Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 280 (JK)

KAPILA RAINA v. STATE OF J&K

2016-05-19

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. This batch of eight writ petitions comprises of five petitions filed by Dr. Kapila Raina (hereinafter to be referred as the first petitioner') and three by Dr. Rachna Sabharwal (hereinafter to be referred as the 'second petitioner'). Both the petitioners are working as Lecturers in the Department of Biochemistry in the Government Medical College, Jammu (for short the GMC, Jammu). 2. The first petitioner is a post graduate in Biochemistry. She has been appointed as Lecturer, Biochemistry in the GMC, Jammu vide Government Order No. 332-HME of 2010 dated 14.06.2010. After her appointment as Lecturer and while performing duties as such, she applied to the Jaipur National University, Jaipur (hereinafter the JNU, Jaipur) for admission to Ph.D. programme for undergoing Ph.D. course in Biochemistry. The JNU, Jaipur called her for the interview that was to be held on 04.03.2011 asking her to bring following documents with her: "(i) Original and Attested Photocopies of all educational Certificates and Degrees from High School to Master's Degree courses. (ii) Certificate of teaching experience or Professional experience, if any. (iii) In case of a Ph.D. candidate requiring Lab Facilities, certificate of permission from the host institution to provide the needed lab facilities." 3. On a written request of the first petitioner submitted on 01.03.2011, the Principal of the GMC, Jammu on the same day vide his No. JMC/GD/PF/6260 dated 01.03.2011 granted her permission for utilizing lab facility in the College for pursuing her Ph.D. course. This seems to have been done by the Principal on the recommendation of the Head of the Department(HGD) of the Biochemistry. The permission so granted in substance reads : "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Certified that Mrs. Kapila Raina is working as Lecturer in Biochemistry Department is permitted to utilize Lab Facility during pursuing Ph.D. in Biochemistry in this institution. This is in reference to HOD Biochemistry vide Endorsement No. GMC/Bio/2011/317 dated 01.03.2011. Sd/- (Dr. Rajinder Singh) Principal & Dean" 4. On 05.03.2011 the HOD of the Biochemistry, Department of the GMC, Jammu, Dr. Amarjit Singh Bhatia, issued a 'consent letter' agreeing and accepting to be co-guide of the first petitioner in conducting her research work in the GMC, Jammu on the topic 'to evaluate the association of risk factors and inflammation sensitive plasma proteins (ISP) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in people of Jammu and Kashmir'. Amarjit Singh Bhatia, issued a 'consent letter' agreeing and accepting to be co-guide of the first petitioner in conducting her research work in the GMC, Jammu on the topic 'to evaluate the association of risk factors and inflammation sensitive plasma proteins (ISP) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in people of Jammu and Kashmir'. This letter in substance reads : "Consent Letter" I, Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, M.D. (Biochemistry) presently working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Biochemistry Government Medical College, Jammu. I have accepted to be the co-guide of Kapila Raina in conducting her research work on the topic "TO EVALUATE THE ASSOCIATION OF RISK FACTORS AND INFLAMMATION SENSITIVE PLASMA PROTEINS (ISP) FOR ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFRACTION (AMI) IN PEOPLE, OF JAMMU DIVISION". She will be provided all required help in conducting her research work." Sd/- (Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia) Head Department of Biochemistry Govt. Medical College of Jammu" 5. First petitioner claims to have got admission and enrolled .for Ph.D. programme with the JNU, Jaipur on 15.06.2011. After securing the admission, first petitioner submitted an application dated 06.08.2011 to the Principal of the GMC, Jammu seeking grant of permission for undergoing the Ph.D. course. In the meantime, the second petitioner, who is M.D. in Biochemistry, was also appointed as Lecturer, Biochemistry in the GMC, Jammu in March, 2011, vide Government order No. 171-HME of 2011 dated 11.03.2011. She seems to have complained to the Government against the first petitioner for her pursuing Ph.D. course during the probation period of her service as Lecturer in the GMC, Jammu without obtaining No Objection Certificate (NGC) from the Government. The Administrative Department vide its communication dated 17.08.2011 asked the Principal of the GMC to furnish his complete report in the matter. On the other hand the Principal by his communication dated 18.08.2011 submitted the application of the first petitioner dated 06.08.2011 seeking the NGC to the Administrative Department with his recommendations that her case may be considered on its own merit and eligibility basis. The Principal vide his communication dated 28.09.2011 furnished his response to the communication dated 17.08.2011 of the Administrative Department stating that the first petitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide the Government Order dated 14.06.2011, she is on probation for a period two years and that she has applied for permission to pursue Ph.D. course. The Principal vide his communication dated 28.09.2011 furnished his response to the communication dated 17.08.2011 of the Administrative Department stating that the first petitioner was appointed as Lecturer vide the Government Order dated 14.06.2011, she is on probation for a period two years and that she has applied for permission to pursue Ph.D. course. The Government (Administrative Department) vide its communication No. ME-Gaz-192/2011 dated 24.11.2011 intimated the Principal in reference to his communication dated 28.09.2011 that 'during the probation period of the doctors/Para Medical Staff the permission for higher studies shall not be granted in their favour'. On 11.01.2012, the Principal vide his No. JMC/ESTT/GD/PF/78 withdrew the lab facility granted by him to the first petitioner with immediate effect. Pursuant to and consequent upon refusal of permission for 'higher studies' to her during her probation period and withdrawal of lab facility, the JNU, Jaipur send a communication dated 15.03.2012 to the first petitioner asking her to submit NOC and Lab Utilization Certificate, under provisions of Ph.D. regulations latest by March end further warning her that in case of failure her admission shall cancel. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the communication of the Administrative Department dated 24.11.2011 (supra), whereby the permission/NOC as sought by her was refused and communication dated 11.01.2012(supra) of the Principal, GMC, Jammu, whereby the lab facility provided to her was withdrawn, the first petitioner has filed SWP No. 695/2012 in this Court. She seeks writ of certiorari quashing both these communications. She also seeks quashing of communication dated 15.03.2012 addressed to her by the JNU, Jaipur. Besides, she seeks writ of mandamus directing the Government (Administrative Department) and the Principal, GMC, Jammu to grant the NOC to her for undergoing Ph.D. in Biochemistry. This Court as interim measure vide order dated 29.03.2012 has stayed both these communications with a direction to the Principal, GMC, Jammu to permit the first petitioner to utilize the lab facility. To this writ petition, the Administrative Department, the Principal, GMC and the HOD, Biochemistry, GMC (respondents 1, 2 and 3) on one hand and the second petitioner (respondent No. 5) on the other have filed objections. The JNU, Jaipur (respondent No. 4) even though represented by a counsel before this Court has not filed its response. 7. To this writ petition, the Administrative Department, the Principal, GMC and the HOD, Biochemistry, GMC (respondents 1, 2 and 3) on one hand and the second petitioner (respondent No. 5) on the other have filed objections. The JNU, Jaipur (respondent No. 4) even though represented by a counsel before this Court has not filed its response. 7. Ignoring the refusal to grant of permission vide its communication dated 24.11.2011 (supra) as also the pendency of writ petition SWP No. 695 / 2012 in this regard, the Government (Administrative Department) vide its No. ME-Gaz-309/2011 dated 05.04.2013 accorded such permission in favour of the first petitioner subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Not only that, by a subsequent communication No. ME-Gaz-309/2011 dated 20.09.2013 the Administrative Department gave retrospective effect to this permission from 15.06.2011. These two communications in their substance read: "The Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu. NO:- ME-Gaz-309/2011 Dated:- 05.04.2013 Sub:- Permission for pursuing the Phd as part time. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. JMC/GD/ES-1 / 1274 dated 16.01.2013 regarding the subject cited above and to convey the permission in favour of Mrs. Kapila Raina, Lecturer Biochemistry Government Medical College, Jammu for undergoing PH.D course. The permission, however, would be subject to the following conditions :- a. She will pursue her research work as a part-time scholar. b. She shall not undertake research work during the office hours. c. She has to bear the expenses on account of chemicals etc to be used during her studies. d. She will submit the research report to the Government on its finalization. e. Ph.D. should be in accordance with policy as laid down vide Government Order No. 252-HE of 2012 dated 30.05.2012, if applicable. f. The NGC would prospective effect. Any lapses on these accounts shall tantamount to withdrawal of NGC. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. Naseem Javaid Chowdhary) KAS Deputy Secretary to Government Health & Medical Education Deptt" "The Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu. No:- ME-Gaz-309/2011 Dated:- 20.09.2013 Subject:- Request for withdrawal of No Objection Certificate given in favour of Mrs. Kapila Raina Lecturer Biochemistry GMC, Jammu Sir, In continuation to letter No. ME-Gaz-309-2011 dated 05.04.2013 regarding the subject cited above and to convey the approval of Administrative Department to treat the date of NGC w.e.f. 15.06.2011, instead of 05.04.2013, in favour of Mrs. Kapila Raina. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Additional Secretary to Government) Health & Medical Education Department" 8. Kapila Raina Lecturer Biochemistry GMC, Jammu Sir, In continuation to letter No. ME-Gaz-309-2011 dated 05.04.2013 regarding the subject cited above and to convey the approval of Administrative Department to treat the date of NGC w.e.f. 15.06.2011, instead of 05.04.2013, in favour of Mrs. Kapila Raina. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Additional Secretary to Government) Health & Medical Education Department" 8. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of permission/NOC vide communication dated 05.04.2013(supra) and giving it retrospective effect vide communication dated 20.09.2013(supra), the second petitioner has filed SWP No. 2036/2013 seeking writ of certiorari quashing both these communications. The Administrative Department and the Principal, GMC (respondents 1 and 2) on one hand and the first petitioner (respondent No. 3) on the other have resisted this writ petition by filing objections. This Court vide order dated 24.09.2013 as interim measure has kept the communication dated 20.09.2013 in abeyance to the extent it gives retrospective effect to the permission dated 05.04.2013 9. The matter at the level of the Government (Administrative Department), however, did not come to end by giving the retrospective permission/NGC to the first petitioner. Notwithstanding that matter in this regard was sub judice in SWP No. 2036/2013, the Administrative Department vide its No. ME/Gaz/309/2011 dated 30.12.2013 withdrew the retrospective effect of the permission/NGC by withdrawing communication dated 20.09.2013. This is stated to have been done after re-examining the matter. The first petitioner, however, alleges that this was done under pressure of State Vigilance Commission managed by the second petitioner. Pursuant to and consequent upon this withdrawal, the JNU, Jaipur issued notice dated 26.03.2014 to the first petitioner asking her to show cause as to why her registration in the Ph. D. course from 15.06.2011 be not terminated. The communication dated 30.12.2013 in its substance reads: "The Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu. NG:- ME-Gaz-309/2011 Dated:- 30.12.2013 Sub:- Permission for pursuing the Ph.D as part time scholar in favour of Mrs. Kapila Raina. Madam, I am directed to refer you to the subject noted above and to say that the matter has been re-examined; and it has been decided to withdraw the approval ante-dating the NGC (to 15-06-2011) issued in favour of Mrs. Kapila Raina. Therefore, this deptt. Letter No. ME-Gaz-309/2011 dated 20-09-2013 shall and shall always be deemed to have been withdrawn. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to Government" 10. Kapila Raina. Therefore, this deptt. Letter No. ME-Gaz-309/2011 dated 20-09-2013 shall and shall always be deemed to have been withdrawn. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to Government" 10. Feeling aggrieved by the withdrawal of the retrospective effect given to the permission/NGC by the Government (Administrative Department) and the notice by the JNU, Jaipur, the first petitioner has filed SWP No. 985/ 2014 seeking writ of certiorari quashing the communication as well as the notice. In this writ petition, this Court vide order dated 10.06.2014 as interim measure has directed status quo with respect to communication dated 26.03.2014. SWP No. 695/2012. SWP No. 2036/ 2013 and 985/2014 11. It may be reiterated precisely that in SWP No. 695/2012 considered along with SWP No. 985/2014, the first petitioner primarily assails the refusal/ cancellation of the grant of permission/ NGC in her favour to undergo Ph.D. course from JNU, Jaipur by the Government (Administrative Department) and withdrawal of lab facility granted by the Principal, GMC, Jammu. On the other hand, in SWP No. 2036/2013, the second petitioner primarily assails and opposes the grant of such permission/NGC and lab facility. 12. It is worthwhile to notice and underline before proceeding ahead as to what brings the two petitioners on crossroads when both of them are equally placed as Lecturers in the same Department of the same Medical College, that is the GMC, Jammu. This is evident from the pleadings and was amply demonstrated at Bar through their submissions by the learned counsel for both the petitioners. The reason is only the self-interest of each of them in future progression in career. The first petitioner has entered service as Lecturer as a non medical person, that is, on the basis of her Master's degree in Biochemistry, whereas the second petitioner has entered the service as a medical person, that is, on the basis of her MD in Biochemistry. Under the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979, a Lecturer from non medical side is eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Professor provided he/she is Ph.D. in Biochemistry'. The first petitioner can be promoted as Assistant Professor only after she acquires Ph.D. and if she does not, the second petitioner will steal march over her even if she is junior to the former. On the other hand if she acquires Ph. The first petitioner can be promoted as Assistant Professor only after she acquires Ph.D. and if she does not, the second petitioner will steal march over her even if she is junior to the former. On the other hand if she acquires Ph. D. degree, her promotion may delay the promotion of second petitioner and there lies the problem. 13. The first petitioner defends the grant of the permission/NGC to him and assails the earlier refusal in this regard vide communication dated 24.11.2011 of the Administrative Department as also the withdrawal of retrospective effect to the permission granted vide communication dated 20.09.2013 on the ground that no study leave was required to be availed by her in terms of Rule 61 of the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979(for short the Leave Rules) as she had to undergo Ph.D. programme, which is a research programme involving research work only, at the GMC, Jammu under the guidance of the HGD of the Department of Biochemistry of the same College and there is no bar under the Leave Rules to the grant of such a permission or NOC in this regard during the probation period of a Government servant. It is contended that 'in order to complete her Ph.D. programme the petitioner had not to join any regular classes and Ph.D. bearing a research in itself, which could be done by the petitioner in Govt. Medical College, Jammu itself provided the said institution issues a certificate of using lab facility for research work.' It is alleged that the initial refusal to grant of permission/NOC was made by the Administrative Department at the behest of the second petitioner. It is contended also that even the retrospective permission granted at the later stage has been withdrawn vide communication dated 30.12.2013 at the behest of the second petitioner which is bad in law also for the reason that the withdrawal has been made without notice to and hearing the her in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 14. The second petitioner assails the grant of permission/NOC to the first petitioner on various grounds. It is contended that no Government servant during probation period of his service can go for higher studies but the first petitioner illegally joined the JNU, Jaipur without any permission/NOC. 14. The second petitioner assails the grant of permission/NOC to the first petitioner on various grounds. It is contended that no Government servant during probation period of his service can go for higher studies but the first petitioner illegally joined the JNU, Jaipur without any permission/NOC. Likewise, granting permission to use lab facility of GMC, Jammu is illegal for the reason that the Biochemistry laboratory of GMC, which operates under aegis of Jammu University, cannot be used for research work for a programme of JNU, Jaipur. It is contended that illegality has been committed by issuing the permission/ NOC during the probationary period. The second petitioner also questions the permissibility and validity of the Ph.D. course undertaken by the first petitioner on the ground that under the UGC norms, the JNU, Jaipur can conduct the Ph.D. in a regular mode at its main campus at Jaipur only and the novel method of undergoing such a course by using the lab of the GMC, Jammu was illegal. On this score also the second petitioner questions the issuance of permission/NOC by the State Government and lab facility by the Principal, GMC Jammu. The grant of lab facility by the Principal to the first petitioner is assailed also on the ground that the University of Jammu has not recognised the lab of the Department of Biochemistry, GMC, Jammu for Ph.D. research. 15. In regard to permissibility and validity of the Ph.D. course of the nature as perused by her, the clear stand of the first petitioner in her reply in SWP No. 2036/2013 is that under the University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for Award of M. Phil/ Ph.D. degree), Regulations, 2009, (hereinafter to be referred as the Regulations of 2009) any in-service candidate can join Ph.D. while carrying out his research work during discharge of his/her official duties (paragraph 10). Her stand further is that the JNU, Jaipur has been created under Rajasthan Private Universities Act, 2005 and under that Act teachers working in colleges and universities can join research work in Ph.D. course while discharging their duties with their employer and the said candidate has to submit his synopsis and thesis and appear for interview as and when required and is not required to attend the classes regularly (paragraph 13). The clear stand of first petitioner is that she has sought admission within the campus of Jaipur National University and a candidate can undertake Research work while discharging his duties at a place other than that University provided the research facilities are available, where such candidate is discharging his/her duties. 16. The first petitioner has quoted instances of three Doctors, namely. Dr. K.L. Gupta, Dr. Virjee Charangu and Dr. D.S. Jamwal, who while working as lecturers had completed their Ph.D. course by utilizing Biochemistry lab of GMC, Jammu without having obtained NGC from the Government. In addition, she has also quoted the case of one Roohi Ashraf, Lecturer, Department of Biochemistry, GMC, Srinagar, who according to her was similarly permitted to undertake Ph.D. course of NIMS University, Jaipur. 17. A few facts, which, criss-cross various issues involved in these writ petitions have been noticed from the pleadings of the contesting parties, that is, the first petitioner and the second petitioner; I. The first petitioner. Dr. Kapila Raina, has been appointed as lecturer. Biochemistry, on 14.06.2010 and was still on probation when she secured admission for Ph.D. course in JNU, Jaipur on 15.06.2011. II. The first petitioner claims to have been granted admission for undergoing Ph.D. course by the JNU, Jaipur. The research work was to be performed by her in the Biochemistry lab of the GMC, Jammu under the guidance of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, HGD, Biochemistry, who had consented to be her co-guide and that III. She was not required to attend the campus of the JNU at Jaipur or to avail any leave for pursuing her Ph.D. course but for presentation of her thesis/ dissertation and for appearing for the interview as and when required. 18. The issues arising for determination in these writ petitions primarily are: a. Was it required for the first petitioner to obtain prior permission/NGC from the State Government (Administrative Department) for undergoing aforementioned Ph.D. course? b. Whether undergoing Ph.D. course in the manner as stated by the first petitioner is permissible and valid under the Regulations of 2009? and c. Whether the Government (Administrative Department) is bound to grant the permission/NOC and the Principal GMC, Jammu is bound to grant lab facility as sought by the first petitioner? 19. b. Whether undergoing Ph.D. course in the manner as stated by the first petitioner is permissible and valid under the Regulations of 2009? and c. Whether the Government (Administrative Department) is bound to grant the permission/NOC and the Principal GMC, Jammu is bound to grant lab facility as sought by the first petitioner? 19. It needs to be stated that determination of the issues involved in these writ petitions would have been made easy had the Government (Administrative Department), the Principal, GMC, Jammu and the HOD, Biochemistry, GMC Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 respectively) come forward with their stands better than what has been put forth vide their reply to these writ petitions. The task would have been made easier had the JNU, Jaipur, which has been impleaded as respondent in the petitions filed by the first petitioners, come forward by filing its reply explaining the mode and methodology of the Ph.D. programme allowed by them to the first petitioner for undergoing the Ph.D. course. 20. The stand of respondent No. 1 respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 in their joint reply to SWP No. 695/2012, briefly, is that the first petitioner had not completed her probation which is mandatory for allowing a Government servant to go for higher studies. Similar stand has been taken by the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 in SWP No. 985/2014. No stand, however, has been taken in SWP No. 2036/2013 filed by the second petitioner. Issue 'a' 21. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned counsel for the second petitioner, would say that under the Service Rules permission or leave cannot be granted to a probationer for undergoing higher studies. Without, however, quoting any rule in this regard, Mr. Sawhney placed reliance on order No. SIC-J/Complaint/ 39/2010 dated 16.03.2011 passed by State Information Commissioner, J&K in an appeal wherein reference has been made to a reply given by the PIG to the effect that 'every employee prior to proceeding for further studies is required to seek permission from the concerned Department as per Rules provided under Leave Rules, J&K Civil Services Leave Rules, 1979.' Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the first petitioner, on the other hand would say that Service Rules in the State of Jammu and Kashmir do not require any permission to be obtained or granted for undergoing higher or further studies by a Government servant though he will have to apply for study leave if such studies involve his absence from duty. The first petitioner was not required to attend any regular course at JNU, Jaipur so pursuing the Ph.D. course by her did not involve any absence from duty and no permission on that score was required. Learned counsel in addition submitted that Ph.D. is a research course only and not higher studies so on that score also no permission from the State Government was required. 22. Service Rules applicable to Government servants in the State of Jammu and Kashmir neither bar nor impose any restriction in undergoing further/higher studies by a Government servant, confirmed or on deputation. No law or rule even mandates obtaining of permission or NOC from Government/ employer by a Government servant for pursuing further or higher studies as long as doing so does not involve his absence from duty or does not affect or come in the way of discharge of his official functions. Position, however, would be different if the further/higher studies are to be undergone by attending a regular course in an educational institution in or outside the country. In that case the Government servant will have to apply for study leave in terms of Rules 61 to 73 comprised in Chapter VI of the Leave Rules, which lay down the conditions for granting such leave. It is sub-rule (4) of Rule 61 that in its clause (i) provides that ordinarily study leave shall not be granted to a Government servant who has rendered less than five years service under the Government. Probationary period of a Government servant under Rule 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 extends up to two years. The correct legal position, therefore, is that, whereas no Government servant is required to obtain permission or NGC for pursuing higher or further studies but the Government servant will have to obtain study leave to avoid consequences of absence without leave, if such studies are to be undergone by attending a regular course in or outside the country entailing absence from duty. In this view of the matter plea of the first petitioner that a Ph.D. course is a research work only and not higher studies loses any importance in context of the question involved in these petitions. If the Ph.D. programme involves attending a regular course and absence from duty for the full course or a part of it, the Government servant will have to obtain study leave for that period but no NGC/permission would be required. 23. I may, however, hasten to add that aforementioned is the legal position under General Service Rules. A University, Institution or College registering or granting admission to a Government servant for higher studies or Ph.D. programme, whether that entails absence from duty or not, however, is not barred from laying down a condition of obtaining permission or NGC from the Government or employer of the student/ research scholar as is said to have been done by the JNU, Jaipur in this case. It is evident that the JNU, Jaipur has asked the first petitioner to submit the NGC and vide impugned communication dated 26.03.2014 has issued her notice to show cause as to why her registration in Ph.D. be not terminated due to withdrawal of the retrospective effect of the NGC granted to her. In that the JNU, Jaipur has mentioned that 'as per University norms, a candidate pursuing Ph.D. programme necessarily has to hold a valid NGC from the concerned State Government/Institution for entire duration of the Ph.D. course.' The question thus remains whether in the given facts and circumstances the Administrative Department of the first petitioner or the Principal, GMC, Jammu is obliged to issue the NGC to the first petitioner or not? The validity of the programme offered by the JNU, Jaipur to the first petitioner would be an important factor to be taken into consideration in determining this question. Issue (b) and (c) 24. The second petitioner has questioned the validity of the mode and methodology of the Ph.D. Programme said to have been allowed by the JNU, University to the first petitioner for undergoing the Ph.D. course on the anvil of the Regulations of 2009. Issue (b) and (c) 24. The second petitioner has questioned the validity of the mode and methodology of the Ph.D. Programme said to have been allowed by the JNU, University to the first petitioner for undergoing the Ph.D. course on the anvil of the Regulations of 2009. Determination of this question will lead to determination of the related question as to whether the Government (Administrative Department)/ respondent No. 1 was obliged to grant the permission/NOC sought by the first petitioner and respondent No. 2 was obliged to grant permission to avail the lab facility and withdrawal thereof is illegal. 25. It may be recapitulated that first petitioner, who is and at the relevant time was holding the post of Lecturer in GMC, Jammu, claims to have been granted admission to Ph.D. course by the JNU, Jaipur. She states that she would be performing her research work on the topic "Multi-marker paradigm studies for Risk and Assessment of acute myocardial infarction in people of Jammu division" at GMC, Jammu under the guidance of Dr. Bhatia, the HOD of Biochemistry Department/respondent No.3, who has consented to be her co-guide, in the laboratory of the said Department and would be availing the leave for the purpose of presenting her dissertation. It is contended that under the Regulations of 2009, any in-service candidate can join Ph.D. programme by carrying out his research work during discharge of his/ her official duty. 26. It has been noticed with curiosity as also with concern that in none of the writ petitions filed by the first petitioner she has produced the admission letter issued by the JNU, Jaipur, whereby admission to Ph.D. course has been granted to her or any other document evidencing the mode and methodology' in which the course and the research work was to be performed. She has produced only an undated communication addressed to her by the Registrar of the said university informing her that she on the basis of the written test has been found eligible to appear for interview and copies of two receipts, both dated 15.06.2011, issued by the said University in lieu of admission/tuition fee amounting to Rs.70,000/- deposited by her towards admission to Ph.D. course in the Department of Life Science of the said University. The petitions filed by her thus san any material to explain the mode and methodology of the programme offered to her by the JNU, Jaipur in particular as to which part and how much of the course was to be undertaken in the university campus at Jaipur, and more particularly, to show that she was permitted to perform the research work in the Biochemistry lab of GMC, Jammu. 27. Another aspect, which is significant and needs to be underlined is that the HOD, Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia/respondent No. 3 had vide his 'acceptance letter' dated 05.03.2011 accepted to be her co-guide in conducting her research work on the topic named in the 'acceptance letter'. The first petitioner, however, has not stated in the petition as to who the main guide/supervisor provided to her by the JNU, Jaipur was if Dr. Bhatia was the co-guide. It is clear from first petitioner's own stand that Dr. Bhatia had accepted to be her co-guide on 05.03.2011, that is, even prior to the grant of admission on 15.06.2011 but it is neither clear nor evident as under whose authority Dr. Bhatia had agreed to be her co-guide. In any case the communication, whereby she was called for interview does not show that she was required also to produce an acceptance letter from a faculty member of GMC, Jammu, much less Dr. Bhatia, to act as her co-guide. What can, thus, be inferred is that Dr. Bhatia had offered himself to be the co-guide of the petitioner in her research work either voluntarily of his own or on the request of the first petitioner. It however, has not been disclosed nor there is any material on record to ascertain as to who had selected or allocated to the first petitioner the topic and how the name of the topic was mentioned in his acceptance letter by Dr. Bhatia at pre-admission stage. 28. The precise question thus arising is, whether the Ph.D. programme offered by the JNU, Jaipur to the first petitioner allowing her to perform the whole research work outside its campus in a laboratory of GMC, Jammu in the State of Jammu and Kashmir under the guidance of a co-guide, who neither is the faculty member of nor was assigned to the first petitioner by that University subscribes to the standards and procedure provided under the Regulations of 2009? 29. 29. The Parliament has enacted the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (for short the UGC Act), as per its preamble, to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in Universities and for that purpose to establish a University Grants Commission (for short the UGC). The UGC Act applies to all the Universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act and any such institution as may be recognised by the UGC in terms of the Regulations made in this behalf under the said Act. Prior to 2009, there was no rule prescribing procedure for admission and award of degrees in Ph.D. and M.Phil courses offered by the Universities and Institutions governed by the UGC Act. In the year 2009, the UGC in exercise of powers conferred by clauses (e) and (g) of sub section (1) of section 26 of UGC Act framed the Regulations of 2009. These Regulations provide for the minimum standards and procedure for admission to and award of Ph.D. and M.Phil degree by the Universities and Institution covered under the UGC Act and working under the control of the UGC. It is admitted ground of both the parties that the JNU, Jaipur has been established under the Rajasthan Private Universities Act, 2005. It is not disputed, that the Ph.D./M.Phil programmes offered and conducted by this University must subscribe to the standards and procedure laid down under the Regulation of 2009. As the Regulations of 2009 lay down the minimum standards and procedure for offering and conducting such programmes, it would not be permissible for a university to go below, deviate from or bend these Regulations or allow a procedure which does not subscribe to these Regulations, though it may be possible to do even better than that. 30. Some important features of the Regulations of 2009, which are relevant, have been noticed. Regulation 5 unequivocally prohibits M. Phil or Ph.D. through distance education mode. Regulation 6 mandates that every University, Institution or College to which these rules apply 'shall lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognised as research supervisor both for M.Phil and Ph.D. programmes'. Regulation 12 provides for allocation of supervisor. Regulation 5 unequivocally prohibits M. Phil or Ph.D. through distance education mode. Regulation 6 mandates that every University, Institution or College to which these rules apply 'shall lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognised as research supervisor both for M.Phil and Ph.D. programmes'. Regulation 12 provides for allocation of supervisor. It reads: "The allocation of the supervisor for a selected student shall be decided by the Department in a formal manner depending on the number of student per faculty member, the available specialization amount the faculty supervisors, and the research interest of the student as indicated during interview by the student. The allotment/allocation of supervisor shall not be left to the individual student or teacher." (underlining by me) 31. Regulation 13 provides for 'course work' for a minimum period of one semester (i.e. six months) which must include course on 'research methodology'. Under Regulation 14 a research scholar after satisfactory completion of the course work and 'research methodology' shall undertake research work and produce a draft thesis within reasonable time as may be stipulated by the concerned University, College/Institution. It is the second paragraph of Regulation 13, which, in case of necessity, permits 'course work' to be carried out by a candidate in 'sister Department/institute either within or outside the University' for which due credit will be given to him. 32. What is clear from a plain and careful reading of the Regulations of 2009 is that a University, Institution or College offering Ph.D./M.Phil courses will have to recognize and designate its faculty members to act as research supervisors for every department in which such programme is to be offered. The allocation of a supervisor to a research scholar shall be decided by the concerned department of the University, Institution or College which has granted admission for the course and shall not be left to the choice of individual student or the supervisor. Course outside the campus of the said University, if found necessary, is permissible only to the extent of 'course work' of six months and that too in a 'sister department/Institute' of the same University. 33. The Regulations of 2009 do not specifically provide for a co-supervisor/ co-guide for a research scholar. Providing a co-supervisor, however, would not be impermissible because, as pointed out above. 33. The Regulations of 2009 do not specifically provide for a co-supervisor/ co-guide for a research scholar. Providing a co-supervisor, however, would not be impermissible because, as pointed out above. Regulations of 2009 provide for maintaining the minimum standards so, while it is imperative to provide one supervisor to a research scholar, it may not be wrong if in a case a co-supervisor is also provided. There is no scope for providing or allowing a supervisor or co-supervisor other than the one recognised under Regulation 6 and in no case a faculty member of a University/ Institution other than the one which has granted the admission for the course. Voluntary offer by faculty member of a University/Institution to act as supervisor or co-supervisor of a research scholar of another University/Institution or selection of such a supervisor or co-supervisor by the research scholar himself is totally contrary and violative of the Regulations of 2009. Any Ph.D./M.Phil degree awarded on the basis of the research work performed under the guidance of such a supervisor or co-supervisor would be invalid being violation of the Regulations of 2009. 34. Likewise, choosing by a research scholar or allowing him a University, institution or College for performing research work other than the one which has given the admission is contrary to the Regulations of 2009. Off-campus course is not contemplated under the Regulation except to the extent of the 'course work' in a sister departments or institute of the same University under Regulation 13. The Ph.D. programme offered by a University that allows off campus research under the guidance of a person not assigned by that University as supervisor is contrary to the Regulations of 2009 and cannot be held valid. In no case a Ph.D./M.Phil programme that allows entire research work to be performed in a lab of a college or institute falling outside the territorial jurisdiction of the university having offered the programme is permissible under Regulations of 2009. Such a programme would be no less than out sourcing of the programme, which not only de-hors the Regulations of 2009 but is illegal also. 35. As noticed above, the first petitioner has not produced the admission letter or any other document whereby admission to Ph.D. course has been granted to her. Such a programme would be no less than out sourcing of the programme, which not only de-hors the Regulations of 2009 but is illegal also. 35. As noticed above, the first petitioner has not produced the admission letter or any other document whereby admission to Ph.D. course has been granted to her. It is not stated in the petitions filed by her nor there is any material to ascertain as to whether she has been permitted to perform the research work in GMC, Jammu under the guidance of Dr. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia and was not required to attend the campus of that University at Jaipur but for the purpose of making some presentation or producing dissertation. 36. Another important aspect has been noticed and is required to be underlined. The first petitioner has neither stated in her pleadings nor produced any document to show as to whether any supervisor (guide) was allocated to her or that aforementioned topic was allocated to her by the JNU, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the first petitioner in his written arguments, submitted after conclusion of oral submissions, however, has produced a communication dated 24.05.2013 (annexure-Z3) addressed to the first petitioner by Prof. H.N. Verma, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of JNU, Jaipur, which shows that the said Professor, was allocated as Supervisor to the first petitioner by the said University and the topic allocated to her was 'study of correlation between biochemical markers and risk factors in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) in people of Jammu Division'. This communication mentions also that 'the date of commencement of your research work will be the date on which you deposit the course fee in the university for your admission'. It is not understandable as for what reason this communication was issued in May, 2013, that is, two years after the date of admission. If the date of issue of this communication is ignored and it is correlated with the admission process having taken place in May and June, 2011, in that case what emerges is that topic allocated to the first petitioner by the JNU, Jaipur was not exactly the one which Dr. Bhatia had named in his acceptance letter and that Prof. H.N. Verma, was the Supervisor allocated to the first petitioner by the JNU, Jaipur and a co-guide was nowhere contemplated. 37. Bhatia had named in his acceptance letter and that Prof. H.N. Verma, was the Supervisor allocated to the first petitioner by the JNU, Jaipur and a co-guide was nowhere contemplated. 37. Be that as it may, it is admitted case of the first petitioner that research work was to be performed/has been performed by her in the Biochemistry lab of the GMC, Jammu under the supervision of Dr. Bhatia as her co-guide. The allocated supervisor, Prof Verma, is off the scene. Not only that, it has not been stated that six month's 'course work' was performed in the campus of the JNU at Jaipur and leave for that purpose was availed. Such a Ph.D. course does not subscribe to the Regulations of 2009 and cannot be held valid. For undergoing such a course neither the Government is obliged to grant permission/NOC nor the Principal GMC, Jammu is obliged to provide lab facility. Demanding and granting such a permission or facility would amount to acquiescing an invalid act. 38. The contention of the first petitioner that under the Regulations of 2009 any in-service candidate can join Ph.D. by carrying out his research work while performing his/her official duty as a part time scholar is totally out of context. Part time or full time scholar is not the question involved here. The question involved is whether a research scholar can undergo the course and perform the research work off the campus of the University in which the admission is secured under guidance/supervision of a supervisor not allocated by the said University and even not a member of its faculty. Doing so, however, has been found contrary to and in violation of Regulations, 2009. 39. The cases of Dr. K.L. Gupta, Dr. Veerji Charangu and Dr. D.S. Jamwal can render no support to the case of the first petitioner. All these Doctors are said to have completed their Ph.D. courses while posted as Lectures in the GMC, Jammu and performing their duties as such Lectures and using the lab of the GMC. Question involved in these writ petitions is not whether one can undergo Ph.D. course as a part time scholar while acting as faculty members in the same University. More than that, their cases relate to the era prior to the Regulations of 2009 when there was no rule prescribing the procedure for admission in Ph.D./M.Phil courses. Question involved in these writ petitions is not whether one can undergo Ph.D. course as a part time scholar while acting as faculty members in the same University. More than that, their cases relate to the era prior to the Regulations of 2009 when there was no rule prescribing the procedure for admission in Ph.D./M.Phil courses. There, however, seems some similarity between case of the first petitioner and that of Dr. Roohi, who, as per the documents (annexures R-29 and R-30), while working as a Lecturer in GMC, Srinagar, had secured admission to Ph.D. Biochemistry in NIMS University, Jaipur and the Administrative Department had issued NOC in her. favour. It may not be proper to comment on the case of the said Doctor as she is not before this Court though it suffice to say that a wrong in the past, if any, cannot be used as a precedent for justifying similar wrong in the future. 40. Undergoing a Ph.D. course in a manner contrary to and in violation of the Regulations of 2009 is against the larger public interest of maintaining higher standards of education at doctoral level so in a given case any personal interest has to yield to the larger public interest. 41. For all that said and discussed above, SWP No. 695/2012 and SWP No. 985/2014 filed by the first petitioner, Kapila Raina, are dismissed. SWP No. 2036/2013 filed by Dr. Rachna Sabharwal, the second petitioner, insofar as it relates to order dated 05.04.2013 is allowed. To the extent of order dated 20.09.2013 it has become infructuous as the said order was withdrawn by the Government vide No. ME/Gaz/309/2011 dated 30.12.2013. Interim directions issued from time to time are withdrawn. SWP Nos. 254/2014 and 2442/2013 42. The decision in SWP Nos. 695/ 2012, SWP No. 985/2014 and 2026/2013 squarely applies to these two writ petitions so they are dismissed. Interim directions, whatsoever, shall stand withdrawn. SWP No. 341/2013 43. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. I have perused the record. 44. Pursuant to notification No. 13 of PSC dated 31.12.2008, the respondent No. 4, Kapila Raina, on her selection and recommendation by the State Public Service Commission has been appointed as Lecturer in the discipline of Biochemistry in GMC, Jammu vide Government Order No. 332-HME of 2010 dated 14.06.2010. I have perused the record. 44. Pursuant to notification No. 13 of PSC dated 31.12.2008, the respondent No. 4, Kapila Raina, on her selection and recommendation by the State Public Service Commission has been appointed as Lecturer in the discipline of Biochemistry in GMC, Jammu vide Government Order No. 332-HME of 2010 dated 14.06.2010. In the seniority list issued vide Government Order No. 199-HME of 2011 dated 23.03.2011 she figures at serial No. 2. Petitioner, Dr. Rachna Sabharwal seems to have been similarly appointed as Lecturer at a later stage and is therefore, junior to respondent No. 4. 45. By the medium of this writ petition, petitioner assails selection of respondent No. 4 on the ground that she was not possessing requisite qualification for selection and appointment as Lecturer because she did not possess two years experience as Registrar/Tutor, Demonstrator/Tutor or a senior resident. Stand of respondent No. 4 in her reply is that she was having the requisite experience as prior to her appointment on regular basis in the year 2010, she had been working on the same post on contractual basis since 2007. 46. This writ petition has been filed about three years after the date of appointment of respondent No. 4 without explaining the delay in this regard. Not only that, it is not the case of the petitioner that she was also eligible for appointment along with respondent No. 4 and prejudice was caused to her by selection and appointment of the latter. The petitioner having not taken part in the selection process and not even been eligible for the post at the relevant time cannot be heard assailing appointment of respondent No. 4 at a later stage. 47. In Bhailal Bhai (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in para 17 of the reporting have held that power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary power and that 'among the several matters which the High Courts rightly take in consideration in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it.' It has further been held that 'it is neither easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application. It may, however, be stated as a general rule that if there has been unreasonable delay, the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party by this extra ordinary remedy of mandamus.' 48. In Tukaram Kana Joshi v. M.I.D.C & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 565 the Supreme Court has indicated the circumstances in which a time barred claim suffering from delay and laches can still be entertained. Their lordships after referring to series of decisions of the Supreme Court have held in para 12 : "No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of non-deliberate delay. The court should not harm innocent parties if their rights have in-fact emerged, by delay on the part of the petitioners. " (underlining by me) 49. What is manifest from the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhailal Bhai and the latest judgment in Tukaram Kana Joshi is that as a general rule if a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution suffers from delay and laches, the High Court ought not ordinarily entertain such a petition and lend its aid to the party guilty of such delay and laches. Nonetheless, a question of condoning the delay can be accorded consideration depending upon facts of a given case and result would differ from case to case. If sufficient circumstances and bona fide grounds for petitioner's failure to approach the Court for a considerable time are made out, delay may be condoned. 50. The writ petition, therefore, besides lack of locus standi in the petitioner suffers from delay and laches as no case for condoning the delay has been found. 51. Viewed thus, this writ petition is dismissed. SWP Nos. 2788/2013 and 1161/2013 52. Segregated for further hearing. 53. 50. The writ petition, therefore, besides lack of locus standi in the petitioner suffers from delay and laches as no case for condoning the delay has been found. 51. Viewed thus, this writ petition is dismissed. SWP Nos. 2788/2013 and 1161/2013 52. Segregated for further hearing. 53. List again. However, not to be treated as part heard.