University Has Withheld My Degree, Marksheet or Result for an Administrative Reason Unrelated to My Examination - Writ Remedy in Bihar

Legally reviewed and updated: 9 September 2026

Legal research by Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh.

Direct Answer

Yes. If your academic requirements are complete and the University is withholding your result, marksheet or degree only because of its own administrative problem, a writ petition before Patna High Court can be a strong remedy.

The most favourable factual pattern is where:

  • the University registered you;
  • you pursued the course;
  • the University issued admit cards;
  • you appeared in the examinations;
  • you passed;
  • the University has already issued a result, marksheet or provisional certificate; and
  • the original degree or remaining academic record is being withheld because of affiliation, State permission, internal forwarding, record correction or another administrative matter for which you are not responsible.

Patna High Court has repeatedly intervened in such cases.

A University cannot ordinarily use its internal dispute with the State, its affiliated college or its own administrative machinery to indefinitely destroy the career prospects of a student whom it has already permitted to complete the academic process.

First Identify What Exactly Has Been Withheld

University cases often become unnecessarily confusing because the student merely says:

“My documents are pending.”

The writ petition should precisely identify what remains pending:

  • semester result;
  • final result;
  • individual marksheet;
  • consolidated marksheet;
  • provisional certificate;
  • original/final degree certificate;
  • migration certificate;
  • transcript;
  • correction of registration number/name/date of birth;
  • verification or authentication of an already issued degree.

The legal relief must correspond to the exact document or academic decision being withheld.

The Critical Distinction: Student Problem or University Problem?

The strongest cases are those in which the problem has nothing to do with the student's academic performance or misconduct.

Reason for Withholding Indicative Position
University-State affiliation issue Strong writ issue where student was nevertheless permitted to study, appear and pass.
College failed to send forwarding letter Administrative objection which may not justify indefinite withholding where University's own records establish passing.
Registration-number clerical error Normally capable of administrative correction; prolonged withholding can be challenged.
University has simply not processed certificate Mandamus may be appropriate after reasonable demand/representation.
Government permission awaited after result already declared Strongly comparable to the Veer Kunwar Singh University cases.
Student actually failed or has an uncleared paper Different case; no automatic right to final degree.
Unfair means/malpractice proceeding pending University may have a lawful basis to withhold pending proper proceedings.
Admission/eligibility obtained by fraud Much weaker case; no estoppel ordinarily protects fraud.
Degree/document genuineness is genuinely disputed University/regulator may be entitled to verify before accepting or issuing consequential documents.

Bintesh Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar: The Leading Bihar Example

One of the clearest Patna High Court decisions is Bintesh Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar, CWJC No.8065 of 2023, decided on 13 July 2023.

The petitioner pursued B.Sc. Physics Honours through Veer Kunwar Singh University.

The University:

  • registered him;
  • allowed him to pursue the course;
  • conducted his examinations;
  • declared him successful;
  • issued his marksheet; and
  • issued a provisional certificate.

The problem was not that the student had failed.

The original degree remained withheld because of an affiliation-related issue involving the college/course and State Government permission.

Patna High Court held that the student could not be deprived of his original marksheet and certificate because the University's request or recommendation concerning affiliation remained pending with the Government.

The Court noted the serious career consequences flowing from absence of the original academic certificate and directed issuance of the original marksheet and degree certificate within one month.

This judgment is particularly valuable where:

STUDENT HAS PASSED + UNIVERSITY HAS RECOGNISED THE RESULT + ADMINISTRATIVE AFFILIATION ISSUE REMAINS PENDING.

The Court Will Not Allow the Student's Career to Become Collateral Damage

A recurring feature in these cases is employment or further-education prejudice.

A student may need the original degree for:

  • BPSC document verification;
  • SSC or Railway recruitment;
  • UPSC or other public recruitment;
  • teacher recruitment;
  • postgraduate admission;
  • foreign university admission;
  • scholarship;
  • professional registration;
  • government-service verification;
  • visa or immigration documentation.

The academic dispute therefore becomes urgent because a judgment delivered after the recruitment or admission deadline may have little practical value.

In Bintesh Kumar Rai, the petitioner had been shortlisted in recruitment and required his original degree. Patna High Court specifically considered the risk to his career.

Bipul Kumar and Pravin Kumar: The Principle Was Repeated

The principle in Bintesh Kumar Rai was not confined to a single petitioner.

In Pravin Kumar v. State of Bihar, CWJC No.11712 of 2023, decided on 29 August 2023, Patna High Court disposed of the matter in terms of Bintesh Kumar Rai.

Similarly, in Bipul Kumar v. State of Bihar, CWJC No.13146 of 2023, decided on 18 September 2023, the Court again directed the concerned University and State authorities to ensure that the student received the original final-year marksheet and degree certificate within one month.

This series of cases provides a substantial Bihar-specific foundation where students are caught between:

  • University;
  • college;
  • State Education Department; and
  • affiliation/permission formalities.

What If the University Says: “We Wrongly Allowed You to Sit the Examination”?

A separate but related principle becomes relevant where the University itself scrutinised the student, issued the admit card, permitted the examination and only afterwards attempts to rely upon a technical irregularity that it should have examined earlier.

The Supreme Court's decision in Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University, (1976) 1 SCC 311, remains an important authority in this area.

The Supreme Court held, on the facts and applicable University Ordinances before it, that once the University permitted the candidate to appear, it could not subsequently exercise a power which had already worked itself out to cancel the candidature on that basis.

This does not mean that every breach of a mandatory academic statute is automatically cured.

It means that where scrutiny was the University's responsibility and the University knowingly allowed the student through the academic process, a later attempt to punish the student for the University's own failure may be vulnerable to judicial review.

Prabhat Kumar Singh: Patna High Court Applied That Principle in 2024

In Prabhat Kumar Singh v. Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University, CWJC No.9683 of 2022, decided on 1 August 2024, the student had appeared in the relevant B.Sc. examinations and passed.

The University later relied upon Regulations 7.1 and 8 and contended that he ought not to have appeared in Part III before clearing the relevant Part II papers.

Patna High Court observed that the University itself had issued the admit cards and permitted him to appear.

Relying upon Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University, the Court allowed the writ and directed:

  • declaration of the result;
  • issuance of the Part III marksheet; and
  • issuance of the original B.Sc. certificate.

The entire exercise was directed to be completed within three weeks.

Uday Shankar Choudhary: A Forwarding-Letter Objection Did Not End the Case

A recent and practically useful case is Uday Shankar Choudhary v. State of Bihar, CWJC No.18458 of 2025, decided on 23 December 2025.

The petitioner had passed his B.Sc. Honours examination and Magadh University had already issued:

  • a provisional certificate; and
  • a marksheet.

The original certificate had nevertheless remained pending for years.

The petitioner eventually qualified a BPSC examination and required the degree for his career.

The University's response included an objection that there was no document demonstrating that the College had issued a forwarding letter for the original certificate.

Patna High Court nevertheless directed the Controller of Examination, Magadh University, to issue the original certificate preferably within four weeks.

The Court further stated that delay in issuance of the certificate would be viewed as defiance of the Court's order.

This case is important where the University tries to shift an internal file-processing or college-forwarding problem onto the student even though the student's passing and provisional academic record are admitted.

2026 Patna University Example: Internal Record Correction

In Atul Krishna Agarwal v. Patna University, CWJC No.5715 of 2024, an order was passed on 14 July 2026.

The grievance concerned the original certificate and migration certificate relating to B.Com. Honours.

During the litigation, Patna University informed the Court that:

  • the necessary correction in the registration number had been made; and
  • the original certificate and marksheet had already been issued.

The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Although the Court did not need to pronounce a larger final principle because the grievance had already been resolved, the case demonstrates a practical reality:

Article 226 proceedings can compel attention to an academic record that has remained stuck because of an internal University correction or administrative delay.

What If the Result Itself Has Not Been Published?

A student need not wait for the final degree dispute if the University's inaction begins at the result stage.

In Md. Jahangir Alam v. State of Bihar, CWJC No.14692 of 2025, decided on 1 November 2025, the student approached Patna High Court because his LL.B. result had not been published despite his case that he had successfully passed the semester examinations.

The record suggested that the University's absence entry in one paper was inconsistent with materials from the Centre Superintendent and College.

Patna High Court directed the Controller of Examination to examine the issue and publish the result, preferably within six weeks, if there was otherwise no impediment.

Therefore:

RESULT WITHHELD and DEGREE WITHHELD are different stages, but both may attract Article 226 scrutiny.

Current UGC Student Grievance Remedy

The University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 provide an important parallel grievance mechanism.

The Regulations apply to covered higher educational institutions and define several matters as student grievances.

Relevant examples include:

  • delay in declaration of examination results beyond the specified academic schedule;
  • non-transparent or unfair evaluation practices;
  • student harassment or victimisation;
  • action contrary to the institution's statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations or guidelines;
  • action contrary to UGC or relevant regulatory-body regulations/guidelines;
  • specified withholding or refusal to return academic documents deposited with an institution.

Step 1: Students’ Grievance Redressal Committee

An aggrieved student may address the complaint to the Chairperson of the Students’ Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC).

The SGRC is required to follow principles of natural justice.

It should preferably send its report/recommendations to the competent authority and provide a copy to the student within 15 working days from receipt of the complaint.

Step 2: Ombudsperson

A student aggrieved by the SGRC decision may appeal to the Ombudsperson within 15 days from receipt of the decision.

The Ombudsperson is expected to make efforts to resolve the grievance within 30 days of receiving the appeal.

Must I Complete the UGC Grievance Procedure Before Filing a Writ?

Not every case has the same answer.

The existence of an internal or regulatory remedy is relevant to the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction.

Therefore, where time permits, it is normally sensible to:

  1. make a written demand to the University;
  2. submit the complaint through the University's grievance/SGRC mechanism;
  3. preserve acknowledgement;
  4. approach the Ombudsperson where appropriate.

But an urgent educational case may require immediate Article 226 consideration where:

  • BPSC/UPSC/SSC/document verification is imminent;
  • postgraduate admission will close;
  • a scholarship deadline will expire;
  • foreign admission/visa processing is at risk;
  • the University admits that the student has passed but still refuses to issue the certificate;
  • the issue is pure administrative inaction rather than an academic merits dispute;
  • earlier representations have already remained unanswered.

A writ petition should explain the urgency instead of simply bypassing an available grievance mechanism without explanation.

Which Cases Are Strongest?

Fact Indicative Effect
University issued registration and admit card Strong evidence that University accepted the student into its academic process.
All examinations completed Strong factor.
Student declared passed Very important.
Marksheets already issued Strong.
Provisional degree already issued Very strong where only original degree remains pending.
Reason is college affiliation/State permission Comparable to Bintesh Kumar Rai line of cases.
Internal registration error Ordinarily an administrative correction issue.
College forwarding letter not processed University may be required to resolve its own administrative chain.
Employment verification deadline approaching Supports urgency.
Student failed an examination Weak for final degree unless result itself is legally wrong.
Malpractice enquiry pending University may have lawful reason to withhold subject to fairness/rules.
Forged admission or document allegation supported by material Materially different and significantly weaker.
Course itself lacked legally mandatory recognition and University never validly accepted the student Requires much deeper regulatory examination.

Do Not Confuse an Administrative Error With Fraud

This distinction is critical.

A University mistake may include:

  • wrong registration number;
  • missing forwarding letter;
  • delayed affiliation decision;
  • failure to update portal data;
  • internal discrepancy between College and University records.

Fraud is different.

If the student:

  • submitted a fabricated certificate;
  • concealed a mandatory disqualification;
  • secured admission through deliberate misrepresentation;
  • used a forged marksheet;
  • participated in proven examination malpractice;

the Court will not ordinarily treat the case as a simple administrative-delay matter.

In 2026, Patna High Court has also demonstrated that genuine doubts concerning educational-document authenticity can justify serious verification by public authorities.

Therefore, before filing, determine whether the University's actual reason is:

“OUR FILE IS INCOMPLETE”

or

“YOUR ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT ITSELF IS UNDER LEGAL CHALLENGE.”

These are fundamentally different cases.

Documents to Collect Before Filing a Writ

Document Why It Matters
Admission receipt/form Shows lawful entry into course.
University registration card Shows University registration.
Admit cards Proves University permitted examinations.
Semester/year marksheets Proves examination history.
Online result printout Shows declared academic status.
Consolidated marksheet Strong evidence of completed course.
Provisional certificate Often one of the strongest documents.
Application for original degree Shows demand was made.
University receipt/payment Shows degree-processing requirements were completed.
Email/representation Shows repeated demand and inaction.
University reply Identifies exact administrative objection.
College forwarding letter, if available May rebut an internal-processing objection.
Employment/admission notice Demonstrates urgency and prejudice.
SGRC complaint Shows use of grievance mechanism.
Ombudsperson papers Relevant where that remedy was pursued.

Whom Should I Make Respondents?

The parties depend on the reason for withholding.

Common respondents in a Bihar University case may include:

  • the University through its Registrar;
  • Vice-Chancellor;
  • Registrar;
  • Controller of Examination;
  • concerned College/Principal;
  • Education Department, Government of Bihar;
  • Director, Higher Education;
  • another regulatory authority if the dispute actually concerns statutory recognition.

Do not add every possible authority mechanically.

For example:

  • if the problem is only certificate printing, Controller of Examination/University may be central;
  • if State affiliation permission is the stated reason, the State Education Department may become necessary;
  • if the College has not forwarded the student's records, the College may also be necessary.

What Relief Can Be Asked From Patna High Court?

Depending upon the facts, a writ petition may seek:

  • a writ of mandamus directing publication of the result;
  • issuance of the pending marksheet;
  • issuance of the consolidated marksheet;
  • issuance of provisional/final degree certificate;
  • correction of registration/academic record;
  • decision upon pending representation within a fixed period;
  • communication of the precise legal reason for withholding;
  • temporary verification/certification to protect an employment or admission opportunity;
  • appropriate consequential relief where prolonged illegal withholding caused demonstrated prejudice.

Compensation may be claimed in an appropriate case, but it should not be assumed that every delay will automatically result in monetary compensation.

The strongest primary prayer is normally:

“Direct the University to issue/publish the academic record within a fixed time because no legally sustainable impediment attributable to the student exists.”

Standard Representation Before Filing the Writ

To,
The Controller of Examinations / Registrar
[Name of University]
[Address]

Subject: Request for immediate publication/issuance of pending result, marksheet and/or original degree certificate.

Sir/Madam,

I was admitted to the __________ Course for the academic session __________ under Registration No. __________ and Roll No. __________.

The University permitted me to pursue the course and issued the relevant admit cards.

I appeared in the prescribed examinations and completed the academic requirements of the course.

My academic position is as follows:

Course:
Session:
Registration No.:
Roll No.:
Final Examination:
Result:
Division/CGPA:
Provisional Certificate No. and Date, if any:
Pending Document:

Despite completion of the above requirements, my __________ has not been issued/published.

I have been informed that the document/result is being withheld because of __________.

The aforesaid issue is administrative in nature and is not attributable to any examination default, misconduct or academic deficiency on my part.

The continued withholding is causing serious prejudice because I require the document for __________, the relevant deadline being __________.

I therefore respectfully request that:

1. my record be verified immediately;
2. the pending result/marksheet/degree/certificate be issued forthwith; and
3. if the University believes that any lawful impediment exists, a written and reasoned decision identifying the exact statutory/regulatory provision may kindly be communicated to me immediately.

This representation may also be treated as a student grievance under the applicable UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023, wherever applicable.

Date:
Place:

Name:
Course:
Registration No.:
Roll No.:
Mobile:
Email:
Signature:

Suggested Writ Prayer Structure

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) issue an appropriate writ/order/direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondent University and its competent authorities to publish/issue the petitioner's pending __________ pertaining to __________ Course, Session __________;

(b) direct the respondents to issue the original degree/marksheet/certificate within a time-bound period, the petitioner having already completed and passed the prescribed examinations;

(c) hold that an administrative dispute or procedural default between the University, College and/or State authorities, which is not attributable to the petitioner, cannot indefinitely deprive the petitioner of the academic document already earned through completion of the course and examinations;

(d) pending final disposal, direct the University to issue an authenticated provisional/verification certificate enabling the petitioner to participate in __________ document verification/admission/employment process scheduled on __________;

(e) direct consideration and disposal of the petitioner's representation dated __________ by a reasoned and speaking order within a fixed period, if any adjudicatory issue genuinely survives;

(f) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

When Should Urgent Interim Relief Be Requested?

Urgency should be documentary, not merely verbal.

Examples include:

  • BPSC verification in seven days;
  • UPSC personality-test/document deadline;
  • government joining deadline;
  • university admission closing date;
  • foreign admission deadline;
  • professional registration requirement;
  • scholarship deadline.

Annex the relevant communication.

A useful interim request may be narrower than the final relief:

  • issue a digitally verifiable provisional degree;
  • send verification directly to recruiting authority;
  • publish result provisionally subject to the case;
  • permit document verification on the basis of University authentication.

A focused interim prayer is often more effective than asking the Court to finally adjudicate every University issue on the first date.

University Degree/Result Writ Flowchart

Academic entitlement → identify pending document → identify reason → representation → UGC grievance remedy → Article 226 where unlawful withholding continues or urgent prejudice exists.

Plain-text alternative: Confirm that the course/examinations are complete → identify exactly what is pending → obtain the University's reason → distinguish student fault from institutional administration → submit written representation → use SGRC/Ombudsperson where appropriate → if withholding continues or urgent career prejudice exists, examine a writ petition before Patna High Court.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. I have passed but the University is not giving my original degree. Can I file a writ?

Yes. Patna High Court has repeatedly entertained such writ petitions, particularly where the University has already issued the marksheet and provisional certificate.

2. The University says my College had an affiliation problem. Is that my fault?

Not necessarily. In the Bintesh Kumar Rai line of cases, Patna High Court did not permit students who had already been allowed to study, appear and pass to indefinitely suffer because affiliation/State permission remained unresolved.

3. The College never sent a forwarding letter. Can the University refuse my degree?

An internal forwarding issue may require correction, but Uday Shankar Choudhary demonstrates that such an objection does not necessarily justify indefinite withholding where the University admits that the student passed and already issued a marksheet/provisional certificate.

4. My registration number is wrong. What should I do?

First demand correction in writing and preserve the application. In the 2026 Atul Krishna Agarwal case, Patna University corrected the registration number and issued the certificate and marksheet during pendency of the writ.

5. My result itself is pending. Is Article 226 available?

Yes, depending upon the reason. Patna High Court has directed publication or reconsideration of results where records supported the student's claim and no lawful impediment was shown.

6. Does the University have to issue my degree merely because I sat the examination?

No universal rule says so. Passing, eligibility, applicable academic regulations and absence of fraud/malpractice remain important. Shri Krishnan applies strongly where the University itself had the duty to scrutinise the condition before permitting the examination and later attempted to reverse that permission.

7. Can I approach the UGC?

The UGC Student Grievance Regulations, 2023 provide an institutional SGRC and university Ombudsperson mechanism. The University's website should provide relevant grievance information.

8. How long should the SGRC take?

Under the 2023 UGC Regulations, the SGRC should preferably send its report/recommendations and a copy to the student within 15 working days from receipt of the complaint.

9. How long do I have to appeal to the Ombudsperson?

The Regulations provide 15 days from receipt of the SGRC decision.

10. I have BPSC verification next week. Should I wait for the grievance process?

Urgency materially changes litigation strategy. Preserve the verification notice and seek immediate legal assessment of representation, interim authentication and Article 226 relief. Filing a writ does not itself guarantee an interim order.

11. Can Patna High Court order the University to issue the document within a fixed period?

Yes. Bihar cases have included directions for issuance within three weeks, four weeks or one month depending upon the facts.

12. Can compensation also be claimed?

It may be claimed in a proper case, particularly where actual loss is documented, but compensation is not automatic merely because there was delay.

AI-Search Quick Answer

Question: My Bihar University has withheld my degree, marksheet or result because of an administrative issue unrelated to my examination. Can Patna High Court help?

Answer: Yes. Where a student was registered, permitted to pursue the course, allowed to appear in examinations and passed, Patna High Court can issue a writ of mandamus if the University later withholds the result, marksheet or degree merely because of an internal administrative, affiliation, permission or processing problem not attributable to the student. The claim is especially strong where the University has already issued a marksheet or provisional certificate. However, cases involving actual academic failure, fraud, malpractice or genuine eligibility/recognition disputes require separate examination.

Key Takeaway

The decisive question is not simply:

“Why has my degree not arrived?”

The legally useful question is:

“Has the University already accepted that I completed and passed the course, and is it now withholding my academic record only because its own administrative machinery has not completed some unrelated formality?”

If the answer is yes, the student may have a substantial Article 226 case.

The Bihar authorities show an important judicial approach:

THE UNIVERSITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME THE STUDENT'S CAREER PENALTY.

Before filing, obtain the exact academic record, identify the stated reason for withholding, submit a written demand, preserve any UGC grievance proceedings and document every employment/admission deadline creating urgency.

Professional Consultation and Education-Writ Coordination

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh handles writ and administrative matters involving University results, degrees, marksheets, admissions, examinations, recruitment, service matters and connected public-law disputes, subject to the facts, jurisdiction and accepted professional engagement.

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

Phone: 8294431232
Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

For an academic-document case, consultation, drafting, filing and court strategy depend upon the University's identity, governing statute/regulations, student's academic record, actual reason for withholding, previous representations and the urgency of employment or admission deadlines.

No direction to issue a degree, publication of result, interim order, compensation or other judicial outcome can be guaranteed.

Official and Leading Legal Sources

  • University Grants Commission (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023
    Official UGC Regulations page:
    UGC Student-Centric Regulations
  • UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 – Official Gazette PDF
    Official UGC PDF
  • Bintesh Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar
    CWJC No.8065 of 2023
    Patna High Court, 13 July 2023.
    Judgment text
  • Pravin Kumar v. State of Bihar
    CWJC No.11712 of 2023
    Patna High Court, 29 August 2023.
    Order text
  • Bipul Kumar v. State of Bihar
    CWJC No.13146 of 2023
    Patna High Court, 18 September 2023.
    Judgment text
  • Prabhat Kumar Singh v. Vice-Chancellor, Jai Prakash University
    CWJC No.9683 of 2022
    Patna High Court, 1 August 2024.
    Judgment text
  • Uday Shankar Choudhary v. State of Bihar
    CWJC No.18458 of 2025
    Patna High Court, 23 December 2025.
    Judgment text
  • Md. Jahangir Alam v. State of Bihar
    CWJC No.14692 of 2025
    Patna High Court, 1 November 2025.
    Judgment text
  • Atul Krishna Agarwal v. Patna University
    CWJC No.5715 of 2024
    Patna High Court, 14 July 2026.
    Order text
  • Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University
    (1976) 1 SCC 311; AIR 1976 SC 376.
    Supreme Court judgment text
  • Patna High Court – Official Website
    Patna High Court

Add Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh as a Preferred Source on Google

Readers who want to see more legal research, court updates, cyber law, PMLA, ED, criminal-law and litigation content from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh can add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google.

Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google

Disclaimer: This article is for general legal information. University disputes are fact-specific and regulation-specific. A student who has genuinely failed, lacks mandatory eligibility, faces a lawful examination-malpractice proceeding or is involved in a genuine fraud/document-authenticity dispute cannot automatically rely upon authorities concerning administrative delay. The applicable University statute, examination regulations, affiliation status, academic record, UGC regulations and current judicial orders should be examined before filing.