1. In January, 2014, petitioner got himself enrolled as a Research Scholar in the Department of Mass Communication and Creative Writing, at Central University of Himachal Pradesh, District Kangra, (Annexure P-1). Dr. Archna Katoch, respondent No.6, Assistant Professor, Department of Mass Communication and Creative Writing, Central University of H.P., was allotted as a Research Guide to the petitioner as per University Ordinance. Since, the petitioner was unable to furnish thesis within a stipulated time, he had requested the Worthy Vice Chancellor to extend the time, who, vide order dated 25.08.2020 (Annexure P-2), extended the period of the submission of Thesis up to 31.12.2020.

2. In the meantime, University Grants Commission (for short UGC), also issued guidelines, by public notice, to extend the time of submission of the thesis up to 30.06.2021. As such, respondent university also in furtherance to aforesaid guidelines issued by the UGC, extended the last date of submission of thesis till 30.06.2021 (Annexure P-3). Allegedly, on 18.02.2021, the petitioner sent his chapter ‘Finding and Analysis’ of the Thesis for the perusal of his guide i.e. respondent N.6, but the same was refused to be checked by her on 18.02.2021. The petitioner was informed that his name had been removed from the rolls of the University.

3. On 16.03.2021, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent University regarding removal of his name from guide account, as he failed to submit thesis despite repeated extension.

4. On 17.03.2021, the petitioner made a request for allotment of guide as per Notifications/Instructions of UGC and also prayed for extension of time for submission of his thesis (Annexure P-6). But on 13.04.2021, he was informed that he had been terminated from University rolls, since he was enable to complete the Thesis within stipulated time. On 19.04.2021, the petitioner again requested the Worthy Vice Chancellor, to review his decision qua termination of petitioner and such prayer was accepted by the University and termination order was revoked.

5. In sequel to aforesaid decision taken by the Worthy Vice Chancellor, time to submit thesis was extended till 31st December, 2021, (Annexure P-8). After getting extension of time for submission of Thesis till 31.12.2021, the petitioner represented to respondent University on 01.07.2021, requesting therein for allotment of new guide enabling him to complete his thesis as his guide Dr. Archna Katoch had already removed his name from her account on 16.03.2021 (Annexure P-9). However, on 13.07.2021, the petitioner received an e-mail from the Dean stating therein that Dr. Archna Katoch will be his guide. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner's guide was not changed by the respondent University, though, there is a provision for change of guide, in Ordinance 42, Clause 12.1.A(IV) of the University.

6. In the communication, petitioner alleged that since guide allotted to him has not cooperated in his research work, he may be provided some other guide. However, on 23.08.2021 petitioner was asked to provide the reason in detail, as to why the petitioner wants his guide to be changed, (Annexure P-12). Though, on 25.08.2021, the petitioner gave a detailed reply and accorded his reasons as to why he wants his guide to be changed, but after five months his request for change of guide came to be rejected vide e-mail, dated 25.08.2021 and 02.02.2021, (Annexure P-13).

7. Vide aforesaid communication, dated 23.08.2021, the respondent University asked the petitioner to explain that under what circumstances, after having a six and half year long period, he can make a request for new guide. Vide aforesaid communication, neither the respondent university rejected the prayer nor provided fresh guide and as such vide e-mail dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P14), the petitioner again made a representation, but since no decision till date has been taken by the Worthy Vice Chancellor on the request made by the petitioner, he is compelled to initiate instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying them for following relief(s):-

(i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and order dated Annexure P-13 may kindly be quashed and set aside being contrary to law and University Ordinance.

(ii) That a writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent University to allow petitioner to change his Guide in view of University Ordinance No. 42 Clause 12.1.A(IV) by allotting new Guide and permit petitioner to submit and award his PhD without any further hindrance on or before 30.06.2022 in the interest of justice.

(iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent University to extend the time to complete the Thesis in the interest of justice.

8. Having regard to nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant case, this Court deems it not necessary to call for reply from the respondents and as such, the same is dispensed with. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Balram Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, stated that though he has reason to presume and believe that by now representation dated 21.03.2022, (Annexure P-14), if any, having been filed by the petitioner must have been decided by the respondent University, but if not the same shall be positively decided within a period of two days.

9. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by the Assistant Solicitor General of India, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the directions to respondent No.2, i.e. Vice Chancellor, Central University of Himachal Pradesh at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., to consider and decide the representation, dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure P-14), having been filed by petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks, in accordance with the Ordinance of the University as well as guidelines framed by UGC from time to time. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon, as such present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.