A petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus must demonstrate a subsisting personal right in the claim being made and a direct and present interest in the protection of that right.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Shri Kanhaiyalal is a registered graduate of the University of rajastnan. By Resolutions Nos. 24 and 21, dated the 28th of January, 1958 and 8th of January 1959 respectively, the University of Rajasthan, which is Respondent no. 1 in this Writ Petition, decided to award the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy to Respondent No. 4 Shri Madan Lal Sharma, who was a Lecturer in the Maharajas sanskrit College, Jaipur, and the said degree was conferred on him. According to the petitioner, Respondent No. 4 managed to get the aforesaid resolution passed at the meetings of the Syndicate by exercising his influence on some members of the Syndicate. The contention of the petitioner is that Respondent No. 4 had never applied for being awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy but had applied only for the degree of vachaspati; that for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under ordinance No. 124, made under Section 30 of the University of Rajputana Act, 1946, a candidate for the degree of Ph. D. must be an M. A. M. Sc. , M. Com, M. Ed. , or M. Pharm. and Respondent No. 4 did not hold any of these degrees, and as such, could not be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the aforesaid act, that the petitioner pursued no research for being awarded the degree of doctor of Philosophy; that the petitioner carried on research, if any, for being awarded the degree of vachaspati which was not equivalent to the degree of Ph. D. and that the petitioner could not be awarded even the degree of vachaspati as he had not submitted his thesis in Sanskrit but had submitted it in Hindi. The petitioner has claimed the right to file this Writ petition on the ground that he was a registered graudate of the University of Rajasthan and was keenly interested in the affairs and good name of the University. To this Writ the Syndicate and the Registrar of the aforesaid University were also made parties and are Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. The petitioner has prayed that any appropriate Writ, Direction, or Order be issued against the university of Rajasthan, or the Syndicate of the aforesaid University, and the registrar by which they may be directed to withdraw the degree of the Doctor of philosophy awarded to Respondent No. 4. This Writ Petition was contested by the university of Rajasthan and its authorities and though Respondent No. 4 appeared at a late stage, yet we have permitted him to submit his reply. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that there was no collusion with Respondent No. 4 or bad motive in conferring the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on him on their part. Respondent no. 4 had the degree of Acharya which degree was equivalent to M. A. in Sanskrit and had applied to carry on research for the conferment of the degree of vachaspati, which degree was equivalent to the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as under Ordinance No. 329 the Ordinance and statutes which provided for conferment of the degree of Ph. D. were applicable to cases for conferment of the degree of vachaspati. The Oriental Faculty of the University became defunct and the thesis submitted by respondent No. 4 was sent to the examiners for conferment of the degree of doctor of Philosophy. The majority of the referees recommended that the said degree be conferred on him. It was under these circumstances that the said degree was conferred on the petitioner, it is also submitted on behalf of the university that it was an autonomous body and It was the sole Judge of the fact as to whether a particular degree should be conferred on a parti- cular person or not. it is also urged that no legal right of the petitioner was violated and he could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for challenging the propriety of the act of the university in conferring the Ph. D. degree on Respondent No. 4. iiespondent No. 4 has also taken the same defence. It is urged on his be