Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Though the anxiety of the Staff Council and the College to maintain and improve the academic standard of the College as also their anxiety to maintain the student teacher ratio, may be appreciated but at the same time, we find it difficult to accept the contention that in order to achieve the said objects, the students can be compelled against their desire and wish to continue study in a particular college. Undoubtedly no student has any vested right to seek migration but the real question in these cases is not about the vested right of the students, but it is about the legality of the stand of the College from where migration is sought. Can No Objection Certificate be refused to a student when the College to which admission is sought, is willing to give admission to that student. The answer to this question has to be in favour of the student. Where a student with a view to improve his career wants to join another college, which student feels is better and thinks that he would be able to make a better mark in another college to deny migration to such a student on the grounds stated by the College from which migration is sought, would be unjust and unreasonable. The grant of permission to migrate may be discretionary but the discretion is required to be exercised on sound legal principles and by adopting just, fair and reasonable approach. Ordinarily this Court may not interfere in exercise of discretion in academic matters but where the career of students is involved and the approach of college is not just and reasonable, the Court has to come to the aid of aggrieved students. As already noticed above, the stand of the University and the College to which migration is sought is also that students cannot be compelled to study in a particular college. Further apart from the decision of the Staff Council, no other provision has been brought to our notice barring migration. On the other hand Ordinance-4, as noticed above, specifically permits migration. It may also be noticed that while operating aforesaid Ordinance in practice the student who is to apply for No Objection Certificate from which he seeks migration, would do so only when he has been ensured admission in any other college and, therefore, the question of violation of Ordinance-4 does not arise."

In Aman Ichhpuniani vs. Vice Chancellor, Delhi University 1998 (71) DLT 202, the petitioners before this Court, approached the colleges in which they were studying at that time for issue of NOC for the purpose of migration to another college affiliated to Delhi University. In the first writ petition before this Court, NOC was sought on the ground that the petitioner wished to migrate to reputed college in North Campus, which would be more convenient to him and in the second writ petition, NOC was sought so as to enable the petitioner to pursue a computer course and Chartered Accountancy, without clash of timings with the afternoon classes, the petitioner being a student of Bhagat Singh College (Evening). In the third case, NOC was sought on the ground that the classes in the college clashed with the computer classes of the petitioner in the afternoon and, therefore, she wanted to migrate to a morning college. In the 4th case, no reason was given for the proposed migration. However, in the application to the college where the petitioner was seeking migration, she had claimed that the said college was near to her residence and considering the erratic bus service, she wanted to migrate to the said college. In all these cases, the application seeking migration was turned down, without passing a speaking order.

Disposing of the writ petitions, this Court held as under:-

"(i) To migrate from one college of the University to another is not a vested right of student. A student may seek migration from one College to another, if there be reasons for doing so.

Ordinance-IV confers discretionary power on the principal of the College from which migration is sought to forward or not to forward a prayer by a student seeking migration. The power is coupled with a duty to act reasonably guided by relevant consideration not by whim or caprice. The welfare of the student and the institution have both to be kept in view and weighed - if there be conflict between the two;

11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Mudit Agarwal and another vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha/W.P(C) No.8656/2011; Khwahish Mahajan versus Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha/ W.P(C)No.5076/2010; Shivam Chhabra versus Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [2011 (185), DLT 628 and Arpit Singh versus Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University [2011(184) DLT 763]. However, none of these cases really deals with grant of NOC for the purpose of migration from one institute to another institute. As far as, Khwahish Mahajan(supra) is concerned, it resulted in a settlement between the parties and the settlement envisaged payment of Rs.1,92,000/- by the petitioner in that case to the institute to compensate it for the monetary losses in the form of fees for the entire remaining period of the course. As noted earlier, no such offer has been made by the petitioner before this Court. In Mudit Agarwal (supra), the issue before the Court was transfer from one branch to another branch for the same course and in the same institute. Neither in Shivam Chhabra (supra) nor in Arpit Singh(supra), the Court was called upon to adjudicate upon the decision of an institute to refuse NOC for the purpose of migration from one institute to another. On the other hand, in Apurva versus University of Delhi and another [2012(189) DLT 178], a Division Bench of this Court, took note of the decision of learned Single Judge in Chetan Goel versus University of Delhi [2005 VIII AD (Delhi) 316] holding that if the students belonging to a college which is constantly improving its academic achievements, are allowed to migrate to other colleges, the same has a demoralizing effect on the faculty which must be viewed seriously and Jatin Behl Vs. University of Delhi [99(2002) DLT 5460 where it was held that a student who has not been able to secure admission in a college due to less marks than the cut-off prescribed by that college, cannot be permitted to secure the same by seeking admission by way of migration. As regards the distance between the residence and the college, the Division Bench noted that it was known to the petitioner at the time he took admission in the college. In AArushi Jerath versus Univ. of Delhi [2010(119) DRJ 390], this Court while dealing with the migration from one college in Delhi University to another college in the same university, inter alia, observed as under: