Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 53 (ALL)

Ahmad Mujtaba Faraz v. Aligarh Muslim University

2021-01-11

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Computer Section is directed to correctly describe name of the petitioner as Ahmad Mujtaba Faraz in place of Ahmad Majaba Faras in the array of the parties. 2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General (through video conferencing) assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University. 3. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought following relief (s): 1. Issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 (annexure no.1) passed by respondent no.3 with direction to respondent no.3 to call the petitioner for presentation cum interview in Ph. D. Programme in Human Rights as well as Women's Studies. 2. Further direction was sought to be issued to respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider candidature of the petitioner for Ph. D. in subjects of Human Rights as well as Women's Studies. 3. Issue any writ order or direction, which the Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner is qualified to be admitted to Ph. D. Programme in Human Rights as well as Women's Studies as he had done his post graduation i.e. M.A. (Human Rights) from the respondent's University in 2019. Claim is to the ambit that he applied for the admission for doctor of philosophy in two subjects that is to say -Human Rights and Women's Studies. Respondent no.3 issued admit card to the petitioner consequently, the test for doctor of philosophy in both the above subjects were scheduled for 07.11.2019. 5. Relevant to take note of fact that the petitioner appeared in the test of both the above subjects and he was much confident to secure 50% marks in both the subjects. Respondent nos.3 declared the answer keys of both the subjects. After receiving photocopy of OMR sheet of both subjects, the petitioner secured marks more than 50% in both the subjects. On 10.08.2020, respondent no.3 declared result of the selected candidates called for interview in both the above subjects. Respondent nos.3 declared the answer keys of both the subjects. After receiving photocopy of OMR sheet of both subjects, the petitioner secured marks more than 50% in both the subjects. On 10.08.2020, respondent no.3 declared result of the selected candidates called for interview in both the above subjects. As per Chapter XXV (D), eligibility for admission in Ph.D., the candidate must have master's degree or its equivalent recognized by University in a subject relevant to the proposed field of research with not less than 55% marks or its equivalent. The petitioner secured 55% marks in his post graduation and he was fully eligible and qualified for admission to Ph. D. course in both the aforesaid subjects. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that there was no shortcoming which could have stopped the petitioner seeking admission in Ph. D. course/Programme in Human Rights as well as Women's Studies. 6. Claim of the respondent no.3 that the petitioner misbehaved is not applicable to him because at the time of the occurrence, he was neither student of University nor any disciplinary proceeding as such could have been initiated against him. He is fully qualified to be admitted to the aforesaid Ph. D. Programme in Human Rights as well as Women's Studies. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further added that as per Rule 1, -by virtue of test, candidature of the petitioner was refused. Assuming it to be that any right vested in respondent no.3 to pass such order, like the present one under challenge (annexure no.1), which is dated 26.11.2020 taking into consideration that the petitioner and other persons attempting to disturb Republic Day function (26.01.2020) by raising Slogan against the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University then for the same, the entire future of the candidate cannot be blocked and the right of the petitioner to seek education in higher course/class cannot be denied to him. 8. Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocate for the respondents has refuted aforesaid contentions by claiming that misbehavior and conduct of a person seeking admission in the University must be up to mark as an educated person, and the person owes an explanation for what reason and cause he attempted to misbehave along with others on 26.01.2020 and raised Slogan against Vice Chancellor and the Registrar and shown black placards and chart papers etc. which amounts to gross indiscipline and a person who is seeking admission must not indulge in such type of misdeeds in full public view which is not only detrimental to the public at large but also expression of dishonour to the national festival – say the Republic Day function being celebrated on 26.01.2020. Rule 1 was itself part of the process where clearance from office of proctor was must for admission/call for presentation and viva voce for the admission to the aforesaid Ph.D Programme in the two subjects. Misdeed committed on the whole is admitted to the petitioner and was made part of the process along with declaration of list of candidates to be called for presentation and the viva voce. 9. Next added that the right to education is not a fundamental right but it is strictly subject to statutory Rules and guidelines. In the wake of obstinate and insolent conduct of the petitioner himself, he is answerable to his own misdeeds. The gross misbehavior has been committed by the petitioner on the Republic Day function. Can an educated person be expected to raise Slogan on the occasion of Republic Day because that amounts to creating disturbance in peaceful celeberation of the Republic Day which misbehaviour as such is a bid to show dishonour to all the persons attending the Republic Day function and to show dishonour to the institution itself -say the Aligarh Muslim University. 10. Moreover, as per entire prayer, no challenge has been made to Rule 1 seeking proctorial clearance and the entire prayer made is silent on that point. The derogatory Slogan is aimed at defaming the celebration by attempting to disturb function of Republic Day. His act amounts to gross misbehavior. His admission to the Ph. D course would serve and act as provocative example to other students to create such disturbance to undermine national dignity and national honour apart from maligning the image of the Institution (AMU) itself. 11. His act amounts to gross misbehavior. His admission to the Ph. D course would serve and act as provocative example to other students to create such disturbance to undermine national dignity and national honour apart from maligning the image of the Institution (AMU) itself. 11. I have considered rival submissions and perused the entire petition and the impugned order dated 26.11.2020 whereby it transpires that the entire episode which had taken place on 26.01.2020, was taken into consideration by the Controller of Examinations and conclusion was drawn holding that the petitioner was a threat to the law and order in the campus as well as to the smooth functioning of the University in future, therefore, he should not be given admission in any course/class in the University. In the light of above, he was not called for presentation cum interview for admission to the Ph. D course for Human Rights and Women's Studies and his representation dated 18.08.2020 was thus found without merit and was rejected, accordingly. 12. Insofar as question regarding future of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not given any reason whatsoever as to how and why he indulged in such misdeed. Can an educated be expected, by any stretch of imagination, to do such misdeed in open public view which is equivalent to an act trying to sacrilege national dignity and national honour on the auspicious day 26th of January, 2020? The answer to the above query is certainly and always in the negative that one cannot be expected to act violently in such manner as the applicant has acted. The Republic Day function could be celebrated peacefully only on account of intervention of the security guards in apprehending the applicant on the spot and handing him over to the police authority concerned which kept him in confinement till the next day i.e. 27.01.2020. His act in fact tantamounts to indulging in anti social activity and anti-national activity and such recalcitrant act and attitude should not be compromised at the cost of national interest. 13. In the light of the entire proctorial report dated 26.11.2020, obviously the petitioner himself is to be blamed for creating trouble for himself. Therefore, conclusion drawn by the respondent no.3 (Controller of Examinations) for not allowing admission to the applicant in the Ph. D course in the two subjects is justified. 14. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed.