JUDGMENT Hon'ble TATIA, J.— This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant-non-petitioner against the judgment dt.18.12.2007 passed in SBCWP No.265/2005 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent and directed the appellant-non-petitioner to accept the thesis of the petitioner and examine the same in accordance with law by the Research Board and proceed further, obviously to consider whether it is fit case for grant of PHD to the petitioner – respondent or not. 2. The petitioner, who was eligible to conduct research on a subject given by her was permitted by the appellant – University to conduct research on the subject under the supervision of Dr.PK Kapil vide order dated 25.8.1995, but with effect from 15.5.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Lecturer in the History on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and she was appointed as Lecturer in the Government Girls College, Sri Ganganagar on 6.11.1995. Admittedly, as per Ordinance 211 of the appellant University, the research scholar is required to reside in University for at least two years. According to the petitioner, she fell ill after joining at Sri Ganganagar and she came back to Jodhpur and during entire session, she could not join the duties. However, she joined the duties on 31.7.1996 at Sri Ganganagar and was transferred to Pali and since 1.8.1996 she was working at Government Bangad College, Pali. According to the petitioner, during period from 7.11.1995 to 31.7.1996 because of her sickness she remained at Jodhpur and there she was sick but yet she did her research work at Jodhpur for submitting PHD. According to the petitioner, even after her posting at Pali, during all holidays, may those holidays were festival holidays and vacations, she continued to work on the subject for completing her thesis. Therefore, one of the pleas of the petitioner is that she did reside at Jodhpur for requisite period of two years if days are counted on which she remained at Jodhpur in above circumstances. 3. Therefore, one of the pleas of the petitioner is that she did reside at Jodhpur for requisite period of two years if days are counted on which she remained at Jodhpur in above circumstances. 3. In addition to above plea, the petitioner's other plea is that since the petitioner was in service at Sri Ganganagar and at Pali and did not reside at Jodhpur in University area then the petitioner requested the respondent to grant her exemption from above condition of residing in University area by giving her benefit of Ordinance 211A on the premise that she was frequently coming to Jodhpur as her ancestral house is at Jodhpur, therefore, she may be granted relaxation under Ordinance 211A. 4. The petitioner has placed on record copies of the representations submitted by her collectively as Annex.2. According to the petitioner she was permitted to continue with PHD vide letter dated 18.5.1998 given by the College Education Department, Government of Rajasthan. The copy of this letter is Annex.3. The petitioner thereafter further submitted a representation to the University on 13.11.2000 where she gave details of the days on which she remained at Jodhpur and those days in total are 861 days during the year 1995 to 2000. However, in spite of petitioner's request for exemption under Ordinance 211A and her plea that she resided for 2 years at Jodhpur (in Uni-versity in terms of Ordinance 211), instead of accepting petitioner's request, the petitioner was granted one year's extension by the research board of the respondent-University with rider that she be asked to take one year leave from her employer to fulfil the requirement of Ordinance 211. This decision was communicated to the petitioner on 30.9.2000, copy of which is Annex.5. 5. The appellant submitted reply to the writ petition. So far as the fact as alleged by the writ petitioner are concerned, about her taking sick leave and living in the area of the University is concerned, those facts have been denied for want of knowledge. In the same way, it was also denied that she did her research work at Jodhpur when she was sick. So far as the fact as alleged by the writ petitioner are concerned, about her taking sick leave and living in the area of the University is concerned, those facts have been denied for want of knowledge. In the same way, it was also denied that she did her research work at Jodhpur when she was sick. It has been pointed out that as per Ordinance 211, the research scholar is required to reside in University for two years, obviously during this period such candidate should do the research work and as per Ordinance 211A, a candidate can be allowed to work outside the University area for a duration of not more than 6 months and that too for collection of material or field study or library work as directed by the Supervisor. It is also submitted that petitioner's application seeking extension for residing at Jodhpur in University area was placed before the Research Board Faculty of Arts Education and Social Sciences which was held on 13.1.2001 and in that meeting it was resolved by the research board that “....that every research scholar should complete a period of 2 years at stretch...”. So far as the case of Chhagan Lal to whom according to the petitioner indulgence was granted under Ordinance 211 is concerned, according to the appellant, his shortage was only for 3 months and looking to the facts of the case only some relaxation was granted, whereas, the detail facts about Madho Singh's PHD is concerned, that has not been furnished by the writ petitioner, therefore, adequate reply cannot be submitted. 6. Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition after taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already completed thesis work and submitted the same for consideration of research board and observed that in the opinion of the court that on account of special circumstances narrated by the petitioner in her representation Annex.4 dated 15.11.2005 and since she remained at Jodhpur for 861 days between 15.5.1995 to 29.10.2000, the respondent-University ought to have sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner for relaxation of condition of remaining in the University for a period of two years for doing research work. Because of the above reasons only, the writ petition was allowed by the Single Bench of this Court and direction was issued to the respondent – appellant to accept the thesis of the writ petitioner- respondent and examine the same in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that mere sympathy cannot help the petitioner and that too in a matter of research work by a student. It is also submitted that in the affairs of the University the court should not have interfered because of the reason that there are statutory provisions made by the Ordinance framed by the appellant – University, which are just and required conditions for research work because in the opinion of the experts body, research scholar is required to do the actual research work under the guidance of his guide and mere stay without work is not the purpose of Ordinance 211. It requires research work to be done while remaining in the University or in the institution approved by the University for a period of not less than 2 years from the date of commencement of the research work and this provision cannot be taken lightly looking to the nature of course, which is required to be done by research scholar to do the PHD. Not only this, the power of Vice-Chancellor is also limited only under Ordinance 211A by which the Vice-Chancellor of the University on the recommendation of the Supervisor may permit the candidate to work outside the University, ordinarily for a maximum duration of not more than six months (during the period residence required) for collection of material or field study or library work as directed by the Supervisor. Such is not the case of petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the same sympathetic view may be taken as the petitioner has already completed her research work and submitted her thesis work for consideration before the research board and it is also submitted that the Vice-Chancellor has more power than the power given under Ordinance 211A. 9. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear from the facts referred in detail above that the petitioner was permitted to undertake the research work vide communication dated 25.8.1995, which was made effective from 15.5.1995. 9. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear from the facts referred in detail above that the petitioner was permitted to undertake the research work vide communication dated 25.8.1995, which was made effective from 15.5.1995. The petitioner admittedly left her residence from the area of Jai Narayan Vyas University before completion of two years and she joined the services at Sri Ganganagar on 6th Nov., 1995 i.e., which is almost in 6 months' period only. She remained posted at Sri Ganganagar till 31st July, 1996 and, thereafter, she was transferred to the Government Bangad College, Pali w.e.f. 1.8.1996. Therefore, for all practical purpose she lived outside the area of University and if her plea is taken to be true that she fell sick and came back in a day from Shri Ganganagar to Jodhpur then for whole of the period when she lived in Jodhpur she was sick. However, no ailment has been disclosed by the petitioner much less to placing on record any proof for her sickness. The petitioner has placed on record the copies of the letters and first of which is dated 12.8.1996 wherein there is a reference of the University letters dated 25.8.1995 and 11.8.1996. In this letter, the petitioner conveyed that she joined the services at Sri Ganganagar on 6.11.1995 and she remained there only for one day and she came back to Jodhpur after joining service at Sri Ganganagar on next day only and she remained at Jodhpur till 31st July, 1996. Meaning thereby, according to the petitioner she was so sick that she was not in position to discharge her duties of her post from 7th Nov., 1995 to 30th July, 1996 i.e., for a period of about 7 months and in such a sickness when she was not fit to discharge her duties on job how she continued to do her research work, has not been explained, then on facts also, she could not have been treated as a candidate residing in University. 10. The petitioner also sought exemption vide letter dated 12.8.1996 under Ordinance 211A as she remained outside Jodhpur. Admittedly, no such permission was granted to the petitioner. 10. The petitioner also sought exemption vide letter dated 12.8.1996 under Ordinance 211A as she remained outside Jodhpur. Admittedly, no such permission was granted to the petitioner. In the next letter dated 9th July, 1998, she stated that her request for exemption under Ordinance 211A was rejected on the ground that she did not take prior permission and stated that she could not take prior permission because she was not aware of the rules. Therefore, it appears that petitioner's request for exemption under Ordinance 211A was rejected somewhere before 9th July, 1998 by the appellant-University and said rejection order has not been challenged nor the copy of that rejection order has not been placed on record by the petitioner – respondent. Then the petitioner again submitted her representation giving details of the days on which she remained at Jodhpur during festivals and holidays period including the period in which she said that she remained at Jodhpur due to her sickness, details of which are as under: - vof/k fnol 15-5-95 ls 5-11-95 rd 175 fnu 7-11-95 ls 30-7-96 rd 266 fnu vDVwcj uoEcj] 96 fnikoyh vodk'k ¼19 vDVwcj 96 ls 12 uoEcj 96 rd½ 25 fnu 14-5-97 ls 30-7-96 rd xzh"edkyhu vodk'k 61 fnu 5-10-97 ls 2-11-97 ¼fnikoyh vodk'k½ 29 fnu 7-5-98 ls 14-7-98 ¼xzh"edkyhu vodk'k½ 69 fnu 27-9-98 ls 22-10-98 ¼nhikoyh vodk'k½ 26 fnu 4-3-99 ls 31-3-99 ¼tks/kiqj esa fo-fi- vkeq[kkdj.k dk;ZØe½ 28 fnu 14-5-99 ls 14-7-99 ¼xzh"edkyhu vodk'k½ 60 fnu 15-7-99 ls 26-7-99 ¼,p-ih-,y- vodk'k½ 12 fnu 28-7-99 ls 2-8-99 ¼lh-,y- vodk'k½ 6 fnu 17-10-99 ls 12-11-99 rd ¼nhokoyh vodk'k½ 27 fnu 19-5- 2000 ls 22 -5-2000 vkSj 1-6-2000 ls 6-7-2000 ¼xzh"edkyhu vodk'k½ 40 fnu 6-8- 2000 ls 27 -5-2000 ¼tks/kiqj fo-fo- iqu'p;kZ dk;ZØe½ 22 fnu 15-10- 2000 ls 29 -10-2000 ¼nhikoyh vodk'k½ 15 fnu dqy ;ksx 861 fnu 11. It is strange that firstly, petitioner who was a research scholar took the plea that during the period of her sickness when she could not perform her duty of job, she did her research work. Then too the plea that on every day of holiday irrespective of nature of holiday including holidays of all days of 4 Deepawali festivals in different years and when she was on casual leave and privilege leave and on all days of summer holidays, she remained at Jodhpur and completed her research work. Then too the plea that on every day of holiday irrespective of nature of holiday including holidays of all days of 4 Deepawali festivals in different years and when she was on casual leave and privilege leave and on all days of summer holidays, she remained at Jodhpur and completed her research work. It appears that petitioner misunderstood the meaning of “candidate shall be required to be in residence in the University for a period of not less than two years”. The above contention is not that candidates should reside in the University only physically, in any condition – whether well and fit to study or candidate may be sick. If such is a position of a research scholar in doing work then hardly it is necessary to provide that the research scholar should obey certain guidelines as prescribed by the expert body of the University for doing research by remaining in residence in University for 2 years. The petitioner also gave details of the days of five years starting from 15.5.1995 to 29.10.2000 so as to project that she remained at Jodhpur for 861 days. How such a long period of 5 years was relevant when petitioner was supposed to complete her research work in 2 years as directed by the research board, is also not explained by the writ petitioner, but it appears that petitioner has projected this figure of 861 days only to impress the court. 12. Not only this on 30th Sept., 2000, the appellant – University conveyed to the writ petitioner that the research board resolved on the recommendation of Dr. PK Kapil to grant one year extension for doing her research work subject to condition that the petitioner would be asked to take one year leave from her employer to fulfil the requirement of Ordinance 211. The research board of the appellant – University vide communication dated 22.2.2001 again emphasized that research board unanimously resolved that every research scholar should complete the research work in a period of 2 years at stretch. The research board of the appellant – University vide communication dated 22.2.2001 again emphasized that research board unanimously resolved that every research scholar should complete the research work in a period of 2 years at stretch. Not only petitioner being research scholar had knowledge of the fact that if she wants to undertake research for PHD, she will have to stay in University for at least two years but she was made aware to this fact and was directed to take leave for one year but she did not complied with the directions for further period of about more than four years from 2001. 13. It is also provided in Ordinance 211 that in special cases, the period can be reduced by the Vice-Chancellor upto the extent of period, the candidate has worked in another university subject to maximum of one year if the candidate had been duly registered in another university and subsequently migrated to the appellant – University. Admittedly, the petitioner- respondent did not seek such permission from the Vice-Chancellor. 14. As per the Ordinance 211A, the Vice-Chancellor has been authorized to permit research scholar to work outside the University, but for these conditions have been prescribed in Ordinance 211A itself that this benefit can be for a maximum duration of not more than 6 months and that too, for collection of material or field study or library work and further this benefit can be given only if the Supervisor has directed to do so. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that she was directed by her Supervisor to reside outside the University for collection of material or field study or library work, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given benefit under Ordinance 211A much less to the period for which she is claiming the benefit. 15. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that she was directed by her Supervisor to reside outside the University for collection of material or field study or library work, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given benefit under Ordinance 211A much less to the period for which she is claiming the benefit. 15. It appears that these relevant facts were not considered by the learned Single Bench of this Court and merely on the basis of this misplaced sympathy in favour of the petitioner that too on the ground that she has completed her thesis, allowed the writ petition virtually asking the respondent – University/Vice-Chancellor of the University to take into account the 861 days as the days on which the petitioner undertook her research work and further there is no consideration of the decision of the research board dated 30th Sept., 2000 whereby the petitioner was directed to complete her research work after taking one year's leave from her employer to fulfil the requirement of Ordinance 211 and the resolution of the research board asking the writ petitioner to complete her research work within a period of 2 years at stretch. These decisions of the year 2000 and 2001 having not been challenged for good long 5 years as the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner only in the year 2005, after delay of more than 5 years from above decisions. It is settled law that the courts normally should not interfere in the affairs of the educational institutions, particularly in the internal matters of the University relating to requirement of period prescribed for studies and more particularly in a matter where issue of higher education involved where the decision of the expert laying down the requisite study and the manner in which study is to be completed should prevail so as to allow the universities to maintain their standard of education. In such matters, misplaced sympathy may destroy the University's standard as well as it may give a bad name to University. 16. In view of the above reasons, this appeal deserves to be allowed, hence allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Bench dated 18.12.2007 is set aside and the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.