# Ahmad Mujtaba Faraz v. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 26097 of 2020
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ahmad-mujtaba-faraz-v-aligarh-muslim-university-ors-46740
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article
226-challenge
to-cancellation
of
candidate admission in Ph.D. Program
in AMU-the candidate raised slogan
against
Vice-Chancellor
and
the
Registrar at Republic Day Celebrationan expression of dishonour of the
national
festival-person
seeking
admission in University must be up to
mark as an educated person-gross
indiscipline and misdeeds detrimental
to
the
public
at
large-anti-social
activity and attitude should not be
compromised at the cost of national
interest-conclusion
drawn
by
the
controller of examination is justified
for not allowing admission to the
applicant.(Para 1 to 14)

The writ is dismissed. ( E-5)

## Text

324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to show any provision which imposes bar
on lodging of an FIR against any retired
Government officer. Therefore, we do not
find any merit in the present writ petition.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to take
legal recourse if so advised as provided
under the law for redressal of his
grievances.

14. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition stands dismissed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Writ C No. 26097 of 2020

Ahmad Mujtaba Faraz ...Petitioner
Versus
Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri
Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, Sri Neeraj
Tripathi (Addl. Advocate General)

A. Constitution of India,1950-Article
226-challenge
to-cancellation
of
candidate admission in Ph.D. Program
in AMU-the candidate raised slogan
against
Vice-Chancellor
and
the
Registrar at Republic Day Celebrationan expression of dishonour of the
national
festival-person
seeking
admission in University must be up to
mark as an educated person-gross
indiscipline and misdeeds detrimental
to
the
public
at
large-anti-social
activity and attitude should not be
compromised at the cost of national
interest-conclusion
drawn
by
the
controller of examination is justified
for not allowing admission to the
applicant.(Para 1 to 14)

The writ is dismissed. ( E-5)

(Delivered by Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

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.
2 All. Ahmad Mujtaba Faraz Vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.
325

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. 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
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

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 antinational 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
2 All. M/S M.R.J.V. Constructions Co.,Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
327
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.
----------
(2021)02ILR A327
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 26538 of 2020

M/S M.R.J.V. Constructions Co.,Delhi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Siddharth Singhal, Sri Ankita Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Wasim Masood

A. Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
226
-
Real
Estate(Regulation
and
Development)Act,2016-Section
40recovery of sum of Rs. 24 lacs and oddconsumer
deposited
the
sum
for
possession of flat-despite agreement flat
was not handed over to the consumerobject of the speedy dispute redressal
mechanism
would
frustrate
if
the
consumer seek execution of the order
through civil court-while it shall be
recoverable as prescribed u/s 40(1) of
the Act, in such a manner as may be an
arrears of land revenue, so as to
expeditiously give relief to the consumer
having
suffered
in
the
hands
of
Promoter-writ
petition
is
not
maintainable as the consumer can avail
the remedy of appeal.(Para 1 to 25)

The writ petition is dismissed. ( E-5)

List of Cases cited:-

1. M/s K.D.P. Build Well Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
U.P. & 4 ors.(Writ C No. 2248 of 2020)

2. Ms. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
U.P. & 5 ors. (Writ C No . 27147 of 2020)

3. Rudra Buildwell Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs
Poonam Sood & anr.( Writ-C No . 3289 of
2020)

4. Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I
.& ors. (CWP No. 8548 of 2020)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, J.
&
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. None appears for the petitioner
though the case was called twice. Sri
Wasim Masood has put in appearance on
behalf of respondents.

2. The writ petition could have been
dismissed for non-prosecution. However,
taking into consideration that issue raised
in this petition has already been settled
by this Court in the case of Writ C No.
27147 of 2020 (Ms. Proview Realtech
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others)
and
two
other
connected
petitions
decided on 12.01.2021, this petition is
also governed by the judgment aforesaid.

3. The writ petition has been filed
with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari calling
for the records and quashing the recovery