RINKU RATHI Vs. ADITI MAHAVIDYALAYA COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is a student of respondent no.1 Aditi Mahavidyalaya College situated at Aachandi Road, Bawana, Delhi. Being desirous of seeking migration to Janki Devi Memorial College, another college affiliated to respondent no.2 ­ University of Delhi, the petitioner applied to the aforesaid college on 29.7.2013 seeking NOC in this regard. No reply to the aforesaid application was, however, received by the petitioner from respondent no.1 Aditi Mahavidyalaya College. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 states that the Staff Council of the College has taken a general decision not to grant any NOC for migration of the students to another college and therefore the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. However, admittedly no order on the aforesaid application of the petitioner has been passed by the college till date.

(3.) HOWEVER , in the present case, the respondent no.1 college did not even pass an order at all on the application for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that before any order could be passed, this writ petition was filed. However, the fact remains that the application was submitted on 29.7.2013 whereas the writ petition came to be filed only on 8.9.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact the college even declined to accept the application and, therefore, the petitioner had to send the same by speed post. Be that as it may, on receipt of application from the petitioner, the principal of the college was required to consider the application expeditiously and pass a speaking order taking into consideration the interest of the petitioner as well as of the college. No such exercise, however, was undertaken. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that vide order dated 10.9.2013 passed by this Court, in Himani Sharma versus University of Delhi & Ors.(surpa), the college decided not to oppose such petitions and that is why no speaking order was passed. Even if that be so, the fact remains that for more than four weeks the college has not passed any order on the application of the petitioner. In any case, as already held by this Court, a blanket decision of the Staff Council not to grant migration certificate irrespective of the merit of the cases would be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair which cannot be sustained in law.