1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

               “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ order or direction to declare that the Notice dated 30.06.2022 in Lr.No.1158/DFScIOU/2022 passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 respectively as being arbitrary biased illegal contrary to law and violative of Article 14 Article 19 1 a and Article 21A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Notice dated 30.06.2022 in Lr.No.1158/DFSc/OU/2022 passed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively grant the Petitioner an extension of one years to submit his thesis and complete his Ph.D course and pass…”

02. Heard Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the respondent No.1, and Mr. Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

03(a). Aggrieved by the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the notice, dated 30.06.2022, whereby the petitioner's application seeking extension of time for completion of the Ph.D. course was rejected, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

               03(b). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of her admission to the Ph.D. programme, the respondent No.2 had stipulated that the duration of the Ph.D. course would be four years, with a provision permitting full-time scholars to seek a maximum of four extensions, one year at a time, thereby allowing a maximum period of eight years for completion of the programme. However, on 04.07.2015, the respondent No.2 amended and issued the Ph.D. Rules and Regulations for the academic year 2013-2014. Clause 13.1 (Extension of Registration) of the said Rules reads as follows:

               “13.1: Candidate can seek extension of his/her registration as Ph.D. scholar, one year at a time (a maximum of two (2) such extensions for a full-time and one(1) such extension for a part time scholar) provided that he/she has been continuously engaged in active research, the progress of the research work in the previous years has been satisfactory as certified by the supervisor(s) and that he/she has no dues in the library/department/college/hostel as certified by the concerned authority.”

               03(c). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, consequently, the maximum duration of the Ph.D. programme was amended and reduced to six years (i.e., four years plus a maximum of two annual extensions). The petitioner was granted extensions on three occasions, vide proceedings dated 03.08.2021, 30.09.2021, and 27.11.2021. Thereafter, on 06.12.2021, the petitioner submitted an application seeking a final extension of registration as a Ph.D. scholar for the period from 08.10.2021 to 07.10.2022, in view of the continuing difficulties arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner also sought extension on the basis of the Public Notice dated 01.12.2021 issued by the University Grants Commission. However, the respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 24.12.2021 stating that research scholars who had registered prior to 2016 and were required to submit their theses on or before 31.12.2021 would be granted an extension of only one month, i.e., up to 31.01.2022, as a grace period. It is contended that the said notice was issued abruptly and was contrary to the UGC guidelines contained in the Public Notice dated 01.12.2021. It is further contended that the said notice was neither displayed on the faculty notice boards nor widely circulated on the campus or uploaded on the website of respondent No.2.

               03(d).Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, after submitting the application seeking final extension, the petitioner met with an unfortunate accident on 13.12.2021, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries and was advised bed rest for about 30 to 40 days to recover and regain proper mobility. Consequently, he came to know of the notice dated 24.12.2021 issued by respondent No.2 only in January, 2022.

               03(e).Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after sending several emails, the University Grants Commission (UGC), vide communication dated 28.01.2022, addressed to respondent No.2, directed the said respondent to comply with the UGC Public Notice dated 01.12.2021 and to grant extension of time for submission of theses by terminal M.Phil./Ph.D. students. As per the said Public Notice, an extension of six months beyond 31.12.2021, i.e., up to 30.06.2022, could be granted by the respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 failed to comply with the said directions.

               03(f). Learned counsel further contended that the UGC, vide Public Notice dated 17.05.2022, granted a further extension of six months beyond 30.06.2022 for submission of theses by terminal M.Phil./Ph.D. students. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Governor of Telangana, but no action was taken thereon.

               03(g). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a genuine and hardworking research scholar who had devoted eight years to his research and completed about 90% of the requirements of the Ph.D. programme. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner required only one final extension to complete the seminars, pre-viva voce, thesis verification, and submission of the thesis.

               03(h). It is further submitted that, after denial of the extension, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, vide RTI application dated 07.07.2022. The petitioner had completed approximately 90% of the Ph.D. programme under the guidance of his supervisor, and only the seminars, pre-viva voce, thesis verification, and submission of the thesis remained pending. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 had, in several cases, granted extensions to similarly situated scholars who had not completed their Ph.D. programmes within the prescribed period. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

04(a). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition and contending that the University has acted strictly in accordance with the norms, rules, and regulations governing Ph.D. admissions and research programmes.

               04(b). It is contended that, under the Osmania University Ph.D. Rules and Regulations, 2013–2014, the duration of the Ph.D. programme is four years, extendable by a maximum period of two years, one year at a time. According to the respondents, the petitioner was admitted to the Ph.D. programme on 09.10.2014 and, therefore, the normal period of four years expired on 08.10.2018. Thereafter, he was granted two annual extensions up to 09.10.2019 and 09.10.2020 respectively, thereby completing the maximum permissible period of six years on 09.10.2020.

               04(c). It is further contended that, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the University granted the petitioner a further extension up to 09.10.2021 for submission of his thesis. However, the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. It is stated that the petitioner approached the then Dean, Faculty of Science, Osmania University, on 06.12.2021 seeking a further extension of one year. Though he was informed that such extension could not be granted under the Rules, he was also informed that he could submit his thesis on or before 31.12.2021 under the “one-time chance” extended by the University. Despite the said opportunity, the petitioner failed to submit his thesis and, therefore, his request for further extension was not accepted.

               04(d). The respondents further contend that, keeping in view the pandemic situation, the University, vide orders dated 03.04.2021, granted all research scholars who had registered prior to 2016 a one-time opportunity to submit their thesis on or before 31.12.2021.

               04(e). It is further contended that the petitioner's claim that he had completed 90% of the research work is incorrect. According to the respondents, after completion of the course work, a research scholar is required to clear the Pre-Ph.D. examination and deliver two seminars within the prescribed time frame. Rule 11 of the Ph.D. Rules stipulates that, during the tenure of the Ph.D. programme, a candidate shall present two seminars. The first seminar, designated as the “Research Design Seminar”, is to be presented after completion of the Ph.D. course work examination and shall consist of a comprehensive literature review of the research topic and the proposed plan of work. The seminar is required to be conducted in the Department where the candidate is registered, and its conduct is to be certified by the Head of the Department and the Chairperson of the Board of Studies.

               04(f). The second seminar, designated as the “Pre-Submission Seminar”, is to be presented when the thesis is ready for submission. The seminar shall cover the entire research work carried out by the candidate, and any feedback, comments, or suggestions received from the committee and participants are required to be incorporated into the final thesis manuscript. A draft copy of the thesis must be made available during the presentation. The Pre-Submission Seminar is required to be held at least three months prior to submission of the thesis and must be certified by the Head of the Department, the Chairperson of the Board of Studies, and the Research Supervisor. Certificates relating to both seminars are required to be enclosed at the time of thesis submission.

               04(g). It is contended that the petitioner had not even presented the Research Design Seminar and, therefore, could not have received the suggestions and modifications necessary for further improvement of his research work. In the absence of such seminar, the petitioner cannot legitimately claim that 90% of the research work had been completed.

               04(h). It is further contended that, under the one-time opportunity scheme, the University ultimately granted a final opportunity to candidates who had registered prior to 2016 to submit their theses by 31.03.2022. Several research scholars availed themselves of the said opportunity and successfully submitted their theses. However, the petitioner failed to do so. According to the respondents, under the University Rules and Regulations, upon expiry of the maximum permissible duration of six years (4+1+1), the admission automatically stands cancelled.Accordingly, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents, contending that the settled principle of law that "the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has commenced" squarely applies to the present case. It was submitted that the respondents, by retrospectively reducing the permissible duration for completion of the Ph.D. programme from eight years to six years after the petitioner had already been admitted and commenced the course, have altered the governing rules midstream. Such retrospective modification of the eligibility conditions is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is liable to be set aside.

06. Having heard the learned counsel for either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, the undisputed facts disclose that the petitioner was admitted into the Ph.D. Programme of the respondent No.2-University on 09.10.2014. At the time when the petitioner secured admission, the governing Regulations provided that the duration of the Ph.D. Programme was four years with a provision enabling a full-time research scholar to obtain four annual extensions, thereby permitting completion of the programme within a maximum period of eight years. The petitioner commenced his research under the said regulatory framework and legitimately expected that his candidature would be governed by the Rules which were in force on the date of his admission.

07. It is not in dispute that subsequently the respondent-University issued amended Ph.D. Rules and Regulations on 04.07.2015, whereby Clause 13.1 restricted the maximum extension available to a full-time research scholar to only two annual extensions, thereby reducing the maximum period of registration from eight years to six years. The central issue, therefore, is whether such amended Regulations could retrospectively govern the case of the petitioner who had already entered the programme under the earlier Regulations.

08. The settled principle of law is that the conditions governing admission, eligibility and continuation of an academic programme are required to remain constant throughout the process. Once a candidate enters a course on the basis of a particular set of Rules, those Rules ordinarily continue to govern his rights and obligations unless the amended Regulations specifically provide for retrospective application or unless the amendment is merely procedural in nature. A vested right accrued under the existing Regulations cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment unless such retrospective operation is expressly authorized by law.

09. The doctrine that "the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun" has consistently been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The principle is founded upon fairness, certainty and legitimate expectation. A candidate who commences an academic programme based upon an existing regulatory framework organizes his academic pursuits on the assumption that the applicable Rules would remain unchanged insofar as his rights are concerned. Any alteration adversely affecting such rights midway through the programme would be manifestly arbitrary.

10. In the present case, the respondents have not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate that the amended Ph.D. Regulations dated 04.07.2015 were intended to operate retrospectively so as to cover scholars who had already been admitted prior thereto. In the absence of any express provision conferring retrospective operation, the amended Regulations can only operate prospectively. Consequently, the petitioner's rights are required to be examined under the Regulations which existed on the date of his admission and not under the subsequently amended Regulations.

11. The respondents have proceeded throughout on the premise that the petitioner became ineligible after completion of six years by applying the amended Regulations of 2015. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, is legally unsustainable. Once the petitioner had entered the programme under the earlier Regulations providing a maximum period of eight years, the respondents could not deprive him of the remaining period by subsequently introducing a more restrictive provision.

12. Apart from the above legal infirmity, the record further reveals that the period during which the petitioner was required to complete his research substantially overlapped with the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic severely disrupted academic and research activities throughout the country. Recognizing the extraordinary circumstances prevailing nationwide, the University Grants Commission itself issued Public Notices dated 01.12.2021 and 17.05.2022 granting extensions for submission of M.Phil. and Ph.D. theses.

13. On a careful perusal of the material placed before this Court further discloses that the UGC addressed a communication dated 28.01.2022 to the respondent No.2 directing compliance with the Public Notice dated 01.12.2021. The object behind the said Public Notices was to ensure that genuine research scholars were not deprived of the fruits of several years of academic work merely because of circumstances beyond their control during the pandemic period.

14. Instead of giving full effect to the spirit underlying the UGC Public Notices, the respondent No.2 restricted the benefit by issuing its own notice dated 24.12.2021 granting only a limited grace period. The respondents have not placed any convincing material to establish that such restriction was in conformity with the directions issued by the UGC. More importantly, the respondents have also failed to demonstrate that the said notice was effectively communicated to all the affected research scholars.

15. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that he met with a serious accident on 13.12.2021 resulting in severe injuries and prolonged bed rest for about 30 to 40 days. The respondents have not seriously disputed the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the petitioner's inability to respond immediately to the notice dated 24.12.2021 cannot be attributed to negligence or lack of diligence. The explanation furnished by the petitioner appears to be bona fide and deserves acceptance.

16. The respondents have contended that the petitioner had not completed the mandatory Research Design Seminar and, therefore, his assertion that 90% of the research work had been completed is factually incorrect. This contention, however, does not justify outright rejection of the petitioner's request for extension. The purpose of granting extension is precisely to enable a research scholar to complete the remaining academic requirements. Whether the petitioner had completed 90% or a lesser percentage of the research work would not, by itself, disentitle him from seeking extension, particularly when the governing Regulations entitled him to continue his registration for a longer period.

17. The respondents have also contended that several other scholars had successfully submitted their theses by 31.03.2022. Merely, because some scholars were able to complete their work within the stipulated period cannot constitute a valid ground for denying extension to another scholar whose case is supported by exceptional circumstances, namely, the retrospective amendment of the Rules, the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the unfortunate accident suffered by him.

18. The petitioner has further alleged that similarly situated research scholars were granted extensions by the respondent-University. Though the respondents have generally denied the allegation, they have not produced any material to demonstrate that the petitioner alone was treated strictly in accordance with the Rules while others were not granted similar indulgence. Even otherwise, once this Court finds that the petitioner's rights were governed by the earlier Regulations, the question of discrimination becomes only an additional circumstance reinforcing the arbitrariness of the impugned action.

19. The administrative authorities exercising statutory powers are expected to act fairly, reasonably and in a manner that advances the cause of justice. Academic regulations undoubtedly deserve judicial deference. Nevertheless, where the authorities apply amended Regulations retrospectively, ignore binding principles of fairness, fail to consider extraordinary circumstances such as a global pandemic and deny a genuine opportunity to complete academic research extending over several years, this Court would be failing in its constitutional duty if it declines to exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

20. A perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2022 disclose that the respondents proceeded solely on the assumption that the petitioner had exhausted the maximum permissible period under the amended Regulations. Since this very foundation is legally erroneous, the consequential rejection cannot be sustained. The impugned proceedings are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have also failed to consider the petitioner's case in the light of the UGC Public Notices issued during the COVID-19 pandemic and the peculiar facts placed before them.

21. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference. The petitioner was admitted to the Ph.D. Programme of respondent No.2-University on 09.10.2014 under the Regulations then in force, which permitted completion of the programme within a maximum period of eight years. The amended Ph.D. Rules and Regulations issued on 04.07.2015, whereby Clause 13.1 reduced the maximum period of registration for a full-time research scholar from eight years to six years, cannot be applied retrospectively to the petitioner, who had already been admitted under the earlier Regulations. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Regulations prevailing on the date of his admission. Moreover, the delay in completion of the research was compounded by the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioner's medical condition following the accident. In such circumstances, denial of extension would result in grave injustice and render several years of academic research futile. Accordingly, the impugned Notice dated 30.06.2022 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside.

22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Notice dated 30.06.2022 issued in Lr.No.1158/DFSc/OU/2022 by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioner a final extension of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable him to complete all the remaining academic requirements, including conduct of seminars, pre-submission formalities, submission of the thesis and all consequential requirements, subject to his fulfilling all other academic requirements prescribed under the Regulations that were applicable on the date of his admission, other than the time stipulation. The respondents shall permit the petitioner to continue his registration and process his thesis in accordance with law without insisting upon the amended limitation regarding duration of registration. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.