JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P5, P9, P15, P18 and P21 representations and register the petitioners as Research Scholars in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nursing for the July Session, 2017 of Ph.D. programme, in accordance with law, and for a further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to include the subjects Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nursing in the list of subjects given, so as to enable the petitioners to submit online application, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. According to the petitioners, they satisfy the qualification and eligibility criteria for registration as Research Scholars (Ph.D) in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nursing offered by the 1st respondent University. Approved Research Guides of the 1st respondent University have given their consent to guide the petitioners. The Research Centre of 1st respondent University has also given approval for petitioners' research. In the last notification for Ph.D. entrance Examination issued by the 1st respondent University, the subjects offered included Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nursing. 3. The 1st respondent University has issued Ext.P24 notification inviting application for registering in the July Session, 2017 for Ph.D programme. However, the 1st respondent University has unilaterally and without any prior notice, did not provide Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nursing as options in the online application portal, as a result of which, petitioners were not able to submit their online application for registration. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that, consequent to the arbitrary action of the 1st respondent University, right of the petitioners to pursue Research (Ph.D) is put in peril, and thereby denying all prospects for their career advancement. 4. First and second respondents have filed a joint statement. Among other contentions, it is submitted that, based on the recommendation of the Standing Committee of the Academic Council held on 27.06.2017, the University decided that no further registration to the Ph.D. Programme be granted in research centres already affiliated to the 3rd respondent University viz., Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), since they have started research registrations of their own. Further, it is stated that, only G-PAT qualified candidates or students qualified for Ph.D. entrance conducted by the University of Kerala or Kerala University of Health Sciences shall be considered for Ph.D registration at the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. Further, it is stated that, only G-PAT qualified candidates or students qualified for Ph.D. entrance conducted by the University of Kerala or Kerala University of Health Sciences shall be considered for Ph.D registration at the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The above research centre comes under the KUHS since 2010-2011 academic year, and is now no longer under the University of Kerala. However, the petitioners by virtue of having qualified the entrance test conducted by the University of Kerala, can very well register under the 3rd respondent, if otherwise eligible, as clearly stated in Ext.P3 Government Order. The said Government Order was intended for Ph.D. registration under the 3rd respondent and not under the University of Kerala, as contended by the petitioners. The petitioners are qualified to register as per the rules of the 3rd respondent University with the G-PAT score they have secured in 2017. 5. Dr. Aravind P., being a regular faculty currently working in the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram is no longer a research supervisor of the 1st respondent University for fresh registration as per the Regulations for the award of Ph.D. Degree of the 1st respondent framed in tune with the UGC Regulations, 2016. Only regular faculty working in the Departments/affiliated Colleges/Research Centres approved by the 1st respondent University and coming under its jurisdiction are considered to be research supervisors of the University. Since the 3rd respondent University has started registration of its own, Ph.D. registration to Medical and allied subjects are to be done by the said University alone. 6. It is also submitted that, as per Clause 5.6 of the Regulations of the University, allocation of research supervisor for a selected scholar shall be decided by the Departmental Doctoral Committee concerned depending on the number of scholars per research supervisor, available specialization among the research supervisors, and research interests of the scholars as indicated by them at the time of interview. Hence the contention of the petitioners that they have got consent from the research supervisor is irrelevant and stands against the Regulations, as no Doctoral Committee has been conducted in the case of the petitioners. 7. Hence the contention of the petitioners that they have got consent from the research supervisor is irrelevant and stands against the Regulations, as no Doctoral Committee has been conducted in the case of the petitioners. 7. Even though all medical courses and affiliation of all colleges offering medical courses stand shifted to KUHS way back from the year 2010, the 1st respondent University was continuing with the Ph.D. Programmes as the Ph.D. Programme was not started by the 3rd respondent University. Since the said aspect is now materialized, the 1st respondent University, as per the Regulations, does not have any provision to make use of the Colleges affiliated to another University and also the services of teachers/research supervisors coming under the purview of another University for running Ph.D. Degrees on their own credit. 8. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners, refuting the contentions made by the 1st respondent University. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P3 order, it is explicitly stated that a G-PAT qualified candidate or those qualified for Ph.D entrance either under the 1st respondent University or the 3rd respondent University is entitled for Ph.D. registration, and therefore, the averments contained otherwise in the statement filed by the 1st respondent University cannot be sustained under law. Other aspects are also raised with respect to the research guide who has agreed to guide the petitioners in the Research Programme, stating that Dr. Aravind P. is a sufficiently qualified person, and therefore, the averments contained otherwise in the statement cannot be sustained under law. 9. The 3rd respondent University is impleaded as per the order in I.A.No.13194 of 2017 dated 17.08.2017. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective Universities. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 11. The summary of fact discussion made above would make it clear that the sole question revolves around for consideration is, whether after the bifurcation of the Kerala University and establishment of the 3rd respondent University viz., Kerala University of Health Sciences, and affiliated all medical and other allied Degrees under it, the petitioners are entitled to insist that they are entitled to register for Ph.D. degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nursing with the 1st respondent University. 12. A reference to the representations produced by the petitioners would be worthwhile. 12. A reference to the representations produced by the petitioners would be worthwhile. In the representations, the grievance of the petitioners is that, at present, there is no option other than to register under the 1st respondent University as Full Time Research Scholar, since there is no Ph.D. entrance notification issued by the 3rd respondent University after 06.12.2015. Ext.P5 representation is submitted by the 1st petitioner. From the representations submitted by the other petitioners, it is evident that the application for registration was submitted by the petitioners on the pretext that no applications are invited by the 3rd respondent University. In Ext.P9 representation, 2nd petitioner has stated that KUHS has initiated the Ph.D programme but the procedures lack transparency and momentum, and registration under the same University from where she acquired B.Pharm and M.Pharm is more streamlined and advantageous as there will be no eligibility issues. Therefore, the petitioners are under the mistaken impression that the 3rd respondent University has not issued notification inviting applications for Doctoral programme, and that the procedures of the said University are lacking transparency and momentum etc. etc. 13. It is not disputed that, consequent to the establishment of the 3rd respondent University, all medical and other allied institutions are under the said University. Section 50 of the Kerala University Health Sciences Act, 2010 is relevant in this context, which reads thus: “50. Affiliation and recognition.--(1) The University shall affiliate all the professional medical or other colleges or Institutions imparting education in Modern Medicine, Dental, Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Siddha, Unani, Yoga, Naturopathy, Nursing, Pharmacy and other paramedical and allied subjects, owned by Government of Kerala or Government controlled societies, private aided and private unaided selffinancing educational agencies, which, before the date of commencement of this Act remained affiliated to the different Universities (except Deemed Universities) in the State of Kerala. The affiliation of the above mentioned institutions to other Universities in the State (except Deemed Universities), shall stand transferred to the University on and from the date of commencement of this Act, subject to the conditions that the affiliation of these colleges or institutions in respect of the students admitted to the courses in health sciences and allied subjects shall continue till those batches of students complete their courses, the examinations of all such students shall be conducted by the Universities to which they were attached, degrees or diplomas or other distinctions shall be awarded by such Universities and admission to these colleges for the academic year 2009-2010 shall continue in such Universities. The admission to the course or courses to be started, in the above institutions, from the academic year 2010-2011 onwards and the examinations for the new batches of students admitted or to be admitted during 2010-2011, shall be conducted by the University and degrees or diplomas be awarded by the University. The professional medical colleges or teaching institutions under the Deemed Universities and the National Institutes established by Central Government shall not come under the jurisdiction of the University. (2) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x.” 14. On a reading of the said provision, it is categoric and clear, from the academic year 2010-2011, admission to the course or courses to be started in the institutions mentioned thereunder shall be conducted by the 3rd respondent University, and degrees or diplomas be awarded by the said University. The pinpointed contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners when the said provision was pointed out is that, even though there is a stipulation contained thereunder with specific reference to the academic year 2010-2011, even now the 1st respondent University is receiving applications for the Doctoral degree and several persons have registered after the academic year 2010-2011 also with the 1st respondent University. It is specifically averred by the 1st respondent University that even though the institutions were put under 3rd respondent University during the academic year 2010-2011, the Doctoral programme could not be started due to certain infrastructural shortages. It is specifically averred by the 1st respondent University that even though the institutions were put under 3rd respondent University during the academic year 2010-2011, the Doctoral programme could not be started due to certain infrastructural shortages. However, from 2017-2018 academic year, 3rd respondent University is equipped to start the Doctoral programmes, and that is the reason why registration to the Doctoral programmes under the 3rd respondent University is rejected by the 1st respondent University. 15. Even though petitioners have a case that there is no notification issued by the 1st respondent University, stopping its Doctoral degrees in respect of medical and other allied subjects, Section 50 of the KUHS Act makes it clear that, after 2010-2011, all the institutions referred to thereunder will function under the 3rd respondent University. In my considered opinion, when a law is brought into force in order to provide admission to particular stream of courses under the 3rd respondent University, no further notification is required. The Act is implemented after discussion in the Legislature, which is presumed to be known to all. Therefore, the said contention advanced by the petitioners cannot be sustained under law. The 1st respondent University has not entertained the application submitted by the petitioners online, since from the academic year 2017-2018, the 3rd respondent University is operating in a full-fledged manner with all infrastructural and instructional facilities for awarding Doctoral degrees. 16. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent University submitted that the UGC norms are not of much concern to the 3rd respondent University, since they are guided by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the provisions and Regulations contained thereunder. Therefore, when there is specific provision for guidance created under the aforesaid law, petitioners cannot insist that UGC Regulations shall guide the issues with respect to the Doctoral Degrees. 17. True, the University of Kerala has issued Regulations for award of Ph.D. Degrees for the year 2016, wherein, it is specified that UGC (Minimum Standards and procedure for Awards of M.Phil./Ph.D. Degree) Regulations, 2016 will apply. Consequent to the bifurcation of the institutions, on enactment of the KUHS Act, it cannot be said that, still the UGC Regulations bind the 3rd respondent University, for the reason that, the KUHS and its programmes are controlled and guided by Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Consequent to the bifurcation of the institutions, on enactment of the KUHS Act, it cannot be said that, still the UGC Regulations bind the 3rd respondent University, for the reason that, the KUHS and its programmes are controlled and guided by Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Above all these aspects, the 3rd respondent University has invited applications for the research programme for the year 2017-18, and when the said aspect was brought to the notice of this Court, an interim order was passed on 17.08.2017, permitting the petitioners to submit application, subject to further orders. The significant factors discussed above would make it clear that, the 1st respondent University is justified in declining receipt of application from the petitioners. Moreover, bifurcation of the medical and other allied institutions were done with the avowed object of enhancing the standard in all respects, and is the outcome of a progressive approach, to instill dedication and academic brilliance among students and teaching faculty. The research students also will get guidance in a more specific and dedicated manner. 18. Appreciating the facts and circumstances discussed above and reckoning the law in force, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. In that view of the matter, the writ petition will stand dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to submit suitable application to the 3rd respondent University.