ADITYA GARG Vs. DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks for quashment of the notification dtd. 16/5/2023 calling for applications from students for internal upgradation of their allotted branch mid-semester, and also seeks for directions to the respondent-University to reopen the online portal for applications for internal upgradation for sufficient time, to permit the petitioner to apply on the said portal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having qualified for admission for the course of B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering, the petitioner was granted admission in the year 2022 by the respondent-University. The respondent-University has a provision for internal upgradation of the branch in the concerned course. As per the scheme of upgradation, the respondent-University was to upload the relevant information on the official website and to inform all eligible candidates, giving them sufficient time to apply for upgradation on the basis of their merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second semester midterm examination was scheduled for 24/5/2023 and before that, on 16/5/2023, through a public notice published on the official website, the respondent-University decided to call for applications for upgradation between 17/5/2023 to 21/5/2023.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that in the previous years, an inconsistent procedure has been followed by the respondent-University. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no fixed time limit and no particular month in which applications are invited, which resulted in uncertainty regarding the plausible dates for applying for upgradation, hence depriving the petitioner of the opportunity of applying within the permissible time for upgradation. He further submits that since the petitioner could not apply for upgradation of his course from Mechanical Engineering to Electrical Engineering; as a consequence, less meritorious candidates have been given the benefit of upgradation. He, therefore, submits that the substantial rights of the petitioner are adversely affected on account of the arbitrary and non-transparent procedure for upgradation being followed by the respondent-University.