CHETAN GOEL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of migration from one College to another College affiliated to the Delhi University that has arisen in these cases has already been argued, pondered upon and decided by separate Benches of this Court in several decisions. The issue, therefore, does not call for another detailed Judgment. Division Benches in Hanspal Singh Bhinder Vs. University of Delhi, 1997 II AD (DELHI) 270 = 66(1997) DLT 84 (DB) Aman Ichhpuniani Vs. The Vice Chancellor Delhi University, 1998 (44) DRJ (DB) and CWP No. 3089/95 Sumeet Sawhney Vs. The Principal, Sri Aurobindo College, Malviya Nagar decided on 19.12.1997 have laid down in categorical terms that a student does not have a vested right to demand migration from one College to another.

(2.) So far as the Calendar-2004 of University of Delhi is concerned it stipulates that applications for migration from one College of the University to another shall only be entertained by the Principal if forwarded by the Principal of the College from which migration is sought, and the necessary alteration in the enrolment entries shall only be made in the University Register by the Registrar after obtaining the consent in writing of both Principals.

(3.) The Courts have uniformally taken the view that a cogent reason must be given by the student for seeking migration and the decision taken thereon by the College should not be capricious, arbitrary or unreasonable. Single Benches of this Court in Anant Madan Vs. University of Delhi, 19991 AD (DELHI) 249 = 78(1999) DLT 7, CW No. 5504 of 1998 titled G. Girish Vs. PGDAV College, decided on 11th December, 1998, W.P. (C) No. 15651/2004 titled Vineeta Sharma Vs. Satyawati Co-Ed College (Day) decided on 2.5.2005 have applied this view of the Division Benches. I respectfully concur with this exposition of the law