The public interest in maintaining requisite standards of veterinary education outweighs the private interest of a student in migration/transfer.

1. - Appalled by the judgment and order dated 18th of April 2012, passed by the writ Court, the appellant has laid this intra-Court appeal.

2. The appellant has approached the writ Court seeking direction against the respondents to consider his case for migration/transfer from Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar to College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. Narrating his afflictions, the appellant has inter-alia averred in the petition that at the threshold he was admitted to prosecute Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry Course for Academic Session 2010-11 in the Arawali Veterinary College, Sikar and at the relevant point of time, said college was duly recognised by Veterinary Council of India (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'VCI') and affiliated with Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner. After pursuing his studies in the said college for the complete academic year, the appellant appeared for B.V.Sc. & A.H. Examination 2011 and cleared the examination with first division and distinction marks on 24th of November 2011. On passing his first year B.V.Sc. & A.H. Examination, the appellant was keen to seek his migration/transfer from the said college and therefore in terms of regulation 8 of Veterinary Council of India Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education-Degree Course B.V.Sc. & A.H., Regulations 2008 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') applied for his migration from his Sikar College to College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bikaner vide his application dated 25th of November 2011. Relying on Regulation 8(3)(4) of the Regulations, the appellant has stated in the writ petition that looking to his merit position in the first year examination and his desire, his case for migration/transfer was permissible within the four corners / practice for the same.

3. The appellant has also averred in the writ petition that for facilitating his migration/transfer, he has obtained a No Objection Certificate from the second respondent. The application of the appellant for migration was not paid any heed by the second respondent and that tempted appellant's father to contact in the office of second respondent on umpteen times but all his efforts went in vain. Ultimately, when appellant's father contacted second respondent on 18th of January 2012, a very obscure response was given. Inaction on the part of the second respondent and paucity of time, inasmuch as the commencement of the third Semester was fast approaching, prompted the appellant to approach the writ Court for redressal of his grievance. For imploring the inactions on the part of the respondents, the appellant has categorised the omissions of the second respondent as arbitrary and against fair play by taking shelter of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reiterating his stand about his eligibility for migration/transfer, the appellant has also castigated the second respondent for violating principles of natural justice. Attributing inordinate delay on the part of the second respondent in consideration of his application for migration/transfer, the appellant has urged in the writ petition that denial of migration/transfer to him is for extraneous reasons and as such the same is not sustainable. The respondent No. 1 in its brief reply has countered the claim of the appellant for migration and averred in the reply that for effecting migration of a student from one college to another college, concurrence of both the colleges is necessary. That apart, the first respondent has also opposed the prayer of the appellant for migration on the ground that the academic session of second year B.V.Sc. & A.H., had commenced from 12th of September 2011 and the application for migration was submitted by the appellant after expiry of one month from the date of commencement of the said academic session, therefore, it was not possible to accede to the request. The first respondent has also objected to the