- (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 Maharaja's 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 behalf that the petitioner had an alternative remedy as he could have moved the University.
(3.) THE first point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has a right to file the present petition for the grant of Writ of Mandamus which, in our opinion, is the appropriate Writ to be issued in case we agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. As already mentioned, the petitioner is a registered graduate of the University of Rajasthan. He statad that under the provisions of the act, he can elect members to the Senate who in their turn can elect members of the Syndicate which is the executive body of the University under Section 21 of the University of Rajasthan Act. The petitioner is, however, not in a position to say that his personal right is in any way affected by the conferment of the degree on respondent No. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Pratapmal v. The income-tax officer, Jodhpur Division, ILR (1951) 1 Raj 257 : (AIR 1951 Raj 150 (2) ) has observed, as follows: "article 226 is the counter-part of Article 32, so far as the High Courts are concerned, and the trend of authorities in India also is that generally speaking it is only the person whose fundamental right has been infringed who can approach the Court for relief. There is a well-known exception in the case of the writ of habeas corpus, and it may be that a similar exception might be made in the case of a writ of quo warranto. But so far as the writs of mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari are concerned, the authorities seem to lay down that only the person affected can approach the Court for relief. " Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the observations in the case were made in a case in which a writ of prohibition was prayed for and that those observations must be read with the facts of that case and should not be applied to a case like the present where the petitioner is challenging the act of the University which is clearly in disregard of the statute which the University was bound to obey. A number of decisions have been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited-- (i) Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay v. Govind Laxman, AIR 1949 Bom 229, (ii) Narendra Nath Chakravarty v. Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1960 cal 102, while the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on- ( i) In re Jatindra Mohan Sen Gupta, AIR 1925 Cal. 48, (ii) General Secy. Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' association v. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Life Insurance corporation, AIR 1962 Cal 45, (iii) Indian Sugar Mills Association v. Secy. to Govt. Uttar pradesh labour Dept. , AIR 1951 All 1 (FB), (iv) In re. P. Ramamoorthi, AIR 1953 Mad 94. (v) Satya Prakash v. Commr. Land Reforms and Jagirs, M. B. , (S) AIR 1955 Madh-B. 188, (vi) Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (S)AIR 1955 Nag 33, (vii) Sri Durga Gita Vidyalaya Association v. State of U. P. AIR 1962 All 187 (FB), (viii) Prem Narain Tandon v. State of U. P. , AIR 1900 All 205, (ix) State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12, (x) Vice-Chancel lor, Utfca! University v. S. K. Ghosh, AIR 1954 SC 217. We may also refer to the article entitled 'legal Interest Required to Challenge the validity of Administrative Action : (a Preliminary Survey), by A. T, Markose, director of Research, Indian Law Institute Vol. I, No. 2. Page 273. After referring to Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India, 1951 SCJ 29 : 1950 SCR 869 : (AIR 1951 SC 41)and the Director of Endowment Govt. Hyderabad v. Akram Ali, (S) AIR 1956 ,sc 60 the learned author nas observed that "the Supreme Court has made out two propositions on the subject : the first is that the interest of the applicant should be direct and the second is that the applicant should have a present interest. ";