The Academic Council's discretion to reject applications for migration or refuse to condone delays for such applications seeking migration on the ground that the applicants were short of attendance in the regular courses to which they had been admitted had to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise questions relating to the manner of exercise of the discretion conferred on the respondents to permit migrations of students from one course and institutions under the Delhi University to another. The impugned order passed in all the petitions is the same and questions raised being identical, these petitions have been taken up together for hearing and disposal. However, it is necessary to note facts of each case in order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners and the same are so noted.

( 2 ) FACTS in Writ Petition (C) No. 20013/04 entitled Radhika Garg vs Delhi University

(I) the petitioner in this case has claimed that she had a brilliant academic record and scored over 74% in the school leaving examination conducted by the central Board of Secondary Eduction. Based on her grading, she was admitted to the b. Sc. General (Industrial Chemistry) course and was allotted the Atma Ram Sanatan dharam College by the Delhi University (arrayed as respondent no. 1 herein ). The petitioner had deposited fees in respect of such admission in the said college on the 16th October, 2003.

(II) it is submitted that the petitioner was suffering medical problems for which she was under treatment at the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital and could not continue this course. Copy of the out patient ticket of this hospital of October, 2003 bearing OPD no. 48679/2003 has been placed on record. The petitioner has submitted that on account of her medical condition, she was unable to attend her practical classes and was finding it difficult to pursue the course. As such she made an application to the Chairman of the Standing Students Council of the University of delhi seeking transfer of her course from B. Sc. General (Industrial Chemistry) to b. A. (Honors) English/b. Com (Honors)/b. Com. (Pass ). In the same application, apart from the change of course, the petitioner also pointed out that she had scored the requisite percentage of marks or met the cut off percentage for admission to these courses in the same college and that she also met the percentage required for admission to these courses in the School of correspondence Course and Continuing Education.

(III) this application appears to have been received by the authorities on the 17th February, 2004. The Principal of the ARSD College put an endorsement thereon to the following effect therein:- She was admitted on 16th October, 2003. Her case has been sent to the university for condonation of delay in Admissions 2003 - 2004 vide letter no. 2172 dated 10th December, 2003. Forwarded Sd/- 9. 2. 2004

(IV) the undisputed factual position is that the Standing Committee of the academic Council of the Delhi University considered this application of the petitioner alongwith the applications made by sixteen others students in its meeting on 16th April, 2004. The applicants were called for the meeting and after hearing the applicants, the Standing Committee recommended change of courses and change of institution to the School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Eduction in respect of the present petitioner whose name featured at serial no. 14 of the list.

(V) the petitioner submits that based on this recommendation of the standing Committee, the petitioner had approached the Principal of the School of correspondence Courses and Continuing Education (respondent no. 2 herein) and submitted an application for permission to take admission in B. Com (P) as per the recommendation of the Standing Committee. The position with regard to the recommendation of the standing committee was confirmed from the authorities and directions were issued by the respondent no. 2 for issuance of the prospectus as per endorsement on the application of the petitioner itself. The petitioner was also directed to deposit the fees and as such, the petitioner had deposited the requisite charges vide a receipt bearing serial no. 4866 dated 26th April, 2004.

(VI) the petitioner has subm