[2025:RJ-JP:32585] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 780/2025 Rekha Devi W/o Sh. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 37 Years, R/O- Plot No. 121, Flat No. 104, Sun City, Sector-6, Block A, Rewari (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus 1. University of Rajasthan, through Vice Chancellor, JLN Marg, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Registrar (Research), University of Rajasthan, JLN Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kawal Singh Loha For Respondent(s) : Ms.Pragya Sethia JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for setting-aside the impugned letter dated 22.07.2024 issued by the respondent-University and issuing directions to the respondent-University to re-register the petitioner for the Ph.D. Course and allow her to submit her thesis. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received registration for enrollment as a Research Scholar for the Ph.D. Degree in the year 2013, but on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, she could not submit her thesis within time. Counsel submits that the petitioner has suffered miscarriage thrice and after that a child was born and that was the precise reason that the thesis could not be submitted [2025:RJ-JP:32585] (2 of 4) [CW-780/2025] within time by the petitioner. Counsel submits that even the petitioner’s guide has also made favourable recommendation in favour of the petitioner to the respondent-University to consider the case of the petitioner on sympathetic grounds and re-register her as a Research Scholar to complete her Ph.D. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-University opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per the Ordinance 130 of the Rajasthan University Handbook, a scholar of the Ph.D. Course is supposed to complete their thesis work within a period of three years from the date of their registration. Registration was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 14.11.2013, on the condition that the thesis would be submitted through the assigned Supervisor within a period of three years. The aforesaid period of the petitioner was completed on 13.11.2016 and thereafter, further extension of one year was granted till 13.11.2017, but no permission was sought by the petitioner for extension or re-registration beyond 13.11.2017. Counsel submits the petitioner submitted an application on 15.01.2019 for re-registration and the same was granted w.e.f. 14.11.2018 to 13.11.2020, but the petitioner has failed to do the needful and in the meantime, the respondent-University received a letter from the petitioner’s guide that she is not in touch with him. Counsel submits that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, finally the registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 27.05.2022, thereafter, a representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Vice Chancellor for re-registration, and the same was rejected vide the impugned letter dated 22.07.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:32585] (3 of 4) [CW-780/2025] 4. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence with regard to the miscarriages suffered by the petitioner has been placed before the respondent-University and now, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-register herself for getting her Ph.D. Degree contrary to the provisions contained under Ordinance 130 of the Rajasthan University Handbook. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the argument put forward by learned counsel for the respondent-University and looking to the fact that the petitioner had ample time and opportunity to complete her thesis work in the period from 14.11.2013 till 27.05.2022, though the period for submission of the thesis was only three years, but the same was extended by re-registration of the petitioner in the year 2019 and finally, the letter was written by the petitioner’s Guide to the respondent-University that she was not in touch with him, therefore, under these circumstances, the registration of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent-University. 7. Neither before the respondent-University, nor before this Court any document in support of the petitioner’s contention has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner showing that she has suffered three miscarriages and that was the precise reason for seeking time and making the request for re-registration. 8. Sufficient time was already granted to the petitioner by the respondent-University w.e.f., 2013 till 2025, but in between, the petitioner has failed to do the needful. 9. This Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. Stay [2025:RJ-JP:32585] (4 of 4) [CW-780/2025] application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /74