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. 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 conduc