ANIKA JAIN Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner took admission in the B. Sc Computer Science (Hons.)course at respondent No. 2 college, Keshav Mahavidyalalya, situated at pitampura, Delhi, "an affiliated college of the University of Delhi in the academic session 2007-09. Presently the petitioner is studying in the second year (3rd semester ). The petitioner sought migration to Hansraj College by applying to that college. The petitioner was shown as one of the short listed candidates by Hansraj college. Therefore, the said college has shown its i readiness to grant admission to the petitioner upon migration. As per the rules, the petitioner requires a "no Objection Certificate" from the respondent No. 2 college. The petitioner applied to respondent No. 2 for the same. The reason given by the petitioner for seeking permission to migrate initially was stated to be "personal". The petitioner while repeating her request elaborated by stating that she seeks permission to migrate on. account of her "residential problem" as she lives in Shahdara ai: her cousin's residence as her family stays at Agra. The Principal of the respondent No. 2 college has however refused to grant the "no Objection Certificate" allegedly on the ground that there are already less number of students in the respondent No. 2 college in the said course. Since the request of the petitioner for grant of NOC by respondent No, 2 college has been declined, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Notice was issued to the respondents. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 college.

(2.) THE stand taken by respondent No. 2 college is that the petitioner has not disclosed any reasonable or cogent ground to entertain her application for seeking migration. Reliance has been placed on judicial pronouncements, and in particular the decision in Aman Inchhpuniani v. the Vice chancellor Delhi University, 1998 (44) DRJ (DB) decided on 19. 12. 1997 which contains the guidelines to be applied while dealing with cases of migration, from one college to another in the same University. Respondent no. 2 submits that no student has a vested right to migrate from one college to another. It is submitted that the petitioner took admission in the respondent No. 2 college out of her own choice, and that the petitioner was apprised of the policy of the college not to grant NOC to migrate to another college. Respondent No. 2 asserts that it has the right to decline the NOC, and as a matter of "policy" it does not permit outward migration in second year.

(3.) AT the time of argument, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the writ petition. She submits that as it is, there are only a few students admitted in the respondent-college in the cource in question. The course in question is a self financing course, which means that the students have to pay for arranging the infrastructure, lecturers etc. for the said course to be held. If a student is permitted to migrate, the respondent college would not only lose the fees from the student for the remaining sessions, but also the grant received by it from the UGC. The teacher student ratio would also be adversely affected and the same would render the existing staff surplus. Unfortunately, all this is not stated by respondent No. 2 in its counter affidavit. No facts and figures have been furnished before the Court. It is also argued that the petitioner has not made out a genuine case to justify seeking of migration to Hansraj college. The submission of counsel for respondent No. 2 is that even for purposes of commuting, it is much easier for the petitioner to commute to respondent no. 2 college since a direct Metro line is operating from Shahdara to Rohini