ASTHA JAIN Vs. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, having obtained admission in the course of B.Tech. (Polymer Science & Chemical Technology) in the year 2011 in the respondent University and having topped in the first year (comprising of first and second semester) of the said course, has filed this writ petition impugning Note (v) under clause 3.2 of the of the Prospectus for the Academic Year 2011-12 of the respondent University prohibiting change of Branch/Stream after the commencement of the second semester, "even if some seats fall vacant in some of the Branches/Streams during the course of second semester". It is the plea of the petitioner that, a) a number of seats in various Branches/Streams/Disciplines including in Computer Engineering, Electronics & Communication Engineering, Electronics & Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Informational Technology and Civil Engineering have fallen vacant during the course of the second semester; b) that though the said streams were higher in the choice of the petitioner, while seeking admission in the year 2011 but were not allotted to the petitioner as the seats therein were then occupied by those having a rank in All India Engineering Entrance Examination, 2011 (AIEEE), higher than that of the petitioner; c) that pursing B.Tech in the said streams will enhance the careers prospects of the petitioner and ; d) that even though some seats in the said streams have now fallen vacant, the respondent University is denying such upgradation by migration/change to said streams to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the Rules in this regard in other Universities and which are stated to be permitting such change of Stream/Branch/Upgradation. It is contended that the prohibition aforesaid contained in the Prospectus is unreasonable and arbitrary in as much as the course content of the first two semesters (1st year) of all the Branches/Streams of B.Tech. is the same.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued. The respondent University has filed a counter affidavit, to which rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent today, during the hearing, has fairly admitted having received instructions as to availability of seats. She has further stated that the respondent University, for the next academic year onward , will examine the question as to whether such change, as prevalent in some of the other Universities/IITs and as claimed by the petitioner, should be permitted or not.