JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Under challenge is the Commissioner, Department of College Education's e-mail dated 3-10-2017 rejecting the petitioner's application for attestation of his Ph.D Degree awarded by the Pacific Academic of Higher Education and Research University (hereafter the University’) established by the Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research University Act, 2010 (Act of 2010) (hereafter ‘the Act of 2010’) on the ground that as a private University, unitary in nature, it was not authorized to hire out a guide outside the faculty of University for its Ph.D students in terms of the Regulations of the UGC. And for this reason the petitioner's Ph.D Degree with a Ph.D guide not on the University's faculty could not be endorsed and authenticated by him. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner while teaching at the Siddartha Institute of Pharmacy, Dehradun, with its “no objection” applied for and was registered as a Ph.D Student in the department of Pharmacology, faculty of Pharmacy of the University in 2012. One Professor Firoj Anwar at the relevant time not on the faculty of the University but a faculty member of the Siddartha Institute of Pharmacy, Dehradun was appointed as the petitioner's Ph.D Guide apparently for the purported reason of his specialization in the field in which the petitioner was doing Ph.D The petitioner's case is that on completion of his research and submission of his thesis in the year 2014 he was evaluated by two external examiners and underwent a viva voice. Thereafter the petitioner was awarded Ph.D Degree on 26-5-2015, which the petitioner claims was as per the UGC (Minimum Standard and Procedure for Awards of M.Phil/Ph.D Degree) Regulation, 2009 (hereafter ‘the Regulations, 2009’). Thereafter the petitioner started teaching as an Associate Professor at the Glocal University, Saharanpur, UP, where he continues till date. 3. The petitioner's case is that in April, 2017 he got an offer for the position of an Associate Professor with the King Abdula Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. To avail that offer he was required to get attestation of his Ph.D Degree awarded by the University from the Commissioner, Department of College Education. 3. The petitioner's case is that in April, 2017 he got an offer for the position of an Associate Professor with the King Abdula Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. To avail that offer he was required to get attestation of his Ph.D Degree awarded by the University from the Commissioner, Department of College Education. However, vide e-mail dated 9-6-2017 the Commissioner, College Education, Government of Rajasthan (hereinafter the Commissioner’) took a view that the petitioner's Ph.D Degree could not be authenticated by the department because his Ph.D guide Firoj Anwar was not a regular faculty member of the University, and the University being a private one Unitary in nature was not entitled to appoint Ph.D Guides who were not on its faculty and not employed/working with it on a regular basis. It has been submitted that the view taken by the Commissioner with regard to appointment of Ph.D Guide outside regular faculty of the University for Ph.D students entailing non authentication of the degree was not only arbitrary, but also discriminatory as the Commissioner had earlier on 18-3-2016 attested a Ph.D Degree granted to one student Mohd. Afzal from the same University, where the same Professor Firoj Anwar was his guide. 4. The Commissioner, College Education has submitted in defence that the petitioner's Ph.D Degree cannot be authenticated as is was not obtained as per the UGC of Regulations of 2009. It has been submitted that the respondent University, in law being unitary in nature as provided under Regulation 2.3 of the UGC (Establishment of and Maintenance of standards of Private Universities) Regulations 20903 (hereafter Regulations of 2003’) was not authorised to hire a PhD. Guide for its students from external sources who was not a member of its own faculty. It has been submitted that instructions/guidelines regarding authentication of degrees including Ph.D have been issued by the Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, which make it clear that a Ph.D degree not awarded in compliance with Rules/Regulations of the Regulatory Bodies, such as the University Grants Commission (UGC) will not be authenticated. It was submitted that Section 38 of the Act of 2010 under which the University has been constituted, binds it to follow rules, regulations, norms etc. of the regulating bodies including the UGC. It was submitted that Section 38 of the Act of 2010 under which the University has been constituted, binds it to follow rules, regulations, norms etc. of the regulating bodies including the UGC. Referring to UGCs Regulation, 2009 it has been submitted that Regulation 12 thereof makes it pellucid that allocation of Ph.D supervisor for a student in the course shall be decided by the Department depending on the number of student per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty, supervisors and the research interest of the student as indicated during interview by the student. It has been submitted that despite clear language of Regulation 12, necessarily entailing allocation of Ph.D/M.Phil supervisors with reference to faculty of the University, various Universities were found violating the norms and enrolling hundreds students on the strength of appointment of external supervisors not part of their own faculty. Resultantly vide letter dated 6-7-2015 a clarification was issued by the UGC stating that Universities shall only allocate M.Phil/Ph.D supervisors from amongst the regular faculty members in a department or its own affiliated PG colleges/institutes depending on the number of students per faculty member, the available specialization among the faculty supervisors and the research interest of the student. Thus any Ph.D/M.Phil degree awarded by a University under the supervision of a Ph.D guide who was not a faculty member of the University or its affiliated PG Colleges/Institutes would be in violation of Regulations, 2009. It has been then stated that thereafter in super-session of Regulations, 2009, the Regulations of 2016 were issued. Regulation 6.2 of the Regulations 2016 categorically provides that only a full time regular teacher of the concerned University/Institute deemed to be a University/College can act as a supervisor for M.Phil/Ph.D student. External supervisors are not allowed except in special situations with approval of Research Advisory Committee such as where a co-supervisor can be allowed in inter-disciplinary area from other department of the same institute or from other related institutions. 5. It has also been submitted that thus since their inception, the Regulations of 2009 provided that only the faculty of the University where the student was enrolled could be appointed as a Ph.D guide and none other. And as per judgment in the case of Prof. 5. It has also been submitted that thus since their inception, the Regulations of 2009 provided that only the faculty of the University where the student was enrolled could be appointed as a Ph.D guide and none other. And as per judgment in the case of Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhatisgarh [(2005) 5 SCC 420] a private University is bound to abide by all the Rules and Regulations of the UGC and not use its status to reach out either for off campus students or faculty to carry out its mandate. Private universities have no power to affiliate and cannot engage services of teachers on the faculty of other institutions as research supervisor for its Ph.D students. 6. In the aforesaid context, it has been submitted that Professor Firoj Anwar the petitioner's guide/supervisor admittedly was not at the relevant time or ever a part of the faculty of the University. Regulation 1.2-B of the Eligibility Criteria Rules of the respondent University so providing on which the petitioner lays misdirected reliance is in violation of UGC Regulations, 2009, moreso the clarification letter dated 6-7-2015 and hence of no avail. 7. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent by one Dr. Sunil Kumar. On the issue of alleged discrimination, it has been submitted that the authentication of the Ph.D degree of Mohd. Afzal a student of the University with Firoj Anwar as guide, by the Commissioner on 18-3-2016, was prior to coming to the Commissioner's notice the clarification letter dated 6-7-2015, issued by UGC, which made it explicit what was and ought to have otherwise been implicit pertaining to the prohibition under the Regulations 2009, on the appointment of External guides for students of Ph.D program of University. The authentication as prayed if mechanically done on the basis of blind parity would now evidently entail a clear breach of UGC Regulations of 2003 and 2009. It has been submitted that following the clarification letter dated 6-7-2015 coming to the Commissioner's notice, a public notice in consonance therewith has been issued on 18-9-2017 and a notice for cancellation of the registration of Research Supervisors/Guides themselves not employed at the private Universities has also been issued. It has been submitted that following the clarification letter dated 6-7-2015 coming to the Commissioner's notice, a public notice in consonance therewith has been issued on 18-9-2017 and a notice for cancellation of the registration of Research Supervisors/Guides themselves not employed at the private Universities has also been issued. It has been submitted that following the clarification dated 6-7-2015, 9 applications for authentication of those similarly obtaining Ph.D degree as the petitioner has, have not been accepted and a consistent stand is now being maintained on the issue in consonance with Regulations, 2009. 8. An application has also been filed by the respondent Commissioner for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C, on the ground that the petitioner has annexed to the petition his purported application for authentication of his Ph.D degree allegedly filed on 24-4-2017. The document relied on by the petitioner, it is stated is absolutely false as in fact the petitioner in first instance had applied on 24-4-2017 for authentication on the basis of another application wholly different, where he stated to have obtained the Ph.D by “distance mode” not regular mode as claimed under annexure-2 also purportedly dated 24-4-2017. Further in the actual application dated 24-4-2017 the petitioner stated he had done his Ph.D degree while at the Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy, Dehradun, and had also given it out as the University's city centre. This is missing in the subsequent modified application purportedly dated 24-4-2017, but in fact of 16-5-2017 as filed with the petition. The petitioner vide letter dated 15-5-2017 offered a written apology for the purported inadvertent mistake first made in filling up the authentication application, stating to have obtained the Ph.D degree from the University through the distance mode. It has been submitted that it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have disclosed all the aforesaid fact before this court, particularly as they were of material importance to the seminal question in the petition as to whether the petitioner had obtained the Ph.D from the University in the Distant mode or a regular one. 9. Ms. Mansi Sharma appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petition ought not to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts as alleged. 9. Ms. Mansi Sharma appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petition ought not to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts as alleged. She submitted that the application for authentication of the Ph.D degree first filed on 24-4-2017 stating that the petitioner had obtained the Ph.D degree by distant mode while at the Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy, Dehradun Uttarakhand an affiliated college/study center of the university was an obvious error which the petitioner was subsequently allowed to rectify. The subsequent application for authentication was then filed on 16-5-2017. She submitted that it has been averred in the petition that the application for authentication was filed on 24-4-2017, claiming the Ph.D degree obtained in regular mode from the University for reason of the assumption, that the subsequent application dated 16-5-2017 would relate to first one filed on 24-4-2017 and later withdrawn. And in any event nothing relevant to the issue in the petition turns on the date of the application for authentication being made, submitted Ms. Manshi Sharma. It was submitted that the University has admitted that the petitioner was its genuine student having been registered for the Ph.D programme and was duly awarded the Ph.D degree through the regular mode in terms of Regulations, 2009. It has been further submitted that as per Rule 1.2B of the Eligibility Criteria Rules of the respondent University it was statutorily entitled to determine the eligibility of Professors to act as Ph.D guide for its Ph.D students. And such professors with other Universities established by law and part of their faculty could be the University's Ph.D guide for students enrolled with it. The petitioner's Ph.D guide was thus allocated in terms of the Eligibility criterion rule of the University read with Rule 6 of the Regulations, 2009. 10. Ms. Mansi Sharma then submitted that legality and validity of the petitioner's Ph.D degree of 26-5-2015 has to be ascertained with reference to Regulations, 2009 then obtaining, which only required that the University appoint a Ph.D guide who was on its faculty. Visiting faculty was not excluded from the expression “faculty” and hence automatically included. There was no requirement at the relevant time of a Ph.D guide necessarily being a permanent member of the faculty of the University from where the petitioner obtained his Ph.D degree. Visiting faculty was not excluded from the expression “faculty” and hence automatically included. There was no requirement at the relevant time of a Ph.D guide necessarily being a permanent member of the faculty of the University from where the petitioner obtained his Ph.D degree. It was submitted that UGCs letter dated 6-7-2015 was not in the nature of clarification but an amendment which henceforth created a prohibition with regard to appointment as Ph.D guides of those not on the permanent faculty of the University and would apply prospectively not retrospectively. She submitted that a prohibition in law can only be prospective and not retrospective and for the proposition referred to the judgment in the case of R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by LR v. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by LR [ (1995) 2 SCC 630 ]. Ms. Mansi Sharma further submitted that the petitioner has come to have a vested right of having acquired a valid and proper Ph.D degree on 26-5-2015, which cannot be taken away by resort to UGCs letter dated 6-7-2015 operating retrospectively. 11. Ms. Manshi Sharma finally submitted that in any event the petitioner is entitled for the Commissioner, College Education's authentication of his Ph. D. Degree which was awarded to him on 26-5-2015 by the University on the ground of parity as one Mohd. Afzal, also a student of the University, who had similarly completed his Ph.D degree under the supervision of very same Prof. Firoj Anwar, had his degree authenticated by the Commissioner on 18-3-2016, even subsequent to the UGCs letter dated 6-7-2015. 12. Per contra, Mr. S.K Gupta, AAG appearing for the Commissioner, College Education emphatically submitted that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary, it has been the consistent practice of the court to dismiss one at the threshold when it is based on suppression veri and suggestio falsie. The petitioner in first instance had submitted an application for authentication of Ph.D degree on 24-4-2017 claiming that he had obtained it by the distance mode studying at the affiliated college/study center of the University i.e. Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy, Dehradun. This very material fact has been suppressed in the petition by the petitioner by placing reliance on his subsequent application for authentication asserting that he had acquired the Ph.D degree under the “regular mode” and excluding name of Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy Dehradun at the University's city center. This very material fact has been suppressed in the petition by the petitioner by placing reliance on his subsequent application for authentication asserting that he had acquired the Ph.D degree under the “regular mode” and excluding name of Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy Dehradun at the University's city center. He prayed the petition be dismissed on this ground alone as the foundation of the petition is false based on suppression of an earlier admission. 13. On the merit of the petition, Mr. S.K Gupta, submitted that the issue agitated in the petition as to whether the word “faculty” in Rule 6 of the Regulation, 2009 allowed visiting faculty of the University to act as Research guide for its Ph.D students is fully and roundedly settled by the Allahabad High Court, which has held that the word faculty entailed an implicit requirement of the concerned Professors being on the permanent rolls of the University concerned and none else. Mr. S.K Gupta submitted that letter dated 6-7-2015 issued by the UGC has to be construed with reference to all the words of Rule 6 of the Regulations of 2009, the character of private universities under the Regulations of 2003 as of unitary nature and restraint on their off campus operation as also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. Yashpal (supra). So construed it is clarificatory of what was implicit in Rule 6 of the Regulations of 2009 from the very inception. The letter dated 6-7-2015 made explicit what was earlier implicit. And clarificatory provision are always retrospective in nature, Mr. S.K Gupta pointed out. He submitted that it is thus apparent that when the petitioner was enrolled as a Ph.D student with the University, Prof. Firoj Anwar not on the University's faculty was not authorised to act as the petitioner's Ph.D guide. The inevitable conclusion, as per Mr. S.K Gupta would be, that the purported Ph.D degree so awarded to the petitioner with Prof. Firoj Anwar as his guide is of no avail, and is invalid. It cannot therefore be authentication by the Commissioner as required by the petitioner. The e-mail of 3-10-2017 impugned before this court is thus wholly legal and valid, he submitted. 14. On the issue of discrimination, Mr. S.K Gupta submitted that the principle of equality attracts as a positive and not a negative right. Merely because the Ph.D degree of Mohd. It cannot therefore be authentication by the Commissioner as required by the petitioner. The e-mail of 3-10-2017 impugned before this court is thus wholly legal and valid, he submitted. 14. On the issue of discrimination, Mr. S.K Gupta submitted that the principle of equality attracts as a positive and not a negative right. Merely because the Ph.D degree of Mohd. Agzal, no doubt similarly placed as the petitioner was wrongly authenticated on 18-3-2016, it cannot confer any legal right on the petitioner to similar authentication of his Ph.D degree despite its invalidity for being contrary to the UGC Regulations of 2009 as obtaining from inception and the Regulations of 2003. Mr. S.K Gupta pointed out that it is the specific case of the Commissioner that the authentication of Mohd. Agzal's Ph.D degree on 18-3-2016 was prior to the clarification dated 6-7-2015 coming to the department's notice. And consequent corrective steps are in process. 15. Heard. Considered. 16. In the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [ (2014) 9 SCC 632 ] it was held by the Apex court that absent statutory definition, the dictionary meaning of a word can be contextually relied upon to ascertain the general sense in which the word or phrase is used in the statute. In the instant case the word “faculty” in Rule 6 of Regulations, 2009, undefined in the Regulations has to be construed with reference to its dictionary meaning, the context it has been used as also the surrounding and relevant statutory architecture for award of Ph.D degree by private universities. 17. The word faculty” in regulation 6 of the Rations of 2009 has been construed apparently with reference to the enunciated principle in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (supra) by the Allahabad High Court in Ashutosh Kumar Singh v. Union of India [Writ C No. 41603/2016 decided on 13-10-2017]. Paras 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment, which addresses the very issue at the center of this petition, are as under: 25. Having examined different meanings of the term “faculty”, as to what meaning is to be attributed to the said term in the Regulations, 2009 has to be found out with reference to the context in which it has been used in the said Regulations. Having examined different meanings of the term “faculty”, as to what meaning is to be attributed to the said term in the Regulations, 2009 has to be found out with reference to the context in which it has been used in the said Regulations. A perusal of regulation 6 of Regulations, 2009 would go to show that the term “faculty” used therein is not in reference to a department of learning but with reference to a body of teachers, which is clear from the use of phrase “all Universities…shall lay down the criteria for the faculty to be recognized as Research Supervisor”. A department of learning cannot be recognized as a Research Supervisor, inasmuch as, a Research Supervisor by necessary implication has to be a person. When the term “faculty” is construed as a body of teachers then the correct interpretation of regulation 6 would be that all Universities, Institutions deemed to be Universities and Colleges/Institutions of National Importance would have to lay down the criteria for recognizing a person from amongst the body of teachers of the Department concerned as a Research Supervisor both for M.Phil and Ph.D Programmes. The above interpretation is consistent with the requirement to determine manageable number of M.Phil and doctoral students on an annual basis dependent on available eligible Faculty Supervisors, as provided by regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2009. The view that Research Supervisors are to be recognized from the body of teachers available with the University, by necessary implication, exclude those who have retired and are not part of the faculty, inasmuch as, if former retired teachers, who are not part of the faculty, are to be included then the need to have an annual determination of a manageable number of M.Phil and doctoral students on the basis of the number of available eligible Faculty Supervisors would not arise. 26. 26. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that introduction of specific provision in Regulations, 2016 that “only a full time regular teacher” can act as Research Supervisor should be construed as departure from earlier practice and, therefore, Regulations, 2009 should be interpreted accordingly, cannot be accepted because, ordinarily, a later statute is not used as an aid for construction of an earlier one (vide Vaijnath v. Guramma, (1999) 1 SCC 292 ) though when an earlier Act is truly ambiguous and is readily capable of diverse interpretation a later Act may in certain circumstances serve as parliamentary exposition of the former. In State of Bihar v. S.K Roy, AIR 1966 SC 1995 , the apex court held that “it is a well recognized principle in dealing with matters of construction that subsequent legislation may be looked at in order to see what is the proper interpretation to be put upon the earlier Act where the earlier Act is obscure or ambiguous or readily capable of more than one interpretation”. In S.K Roy's case (supra), the apex court after examining the provisions of the unamended Act and the subsequent amending Act, held that the change in the language of the earlier Act brought about by the amending Act was not meant to bring about a change of law in that respect but was meant to fix a proper interpretation upon the earlier Act. 27. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the view that Regulation 6.2 of the Regulations, 2016 by providing that only a full time regular teacher can act as supervisor only made the requirement specific what was already implicit in the earlier Regulations 6 and 7 of the Regulations, 2009. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the clarificatory letter issued by the UGC dated 06th July, 2015, which has been brought on record as Annexure CA-2 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University of Allahabad, declaring that Universities shall allocate research supervisors from among the regular faculty members in a department, is in consonance with the provisions of the Regulations, 2009. 18. Besides, the words “visiting faculty” which the petitioner claims Prof. Firoj Anwar was at the University is generally understood as equivalent to “part time faculty”, a synonym of “guest faculty” and clearly contra distinguishable from the word faculty. 18. Besides, the words “visiting faculty” which the petitioner claims Prof. Firoj Anwar was at the University is generally understood as equivalent to “part time faculty”, a synonym of “guest faculty” and clearly contra distinguishable from the word faculty. In the field of education/academics the two are wholly distinct on the common parlance test and cannot even remotely be equated as the terms of engagement, availability, relationship, eligibility, and commitment of time to the University. The two are wholly dissimilar. 19. For the aforesaid reasons as detailed above, I am of the considered view that the word “faculty” in the Regulation of 2009 from its very inception required regular employment of a Professor with the University as a member of its department to be eligible to be appointed as a Ph.D guide/supervisor of a student enrolled on the University's Ph.D programme. UGCs letter dated 6-7-2015 was only clarificatory, making explicit what was implicit in Rule 6 of the Regulations of 2009 from the very beginning. Any rule of the University such as its Regulation 1.2-B of the Eligibility Criteria Rules contrary to and in the cross-hairs of UGCs Regulations of 2003 and 2009 is of no consequence and hence of no avail. Professor Firoj Anwar, the petitioner's guide for his Ph.D degree was admittedly not a regular employee of the University on its rolls and hence not a part of the University's faculty. Instead at all material times be was on the faculty of Siddhartha Institute of Pharmacy Dehradun, Uttarakhand. His appointment as Ph.D guide for the petitioner's Ph.D was invalid and contrary to the Regulations of 2009 and by extension the Act of 2010 incorporating the University which mandated adherence to inter alia to UGC Regulations. 20. The Commissioner, College Education has thus not acted arbitrarily the refusing authentication of the petitioner's Ph.D degree from the University. The e-mail dated 3-10-2017 suffers neither illegality nor arbitrariness and cannot be set aside. 21. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.