1. Migration application for dental course — Selection by sub-committee based on merit — Alleged arbitrary rejection by university authorities. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 174
1996(1) Supreme 768
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., Suhas C. Sen and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Nitasha Paul -Appellant
versus
Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2310 of 1996
Decided on 23-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
The Vice-Chanallor of MD University cannot arbitrarily reject the selection made by the sub-committee of the applications for Migration to Govt. Dental College, Rohtak for the second year BDS course. When he has not rejected its report.
Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal by special leave against appellate judgment arising out of writ petition-Case of migration to Govt. Dental College Rohtak from other Dental Colleges outside Rohtak -Court found arbitrary selection of candidates for migration-Relief to be granted-Trial Court had directed the M.D. University to create an additional seat for appellant-But the appellate Court cancelled the selection and directed a fresh process of admission-Which course is better ?-(The former i.e. restoration of judgment and order of Trial Court). (Paras 18 to 20)
(ii) Migration to Rohtak Dental College from other Dental Colleges outside Rohtak-Decision on question of migration-Though cannot be claimed as a matter of right but it cannot be decided arbitrarily according to whims of Vice-Chancellor or the Principal of Dental College (Para 11)-Guidelines suggested by sub-committee must either be accepted or rejected on valid grounds or Vice Chanceller must abide by certain norms which must apply equally to the case of every candidate. (Para 15)-Eligibility has to be decided on the basis of merits as also domicile and several other factors-Sub-committee s report-Not rejected on any valid ground, so selection made by it cannot be arbitrarily rejected by V.C. (Para 17)
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Arbitrary selection ignoring merit and guidelines — Migration not a legal right — Domicile and other factors as grounds for rejection. (Para 8 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Failure of authorities to refute allegations via affidavit — Necessity of objective norms in migration — Unjustified rejection of sub-committee recommendations. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. University discretion in migration must be governed by objective norms applied equally to all candidates, prohibiting arbitrary or capricious decision-making. (Para 11 , 15 , 17 )
5. Appeal allowed — Trial Court order restored — Direction to admit candidate, creating an additional seat if necessary. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Is migration from one university to another a legal right?
No, migration cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, the university cannot decide migration questions arbitrarily or according to the whims of its officials. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Can a university authority arbitrarily reject the recommendations of a selection sub-committee?
No. While the authority may reject a report on valid grounds, it cannot do so arbitrarily. In the absence of such grounds, the selection made by the sub-committee should not be ignored. (Para 17 )
8. What standard must a university follow when exercising discretion in student migration?
The university must abide by certain norms for deciding migration, and these norms must be applied equally to every candidate to avoid arbitrary selection. (Para 15 )
JUDGMENT
Sen, J.-Special leave granted.
2. The appeal arises out of a writ petition filed by Nitasha Paul. Her case is that she obtained admission in K.L.E.S. Dental College and Hospital, Belgaum (Karnataka). After passing the first year professional BDS examination, she applied for migration to the Government Dental College, Rohtak for the second year course. The case of Nitasha is that the Dental College at Belgaum was a recognised institution and she was admitted on the basis of her performance in the earlier examinations. Along with her application for migration. She attached a No Objection Certificate from the Belgaum College wherein it was certified that she was a bona fide student of the college studying in the second year BDS course for the year 1993-94. Nitasha s application was received by the office of the Dental College, Rohtak on 4th August, 1993 and was marked S. No. 4293.
3. The Maharishi Dayanand University (for short M.D. University ) had received 49 applications in all, seeking migration from different colleges throughout the country. A sub-committee was set up to process the applications.
4. The sub-committee was headed by the Dean of Dental College, Rohtak. Out of 49 applications, 23 candidates were found eligible and the remaining 26 applications were rejected. The sub-committee recommended the following names :
1. Aradhana Mishra 411/540
2. Umand S. Nayyar 419/600
3. Nitasha Paul 416/600
4. Naveen Chhabra 411/600
5. Puneet 409/600
6. Puneet Batra 408/600
7. Rashi Majithia 405/600
There were eight vacant seats available for migration to the Dental College, Rohtak for the academic year 1993-94.
5. It is alleged that the selection was made by the sub-committee on the basis of guide-lines framed by a committee set up by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. The guidelines were laid down on 20th February, 1991 and have been followed since then. According to these guidelines, applications for migration had to be made within three months of the declaration of the results for admission to the 1993-94 BDS course second year. The applications were invited to be made within 8th October, 1993, i.e., within three months of the declaration of the results.
6. The Vice-Chancellor, however, ignoring the norms of the University and even before the last date for making the applications was over, allowed Munish Madan to be admitted to the Dental College, Rohtak on 14th September, 1993. Since one seat went to Munish Madan, a nominee of the Vice-Chancellor, only seven seats remained to be filled up and the sub-committee under the circumstances, recommended names of seven candidates only, purely on the basis of merit.
7. After the sub-committee had made its recommendations, the Vice-Chancellor once again ignored the recommendations and allowed migration of :-
1. Ms. Puneet
2. Ms. Bindu Bansal
3. Mr. Sumeet Malik
4. Ms. Monika Bhasin
5. Ms. Pooja Batra
6. Mr. Manoj Mittal
7. Mr. Tarun Kumar Bhutani
8. It has been contended on behalf of Nitasha that the Vice-Chancellor and also the Director/Principal of Dental College Rohtak have totally ignored the recommendations of the sub-committee, the guidelines laid down for admission and the merit list of the candidates and for reasons of their own, they selected persons of their own choice for admission in a high-handed and arbitrary manner.
9. Neither the Vice-Chancellor nor the Principal of the Dental College made any affidavit to refute the allegations. However, an affidavit was filed by the Registrar of the University in the court below on behalf of the Principal and the Vice-Chancellor. This mode of refuting th
