JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- i. For issuance direction/directions of writ/writs, order/orders ?? in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to comply letter dated 13.05.2022, letter dated 20.07.2022 and letter dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure-30-series) passed by the respondent no.3 whereby and whereunder the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh has been directed to take appropriate action subject to the letter dated 22.06.2022 forwarded by the petitioner to the University Grant Commission, New Delhi intimating the whole issue before the Commission but the respondent chosen not to reply and sat tight over the matter. ii. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to allow the petitioner to submit her final submission alongwith remaining submission of PH.D research directly before the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and further direct the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh to accept final submission alongwith remaining submission of PH.D research of the petitioner for the session 2017 to 2022 having PH.D Roll no. 170130023469 and Registration No.B.ED-1517040 allotted to the petitioner in the session 2017 to 2022 and after examining research work of the petitioner, publish result as per merit in accordance with law; iii. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to initiate proceeding against the earring/ responsible authority/ staff/ professor who intentionally created hurdles for the petitioner so that research work of the petitioner could not be completed within time and also award suitable punishment in accordance with law; iv. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus commandingupon the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for not accepting her research in the session from 2017 to 2022 in the interest of justice; v. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent concerned to blacklist the private respondent to supervise other students in their research work in future; vi. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions to penalise the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and the private respondent for their irresponsible act towards the petitioner so that they repeat it again. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the candidature of the Petitioner for Ph.D. Programme has been accepted having Pre-Ph.D. Roll no. For issuance of writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions to penalise the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh and the private respondent for their irresponsible act towards the petitioner so that they repeat it again. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the candidature of the Petitioner for Ph.D. Programme has been accepted having Pre-Ph.D. Roll no. 170130023469 and Registration No. B.Ed.-1517040. The Petitioner has been assigned Respondent No. 7 - Dr. Shatrughan Kumar Pandey, Assistant Professor, Department of History, St. Columba's College, Hazaribagh, as her Supervisor, for her Ph.D.Programme. The Petitioner requested the Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh (hereinafter to be referred as VBU) to change her supervisor since the conduct of Respondent No. 7 was not supportive. Thereafter, the Petitioner was directed to submit her thesis to Sri Janardan Bhagat, Head of the Department, VBU. Meanwhile, Sri Janardan Bhagat retired from the Head of Department, VBU. The Petitioner again, vide letter dated 04.10.2021, requested the Vice Chancellor, VBU, for changing her supervisor with respect to her Ph.D. Research Programme. Then, vide Office Order dated 23.10.2021, the Vice Chancellor, VBU, constituted a three Member Committee to discuss the case of the Petitioner but neither any information had been supplied to the Petitioner nor anything communicated to her regarding the decision taken in the meeting. The Petitioner, vide letter dated 02.12.2022, requested the Research Department, VBU to allow the Petitioner to submit her Research Work to the concerned department for which the department refused to accept the same. 4. Learned counsel submits that pursuant the request made by the Petitioner, the Petitioner as well as the 7th Respondent vide letter dated 30.10.2021 were directed to present their case on 30.10.2021 at about 12:30 PM. The petitioner requested the Vice-Chancellor, V.B.U, Hazaribagh several times for supply of decision taken in the meeting held on 30.10.2021 but no any information has been supplied to the Petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner vide letter dated 02.12.2022 requested the Research Department, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag to allow the Petitioner to submit her Research Work to the concerned department and further requested to take appropriate steps in this regard since the Petitioner was enrolled in Ph.D. Programme on 17.12.2017 and the completion date of Ph.D. Programme was 17.12.2022 but no attention was given towards the same. Further, the Research Department, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag refused to accept the same. Further, the Research Department, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag refused to accept the same. Learned counsel prays that this Writ application may be allowed and Respondent may be directed to accept her final submission along with remaining submission of Ph.D. research directly before the Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6 & 7 submits that under the guidance and supervision of Respondent No. 7, the Petitioner submitted the progress report of the research work for the first year and second year. After that, the Petitioner never submitted the progress report of her research work for the third year to the 7th Respondent even though the Petitioner was required to submit the progress report of the research works for the third year to him in the year 2020 itself. She further submits that when the 7th Respondent refused to sign on the Pre-Submission Application of the Petitioner, she threatened him saying that she came from "Dabang Rajput" family and so the Respondent No. 7 intimated about the aforesaid incident and indecent behavior of the Petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University. Meanwhile, on 11.11.2020, the Respondent No. 7, in furtherance of oral instructions of the Vice- Chancellor, received the research work of the Petitioner from the office of the Vice-Chancellor for examination and necessary corrections for which Respondent No. 7 suggested that the Petitioner may be given some time to make necessary corrections in her research work. However, till 02.08.2021, the Respondent No. 7 did not receive the amended research work of the Petitioner. She further submits that the 7th Respondent had directed the petitioner to continue her research work under him. As a matter of fact, the Vice-Chancellor inquired into the matter at his own level and called for a meeting wherein the Petitioner was also present. In furtherance of the decision taken in the aforesaid meeting, the Petitioner was directed to follow and obey the instructions given by the 7th Respondent through Dr. Namita Gupta, the then Dean of Social Sciences. But, the Petitioner never followed and obeyed the instructions given by the Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner neither submitted the progress report of the research work for the third year nor did she made corrections in her work as instructed by the Respondent No.7. 6. Namita Gupta, the then Dean of Social Sciences. But, the Petitioner never followed and obeyed the instructions given by the Respondent No. 7. The Petitioner neither submitted the progress report of the research work for the third year nor did she made corrections in her work as instructed by the Respondent No.7. 6. As per the Regulations for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the VBU, the period for Ph.D. Programme is fixed for three years. There is also provision for time extension for two years, which is granted by the University on recommendation of the Research Supervisor. However, the Petitioner did not complete her research work within the prescribed period. The prescribed period of three years as well as the extension period of two years lapsed. After lapse of five years, the registration of research work of the petitioner automatically got cancelled. As such, no relief should be granted to the Petitioner. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits it transpires that Petitioner's candidature for Ph.D. Programme had been accepted and she had been assigned Dr. Shatrughan Kumar Pandey (as a Supervisor), Assistant Professor, Department of History, St. Columba's College, Hazaribagh for her Ph.D. Programme. It further appears that under the guidance and supervision of the 7th Respondent, the Petitioner submitted the progress report of the research work for the period 18.12.2017 to 17.12.2018 and 18.12.2018 to 17.12.2019, i.e., first year and second year respectively. Thereafter, the Petitioner started doing her research work under the guidance and supervision of one Dr. Ashok Kumar Mandal, a senior Professor in the Department of History, Vinoba Bhave University and in the meanwhile 7th Respondent asked the Petitioner to submit the progress report of the research work for the third year but the Petitioner never submitted the progress report of her research work for the third year to him and even after repeated directions given by her supervisor she chose not to submit the progress report of the research work to him even though the Petitioner was required to submit the progress report of the research works for the third year to Respondent no.7 in the year 2020 itself. 8. It further transpires that on 20.06.2020 the Petitioner came to St. 8. It further transpires that on 20.06.2020 the Petitioner came to St. Columba's College and asked the 7th Respondent to sign on the Pre-Submission Application which he refused by saying that till date she has not submitted the research work to him and as such without examining all the chapters of the research work, he cannot sign on the Pre-Submission Application of the Petitioner. Whereupon the petitioner furnished the first chapter of the research work to the 7th Respondent, which he examined and noted the errors and asked the Petitioner to correct the same. He also asked the Petitioner to write about the necessary references to avoid the plagiarism and he asked the Petitioner to show him the remaining chapters of the research work upon which the Petitioner said that Dr. Ashok Kumar Mandal has already checked the remaining chapters of her research work and as such 7th Respondent is not required to check the same and the Petitioner further told him that on the instructions of Dr. Ashok Kumar Mandal the Examination Department of the University has already checked the plagiarism of her research work and the plagiarism report has come to only 1%. On this 7th Respondent said to the Petitioner that this is totally wrong, and against the regulations as because the supervisor has the authority to first check the research work then forward it to the President of History Department. Only after recommendation of the supervisor and then recommendation of the President of History Department, the plagiarism of the research work can be checked. 9. It further appears that on 11.11.2020, 7th Respondent in furtherance of oral instructions of the Vice-Chancellor, received the research work of the Petitioner from the office of the Vice-Chancellor for examination and necessary corrections and he vide letter 24.11.2020 communicated to the Vice-Chancellor that after going through the research work of the Petitioner he found that there are many errors in the research work of the Petitioner which needs corrections. Thus, 7th Respondent suggested that the Petitioner may be given some time to make necessary corrections in her research work. The Vice-Chancellor vide letter dated 04.06.2021 directed the Petitioner to continue her research work under the supervision and direction of 7th Respondent and submit the same to the office of the Dean of the Department of Social Science for necessary directions and approval of her research work. The Vice-Chancellor vide letter dated 04.06.2021 directed the Petitioner to continue her research work under the supervision and direction of 7th Respondent and submit the same to the office of the Dean of the Department of Social Science for necessary directions and approval of her research work. Upon direction of the Vice-Chancellor, 7th Respondent got the research work of the Petitioner through the office of the Vice-Chancellor. He examined the research work of the Petitioner and asked the Petitioner in writing to do necessary corrections. However, till 02.08.2021 he did not receive the amended research work of the Petitioner and as such, vide letter dated 02.08.2021, 7th Respondent communicated to the Vice-Chancellor that till date he has not received the amended research work of the Petitioner. He also requested the Vice-Chancellor to issue instructions to the Petitioner to submit her amended research work to the Head of the Department so that further evaluation can be done. 10. It further transpires that 7th Respondent requested the Vice-Chancellor to take appropriate actions and thereupon the Vice-Chancellor inquired into the matter at his own level and called for a meeting wherein Dr. Indrajit Kumar, Dean of Student Welfare; Dr. P.C. Deoghariya, Proctor; Dr. Janardan Bhagat, Dean of Social Sciences; Dr. Ajay Sharma, Plagiarism Coordinator; Dr. Anjana Verma, Member of Women's Cell; Respondent No. 7 and the petitioner were present and in furtherance of the decision taken in the aforesaid meeting, the Petitioner was directed to follow and obey the instructions given by 7th Respondent through Dr. Namita Gupta, the then Dean of Social Sciences. But the Petitioner never followed and obeyed the instructions given by the 7th Respondent. As a result, the Petitioner neither submitted the progress report of the research work for the third year nor did she made corrections in her work as instructed by the 7th Respondent. 11. Even otherwise, it is evident from the Regulations for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Vinoba Bhave University, the period for Ph.D. Programme is fixed for three years and can be extended for a further period of two years i.e. maximum period not exceeding five years. However, the Petitioner did not complete her research work within the prescribed period and the prescribed period of five years has been lapsed. However, the Petitioner did not complete her research work within the prescribed period and the prescribed period of five years has been lapsed. In this regard, reference may be made to the Regulation 4(h) of the Regulation for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) of the Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag which is quoted herein below: 4(h) “ A candidate shall not be permitted to remain registered for a period exceeding Five years. The candidate, if so desires, may apply for re-registration on the same topic and synopsis under the same supervisor after the expiry of five years………” 12. Since the time period prescribed for completion for research work has already been lapsed about 3 years ago; as such no relief can be granted to this Petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the instant Writ application stands dismissed. However, no cost. Pending I.A. if any also stand disposed of.