SHASHANK SHANDILYA Vs. GURU GOVIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only issue involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner, who is studying with respondent no.2, an institute affiliated to respondent no.1, is entitled to grant of NOC by respondent no.2 for migration from there to Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, another institute affiliated to the respondent no.1-university. 1. The petitioner before this Court took admission in respondent No.2-HMR Institute of Technology, which is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, in the academic year 2012-13. On 27.06.2013, the petitioner applied to respondent No. 2 for grant of NOC required for obtaining migration to another institute affiliated to I.P. University on the ground that the college was far from his house and since they were planning to shift to Rohini, it would be very hectic for him to reach the college in future. However, NOC has not been issued, despite reminders sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 2-Institute. Being aggrieved from the failure of respondent No. 2 to issue NOC to him, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) IN its counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 has taken a preliminary objection that since it is a private institution, getting no grant from the State, a writ petition against it is not maintainable. It is also claimed that the application of the petitioner seeking NOC has already been rejected vide decision dated 19.07.2013. On merits, it is claimed that there is no justification for issue of the NOC sought by the petitioner. It is also claimed that respondent No.2-Institute runs 30 buses from the college to various parts of Delhi and the petitioner can also avail the said transport facility. Another plea taken in the counter-affidavit is that the expenses to be incurred by respondent No.2 on infrastructure, staff and faculty are fixed and have to be borne only from the fee realized from the students and in case the petitioner is allowed migration, the seat occupied by him would remain vacant for next three years, depriving respondent No. 2 of the fees for the said three years. It is also claimed that the issue of NOC to the petitioner besides putting strain on the financial resources of the college, also had a demoralizing effect on its faculty.

(3.) AS regards the plea that respondent No. 2-Institute is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, I find no merit in the same. In fact the issue is no more res integra and stands concluded by various pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this Court. In Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1607, appellant No. 1, before the Court was a public trust running a Science College at Ahmedabad, affiliated to Gujarat University. A direction was issued to all the affiliated colleges to pay the pay scales recommended by University Grants Commission to its teachers. The appellants, instead of implementing the direction, sought to terminate the services of certain teachers and when the permission to remove the services of the said teachers was rejected by the University, they decided to close down the college. However, the terminal benefits were not paid to the teachers, who were constrained to approach the High Court for payment of such benefits. The writ petition filed by the Trust was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the trust not being a statutory body was not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Rejecting the contention, the Apex Court, inter alia, held as under:-