PhD Academic Regulations (9-5-2009)


  1. Introduction
  2. Eligibility for PhD  Admission
  3. Medium of Instruction
  4. PhD Application Process
  5. Requirements for Confirmation of PhD Admission
  6. Progress Reports
  7. Change of Supervisor/Topic
  10. Appointment of External Reviewers
  11. External Reviewers Reports
  12. Interpretation of Reports
  13. Resubmission of PhD Thesis
  14. Evaluation Process If External Reviewers Fail To Respond
  15. External Examiner for PhD Viva Voce Examination
  16. Difference of Opinion among Examiners in Viva Voce Examination
  17. Resubmission after Viva Voce
  18. Award of PhD
  19. Publication of PhD Results
  20. Code of Ethics

            PhD program of a university reflects the intellectual standing and its overall academic quality. PhD regulations provide the necessary mechanism to meet these goals.  Climax of the PhD program is the thesis which is expected to:
i) Make a distinct contribution to knowledge, and
ii) Show ability on the part of the candidate to conduct original investigations and to test ideas whether his own or of others and to understand the relationship of his investigations with a wider field of knowledge.

1(a) Eligibility requirement for admission into PhD program is that the candidate must earned a M.Sc./ M.Phil (17+ years degree) or equivalent degree in the relevant discipline in first division or with a CGPA of 3.0 out of a maximum of 4.0 (in case, applicant's transcript shows percentage as well as CGPA, CGPA would be considered for eligibility. CGPAs on a scale other than 4.00 would be translated accordingly).
1(b) Candidates should meet HEC's admission test criterion.

2. The medium of instruction, writing thesis and examination shall be English.[TOP]

3(a) Every candidate for the Degree of PhD shall apply for admission to the concerned Teaching Department of the University defining the area of research and proposed supervisor.
3(b) Post Graduate Research Committee (PGRC) of the concerned department shall evaluate the application on merit and recommend area of research and supervisor.
3(c) In case of acceptance of the application, an Advisory Committee comprising of three members from within or outside the department including the assigned supervisor shall be formed by the PGRC and the case shall be forwarded for provisional admission to Convener Admission Committee (CAC) for further processing.

4(a) The candidate shall complete a minimum of six post graduate courses from within the department or from other departments in consultation with his supervisor within a maximum period of two years. The candidate shall maintain a cumulative percentage of 70% or a CGPA of 3.3 out of 4.00 in these subjects. In case he fails to maintain the required standard at time of completion of six post graduate courses or fails to complete six courses within maximum allowable period of two years, his provisional admission to the PhD program shall be canceled.
4(b) The candidate shall sit in a comprehensive examination within one year after fulfilling course requirements. In case, the candidate fails to attempt the first comprehensive examination within the specified period, Advisory Committee may recommend cancellation of candidate's provisional admission to the PhD program.
4(c) Comprehensive examination shall be conducted by the concerned department.
4(d) A candidate shall appear in a comprehensive examination for the second time if he fails in his first attempt immediately when the next time comprehensive examination is offered by the concerned department. Failure in second attempt shall be communicated to CAC and his provisional admission to the PhD program shall be canceled.
4(e) The candidate shall present his research proposal to PGRC within six months after passing the comprehensive examination. After presentation, PGRC shall assess the research proposal or have it assessed through a process established for this purpose. After establishing suitability of the proposal as a potential PhD topic, proposal along with the title shall be  submitted to Board of Advanced Study and Research (BoASR) for approval. On approval by BoASR, candidate's admission to PhD program shall be confirmed.
4(f) In case the candidate does not present his proposal to PGRC according to schedule, PGRC may decide to cancel the provisional admission of the candidate.


Note :   Application processing fee Rs 1000 to be deposited in the Convener’s Account  # 01287900621003 HBL, UET Branch Lahore. Attach challan form with application.


5. The candidate, after confirmation of admission, shall submit half yearly progress reports to his advisory committee as prescribed by BoASR. These progress reports shall be forwarded to BoASR through concerned PGRC.

6(a) Any subsequent changes in the proposal, title or the topic shall also be routed through the same channel.
6(b) The candidate may request for change in PhD supervisor or a supervisor may opt to withdraw from supervision of a candidate. The candidate or the supervisor shall submit their request to the chairperson concerned. Recommendation for change of supervisor will be made by PGRC of the department for approval by BoASR. No relaxation in maximum allowable time for completion of PhD degree would be granted to the candidate on the basis that his supervisor has changed.

7. The PhD Thesis can be submitted for external evaluation after a minimum period of 2 years after approval of research proposal, or within a maximum period of 8 years from the date of provisional admission as a PhD candidate.


8. The candidate shall publish, out of his research work, at least one research publication in a HEC approved journal in the relevant field. PGRC is the final authority on determining whether the research publication meets the prescribed standards and requirements.

9(a) PGRC shall propose a list of three external reviewers from technologically advanced countries in relevant areas to Director of Research (DoR). The Vice Chancellor shall appoint two external reviewers from the proposed panel. The list after approval would be sent to the Controller of Examinations (CoE) by DoR.
9(b) The candidate shall submit through his supervisor and DoR three copies of his thesis, duly typed and bound, to the CoE for onward dispatch to the approved external reviewers. DoR shall ensure compliance of publication requirement before evaluation by external reviewers.

10(a) Each external reviewer shall submit his report to the Vice-Chancellor independently on the prescribed Performa and make one of the following recommendations.
i) That the Viva-Voce Examination be held to enable the candidate to defend his thesis.
ii) That the Viva-Voce Examination be held to enable the candidate to defend his thesis after incorporating recommended changes to the satisfaction of Advisory Committee.
iii) That the Thesis be resubmitted for evaluation after revision as suggested by the reviewers.
iv) That the Thesis be rejected as not being of sufficient merit for the holding of the viva-voce examination and the candidate be declared to have failed and not eligible for the award of PhD Degree.
10(b) The Vice Chancellor shall forward the received reports to the CoE.


11(a) If the recommendation to allow final viva-voce of the candidate or to reject the thesis is unanimous, it shall be implemented.
11(b) In case of rejection by one of the reviewers, the thesis would be sent to the third external reviewer from the panel originally proposed by the PGRC of the concerned department. Opinion of the third external reviewer shall be final.
11(c) In case, external reviewers are unanimous in asking for viva-voce examination after incorporating suggested changes, candidate's Advisory Committee shall submit a certificate to CoE certifying compliance of recommendations of external reviewers by the candidate before viva-voce is allowed.
11(d) The thesis shall be resubmitted after incorporating revisions and changes suggested by external reviewer(s), in case, external reviewer(s) are asking for resubmission after revision.

12(a) First resubmission shall be allowed at least  three months after intimation to the concerned supervisor by the CoE.
12(b) In case of first resubmission to external reviewers, their new recommendations shall be interpreted as in Regulation 10.
12(c) In case, external reviewers ask for a second resubmission, the candidate will be asked to work on his thesis for a minimum period of six months before submitting it for re-evaluation. Recommendations of reviewers shall again be interpreted as in Regulation 11. 
12(d) Third resubmission is not allowed and the candidate shall be declared fail and shall not be allowed to continue with his PhD even if external reviewers ask for a third resubmission.


13(a) In case, both external reviewers fail to respond within three months, a new panel of three external reviewers shall be recommended by PGRC out of which two shall be approved by the VC . The process of evaluation by external reviewers would be repeated.
13(b) In case, one external reviewer fails to respond within three months, the thesis would be sent to the third external reviewer as recommended by the PGRC.
13(c) In case, the third external reviewer does not respond within three months, a new panel of two external reviewers shall be recommended by PGRC, out of which the VC shall approve one external reviewer. The thesis would then be sent to the approved external reviewer.
13(d) The process would be repeated until two evaluation reports are received.

14(a) An External Examiner may be appointed from amongst the approved external reviewers for thesis evaluation, if available, for the final viva-voce examination. If, due to non-availability, some other external examiner has to be appointed from within and or outside the country, the supervisor shall recommend names of three External Examiners through PGRC to DoR. VC shall appoint one from the proposed list.
14(b) The Viva-Voce Examination shall be conducted by the Internal Examiner (supervisor), and the External Examiner as prescribed by BoASR. Examiners shall submit their report to the Vice-Chancellor and make one of the following recommendations:-
i) That the candidate be declared to have passed the Examination.
ii) That the candidate be declared to have passed the Examination when he re-submitted his Thesis incorporating certain minor corrections (to be indicated by the examiner) to the satisfaction of the Advisory Committee.
iii) That the Thesis be re-submitted by the candidate after revision on the lines to be suggested by the Examiners, after which he should again appear in the Viva-Voce Examination.
14(c) The VC shall forward the report to the CoE for notification and/or record.


15. In case of difference of opinion among the examiners, recommendations made by the external examiner shall be implemented.

16. In case Clause (iii) of Regulation 14 is to be implemented, the candidate shall be allowed, without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation 7, a maximum period of six months from the date of communication of the decision to him to re-submit his thesis after revision, provided that in such a case he shall be required to pay the Examination Fee afresh. Such re-submission of thesis shall be allowed only once, after which the candidate shall have to defend his Thesis again in the Viva-Voce Examination and the Examiners shall make one of the three recommendations mentioned in clause (i) and (iii) of Regulation 14 on which decision shall be taken and implemented in accordance with Regulation 15.

17. The candidate shall be admitted to the PhD Degree in the relevant branch of Engineering, Architecture, City & Regional Planning, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Computer Science etc, provided that he has been declared to have passed the Viva-Voce Examination in accordance with these Regulations.


18. Any successful candidate of the Doctoral Examination if he so desires may be encouraged to print and publish his work with the permission of his supervisor. The Board of Advanced Studies & Research on recommendation of PGRC of the concerned department may in case of a thesis of Exceptional Merit recommend its publication by the University.

19(a) PhD candidate or his spouse or his relatives shall not communicate with  external referees directly or indirectly.
19(b) Any faculty member of the department shall not participate in the PhD process of a candidate at any stage, if the candidate is his blood relation or his spouse or the faculty member is a candidate himself.
19(c) External examiners may not be co-author of any publication with the candidate or his spouse or his blood relative.