Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 477
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
AMY XAVIER – Appellant
Versus
THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WP(C) 4633/2024
M.S.KIRAN, LISHA WILLIAM, ROHITH R. KARTHA, REMESH KARTHA E.K.
The court has the discretion to allow or deny a student's transfer request based on the specific circumstances of the case, and the difference in the courses between the two colleges is a valid ground to deny the transfer request.
Headnote:
Transfer - Student Transfer - Sections 2(f), 12(1)(b), 22(1)(c) of the University Grants Commission Act - The court held that the transfer request cannot be granted as the courses in the two colleges are different and there are no special circumstances warranting the transfer
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 1st semester (5 years LLB) student of the 3rd respondent college, sought transfer to the 2nd respondent college as she is a native of Ernakulam and there are seats available at Ernakulam Law College. The request for transfer was not considered by the 2nd respondent college.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the transfer request cannot be granted as the courses in the two colleges are different (BA English Literature LLB and BCom LLB) and there are no special circumstances warranting the transfer, unlike the cases in Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 where the transfer was allowed due to the petitioners' personal difficulties.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's request for transfer from the 3rd respondent college to the 2nd respondent college should be granted?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transfer request cannot be granted as the courses in the two colleges are different and there are no special circumstances warranting the transfer, unlike the cases in Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 where the transfer was allowed due to the petitioners' personal difficulties.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner, who is the 1st semester (5 years LLB) student of the 3rd respondent college, has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the non-consideration of her request for transfer to the 2nd respondent college. The petitioner secured admission in the 3rd respondent college through the entrance examination conducted by the State Government in this regard and was allotted with a seat in the 3rd respondent college for BA English Literature LLB course. Consequent to the allotment, the petitioner already joined the 3rd respondent college and is pursuing her studies.
2. According to the petitioner, she is a native of Ernakulam, and there are seats available at Ernakulam Law College, where the petitioner can be accommodated. Ext.P5 was submitted in such circumstances before the 2nd respondent college, seeking transfer, which was not acted upon. This writ petition was submitted by her seeking the following reliefs:
- i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to permit transfer of the petitioner to one of the available vacancy in the 2nd respondent college, affiliated to the 1st respondent in the interest of justice.
- ii) Dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents.
- iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The statements were filed by the respondents 1 and 2.
The main contention raised in the statements of the respondents is the effect that the 2nd and 3rd respondent colleges are affiliated with different Universities, and the syllabi applicable to both colleges are completely different. It was also pointed out that, the course allotted to the petitioner and being pursued in the 3rd respondent college is BA LLB course with specialization in English Literature, whereas, the course to which the transfer is sought is Bcom LLB. Therefore, it is pointed out that the subjects that form part of the curriculum are completely different;
- therefore, transfer as sought by the petitioner cannot be permitted.
4. Heard Sri.Kiran M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Premchand R.Nair, learned Government Pleader and Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought the attention of this Court to Ext.P6 and P7 judgments passed by this Court in similar circumstances permitting the transfer of the student from the 3rd respondent college to the 2nd respondent college, overruling the objections raised by the University with regard to the difference in the syllabus. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent brought the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by this Court on 01.06.2016, in W.P.(C).No.17168/2016, wherein a similar prayer sought by the petitioner therein was declined.
6. I have carefully gone through the records. Of course, it is true that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ext.P6 and P7, this Court granted the benefit to the petitioners therein. However, on carefully scrutinizing the circumstances under which the aforesaid judgments were rendered, it can be seen that, such orders were passed taking note of certain peculiar difficulties faced by the petitioners therein; i.e., in one case, the petitioner therein had just given birth to a child and the said child required lactation and care, whereas in the other case, the mother of the petitioner therein was a cancer patient undergoing treatment. On the other hand, in W.P.C.No.17168 of 2016, this Court declined interference in the matter, taking note of the fact that the syllabi of both the courses were different, and it was also considered that such a transfer in the midst of the course would affect the claims of the students placed in higher rank as per rank list prepared in the entrance examination. In this case, even though the petitioner pointed out that she has some difficulty due to t
