or are to be considered in accordance with the new Regulations which admittedly came into effect from 4.6.2003, introduced by way of correction slip number 1169. Neither in the counter filed by the University nor that filed by the Hon’ble Chancellor, it has been disclosed as to how many number of applications were either defective for which they entail rejection or how many of the applications have not complied with the objections, if any. More¬over, what were the objections and as to whether such objections were intimated to the candidates to rectify the same have not been disclosed. Undisputedly, the new Regulations under correc¬tion slip No.1169, which came into effect since 4.6.2003, has not provided any clause making it effective from a retrospective date, nor from the tenor of the Regulation it can be so inferred. Undisputedly, the new Regulations under correc¬tion slip No.1169, which came into effect since 4.6.2003, has not provided any clause making it effective from a retrospective date, nor from the tenor of the Regulation it can be so inferred. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Hon’ble Chancellor as well as the University is that for reasons indicat¬ed in the counter it was imperative and found necessary for amending the regulation since there were visible upsurge in number of applications for Ph.D. registration; in some cases, unscrupulous and manipulated practices were resorted to by the candidates. 11. Academic Council of the University under Section 12 of the Universities Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the ‘the Universi¬ties Act’) is vested with the power to make regulations relating to all matters which by such Act or the Statutes may be provided by Regulations besides prescribing therein course of studies and curricular. It shall have general control of teaching in the Col¬leges within the jurisdiction of the concerned University and shall be responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruc¬tion. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 thereof provides that the Academic Council shall have the power under Clause-(e) to make Regulations relating to courses, examinations and the conditions subject to which students shall be admitted to examinations for degrees of the University. Section-25 of the Universities Act speaks of Regulations and it contemplates that subject to the provisions of the Act and Statutes, the Academic Council may make Regulations providing for all or any of the matters enumerated therein. Sub-section 2 of Section -25 contemplates that Regula¬tions made shall come into force on such date as the Academic Council may specify in that behalf. Statute 23 of the Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990 prescribes powers of the Academ¬ic Council. Under Clause-(d) of the said Statute, the Academic Council is to frame Regulations in the matters specified in Section 12(2) (e) of the Act. 12. In the case at hand, the Academic Council of the University in Correction Slip No.1169 replaced the existing Regulation in Chapter LXIV governing Doctor of Philosophy, in Arts, Science, Commerce, Management, Education, Law, Agriculture, Engineering and Medicine Examinations under correction slip No.1167 with all amendments. Clause-14 of the new Regulation under correction slip No.1169 stipulates that the regulations shall come into force with effect from 4.6.2003. Clause-14 of the new Regulation under correction slip No.1169 stipulates that the regulations shall come into force with effect from 4.6.2003. In view of the specific provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 25, the Regulations made by the Academic Council of the University is to come into force on such date as the Academic Council may specify in that behalf and the Academic Council under Clause-14 of the new Regulation in correction slip No.1169 has fixed 4.6.2003 as the date from which the Regulation is to come into force, such Regulation has to be construed as having come into force from 4.6.2003 unless otherwise determined from its intention. 13. It is well settled principle of construction of a new statute, that in absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect like the law applicable to a claimant in litigation at the time when the Act was passed. In A.A. Calton v. The Director of Education and another, AIR 1983 S.C. 1143 , the apex Court, in a case, where proceedings for the selection for the post of Principal of an Intermediate College was pending before the Director of Education under Section 16 F of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, when the Act was amended taking away power of the Director to make appointment, held that the amending Act could not, in absence of words of necessary implication, be construed to take away the power of Director in the pending proceeding for selection. However, it is well settled principle of law that the pending proceedings, which are not affected, do not go beyond the principle that in every case language in the statute has to be examined to determine that the Legislature has squarely entertained to bring out the rules of the statue, even in the pending proceedings. Moreover, the Academic Council under Clause 14 of the new regulations in cor¬rection slip No.1169 has specifically fixed 4.6.2003 as the date from which such regulation shall come into force. In such view of the matter, the amended provision of the Regulation for Ph.D. Registration in Correction Slip No.1169 framed by the University cannot be construed to have retrospective application and take away vested right of the applicants for consideration of their applications. In such view of the matter, the amended provision of the Regulation for Ph.D. Registration in Correction Slip No.1169 framed by the University cannot be construed to have retrospective application and take away vested right of the applicants for consideration of their applications. The procedure prescribed under the old Regulation in correction slip No.1167, has to be applicable in respect of those valid applications pending under the old regulation. Howev¬er, the Hon’ble Chancellor of the University by order dt. 11.10.2002 had banned new registration for Ph.D. purportedly in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of the Orissa Uni¬versities Act and, therefore, applications received by 11.10.2002 have to be considered and processed under the old regulations and the candidates are to be governed under such regulation. If the rights and procedures are both altered by an amending or repeal¬ing statue, even if the rights accrued under the previous enact¬ment are saved, it would seem to be consequential that the old procedures are saved unless the new provision makes the new procedure applicable to old rights.It is a general rule of con¬struction that if rights and procedure are both altered but rights accrued under the repealed enactment are saved, then, in the absence of any intention to the contrary expressed or necessarily implied in the new statute,it will be proper to interpret the intention of the Legislature to be that the old procedure will subsist for the enforcement of the saved rights. The promulgation of an Amending Act or the rule cannot, without any express term take away from a part any right which might have vested in him under a prior rule. The notification dated 14.8.2003 issued by the University in Annexure-8, therefore, cannot be sustained in law so far as the present petitioners and such other similarly situated applicants are concerned and, therefore, the said noti¬fication is held to be in applicable to the petitioners. 14. In such view of the matter, the candidates, who had made valid applications for Ph.D. Registration complying with the required formalities in accordance with the prevailing Regulation contained in Correction Slip No.1167 till 11.10.2002 had a vested right for consideration of their applications under the prevail¬ing Regulation and they are to be governed under such regulation. 14. In such view of the matter, the candidates, who had made valid applications for Ph.D. Registration complying with the required formalities in accordance with the prevailing Regulation contained in Correction Slip No.1167 till 11.10.2002 had a vested right for consideration of their applications under the prevail¬ing Regulation and they are to be governed under such regulation. It is a different question, as to whether the applicants were eligible for Registration or not which has to be determined by the Subject Research Committee or Research Committee, as the case may be. It has also to be found out, as to whether the applica¬tions were in order and thus a valid application to be eligible for consideration. In the aforesaid premises, we direct the University to consider the applications of the petitioners and all such appli¬cations received by University by 11.10.2002 and if such applications were in order and valid applications, process such applications to consider the same in accordance with the Regula¬tion contained in Correction Slip No.1167 and take necessary decision thereon within three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the applications received after 11.10.2002 shall be considered and processed in terms of the new Regulation contained in Correction Slip No.1169. The writ petitions are thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. J. P. MISHRA, J. I agree. Petitions allowed.