ANTARIKSH ANAND Vs. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is a student of the second year of B.Tech. course of respondent No. 2 HMR Institute of Technology and Management, which is affiliated to respondent No. 1 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. On 28.05.2013, the petitioner applied to the respondent No. 2 Institute for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC), for the purpose of migrating to another institute affiliated to the same University. Vide order dated 03.06.2013, the Director of respondent No. 2 Institute rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of NOC, on the ground that though the petitioner had sought migration on the ground of distance, though he was residing at the very same place, where he took admission with the said institute. Another reason given was that institute has buses available from all parts of Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained NOC from respondent No.3 Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology for grant of admission to him in the said institute and vide application dated 25.07.2013 again applied to respondent No. 2 Institute for grant of NOC. Along with the said application, he submitted a copy of the NOC which respondent No. 3 Insitute had granted to him. Since no response from the respondent No.2 Instiute was forthcoming, the petitioner also approached the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No. 1 University seeking his intervention in the matter. The petitioner made yet another representation to respondent No. 2 Institute on 06.09.2013, seeking grant of NOC on medical grounds. The said application was accompanied by a medical certificate. However, the NOC sought by him has not been granted to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of NOC for migrating from respondent No. 2 HMR Institute of Technology and Management to respondent No. 3 Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology.

(2.) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 2, who appears on advance notice, wants some time to file his counter affidavit. The learned counsel representing the University, however, states that 30.09.2013 is the last date for granting migration from one institute affiliated to the University to another institute affiliated to it and they need at least two days time to take a decision in the matter. In these circumstances, it is not possible to adjourn the mater for the purpose of enabling respondent No. 2 to file its reply. I have, however, heard the learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2 on merits of the case.

(3.) IN view of the legal proposition as deduced by this Court in Shashank Shandilya (supra), the request of the petitioner for grant of NOC should have been considered by the Principal/Director of the institute taking into consideration the interest not only of the institute, but also of the petitioner. Such consideration was required to be followed by a decision which is just, reasonable and fair to the institution as well as to the student.