Back
High Court Of Delhi
AMAN ICHHPUNIANI - Appellant
Versus
VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF DELHI - Respondent
C.M. 7491 of 1997
Decided On : 12/19/1997
Held:
Nevertheless, the existence of Ordinance-IV does contemplate migration. The provision also casts a duty on the principal of the college from which migration is sought to exercise his discretion and take a decision on prayer for migration guided by reason keeping in view the relevant considerations and not merely by whim and caprice. Like all other discretionary powers vesting in public authorities, the power to forward an application seeking migration is also coupled with a duty. Each prayer shall have to be dealt with on its own individual merits. If the prayer for migration be a bald prayer it may not be allowed merely for asking. On the contrary if there are valid reasons assigned providing reasonable justification for such demand, the principal on being satisfied of the availability of just grounds for migration, is duty bound to forward the application. Else the exercise of discretionary power would stand vitiated for unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
The mind of a student is immature. In an educational institution it is in the process of being trained. The teachers and the principal of the institution are trustees of the students and their parents, who repose faith and confidence in them for training the mind of the students and shaping them so as to be fit to face the world and bear the burden of life. For valid reasons the principal may form and opinion that it would not be in the interest of the student to permit migration howsoever keen he may be to do so. He may have to weigh the interest of the institution also. Sometimes the interest of the institution and the interest of the student may conflict. He shall have to strike a balance and find the weighty side to which the decision shall have to swing. The whole process shall have to be objective. If the decision making process be vitiated or the decision itself be vitiated for failure to take into consideration the relevant ones and/or for having been influenced by the irrelevant and extraneous consideration or want of bonafide, the decision will be open to judicial review.
CWP 3907/97 and CWP 4629/97 are allowed. The principal of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Eve.) is directed to forward the applications filed by Aman Ichhapunian and Kumari Jaya Dutt, seeking migration to the institutions of their choice or else to issue no objection certificate for migration to each of them within one week from the date of this order.
CW 3749/97 and CW 4446/97 are dismissed affording liberty to each of the two petitioners to make an appropriate application (if they be so advised) setting out reasons for migration to the principals of the institutions where they are presently taking education. Such an application if made shall be considered and disposed of by the principal within a period of three days from the date of making the application, as no migration is permissible after 31.12.97. Needless to say if the decision be adverse to the applicant, the reasons thereof shall be assigned and also communicated.
( 1 ) INTRA-UNIVERSITY Migration - from one college to another within the same university - by a student is a vested right or a right merely, and if so, whether it is capable of being enforced in exercise of writ jurisdiction of High Court - is the question arising for decision in this batch of petitions.
( 2 ) THE petitioners are four. Briefly we set out the factual background so as to appreciate the crux of controversy.
( 21 ) IN CWP 3749/97, the petitioner Madhurjya Kotoky is a student of B. A. (Hon.) History Part-I in Ram Lal Anand College having passed that examination with 67% marks and merit in the university. The result was declared on 23. 7. 97. On 31. 7. 1997, he approached the Principal of the College seeking latter s `no Objection to migration to another College. On 8. 8. 97, he approached Ramjas College seeking admission therein and the principal of Ramjas College has issued `no Objection for his entry in his institution. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Principal, Ram Lal Anand College, (respondent No. 1) is not issuing "no Objection" permitting his migration from his Institution. In the application dated 28. 8. 97 made to the respondent No. 1, the only reason set out for seeking migration is - "I wish to migrate to a reputed College in the North Campus as it would be more convenient for me. "
( 22 ) IN CW 3907/97, the petitioner Aman Ichhpuniani is a student of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Evening) wherefrom he has passed B. Com (Hon) Ist Year Course with 66% marks in July, 1997. On 22. 7. 1987 he moved an application (Annexure-A) to the Principal of the College seeking "no objection" to his migration to Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Morning ). The reason stated in the application is - "this change over would also enable me to pursue computer Course (NIIT) and Chartered Accountancy (CA) Course without clash of timings with the afternoon classes. "
( 23 ) IN CW 4629/97, the petitioner Kumari Jaya Dutt is a student of B. Com (Hon.) Iind Year in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Evening ). She has passed the Ist year examination in July, 1997 with 65. 2% marks. She continued in the Second Year Classes. On 7. 8. 97 she moved an application to the Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Eve.) - respondent No. 3, seeking "no objection" to her migration to Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Morning ). The reason stated is - "I have joined a computer course in the First Computers Academy and my College timings clash with my computer classes which are held at 2. 00-4. 00 PM on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Due to this, I am not able to attend classes in College. I would thus like to migrate to the morning college as those timings suit me more. "
( 24 ) IN CW 4446/97 Ms. Neeru Rawal has passed B. Com Ist year as a regular student of Shaheed Bhagat Singh College (Evening), the respondent No. 1, securing 55. 2% marks. On 14. 10. 97 she moved an application seeking "no Objection" to her migration to Gargi College for prosecuting B. Com (Pass) Iind year studies. The application Annexure P-3 does not set out any reason for the proposed migration except that - "I would like to migrate". In the application (Annexure P-2) made to Gargi College, where the petitioner seeks to migrate, she has stated that she had shifted her residence near to the Gargi College and wished to migrate due to erratic bus service, but the same reason was not stated in the application Annexure P-3.
( 25 ) ALL the abovesaid prayers for migration have been turned down by being withheld. No speaking order has been passed. The present petitions have been filed by the several petitioners seeking writ of mandamus commanding the principals of the present educational institution where the petitioners are studying to issue `no Objection Certificate to the proposed migration. All the educational institutions where presently the petitioners are studying have opposed the prayer made in the petitions. The details of the plea shall be noti
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
