1 CGHC010137092022 2026:CGHC:36247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2026 of 2022 1 - Dr. Ashutosh Mishra S/o Late Shri R. K. Mishra Aged About 53 Years R/o 211, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya Through- Registrar, Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Assistant Registrar Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sanjay Dwivedi S/o Shri Shri P.N. Dwivedi Aged About 49 Years Director General, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, R/o Aruna Asif Ali Marg, Jnu Campus, New Delhi ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respective Respondents : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra and Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocates. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.17 19:13:36 +0530 2 14/08/2026 1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), whereby the P.H.D. registration of respondent No. 3, which had earlier been restored, was once again recognized/restored. Aggrieved by the said order and the consequential restoration of the P.H.D. registration in favour of respondent No. 3, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, subsequent to the registration, the P.H.D. degree has already been awarded to respondent No. 3. Consequently, the relief sought by the petitioner has, by efflux of time and subsequent developments, become infructuous, and no effective relief can now be granted in the present proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, as he is not similarly situated or at par with respondent No. 3. He next submits that the petitioner was never appointed in Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism and Mass Communication, Bhopal (M.P.), whereas respondent No. 3 was granted the benefit in question. It is also submitted that the petitioner is presently working at another University at Chandigarh and, therefore, has no subsisting or legally enforceable right warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 3 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the relief sought in the present petition, it appears that the petitioner has essentially challenged the re-registration/restoration of the P.H.D. course in favour of respondent No. 3. However, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the said process has already culminated in the conferment/award of the P.H.D. degree upon respondent No. 3. Consequently, the relief sought by the petitioner has, in view of the subsequent developments, become infructuous, and no effective relief now survives for consideration by this Court. 4. Accordingly, the petition has become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju