High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to migrate the petitioner to some other college under the University.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was admitted to the School of Open Learning [SOL] under the University of Delhi in the year 2019. He has been pursuing his B.A. degree from the SOL since then. The prospectus of the SOL has been placed on record by the petitioner, in which the relevant rules regarding inter-college/university migration have been extracted in section 6.2. It is undisputed that in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner’s first and second semester examinations were held in May, 2020 and the results were declared together on 02.11.2020. By this time, the last date for applications for migration had lapsed. In the normal course, the last date for such an application is 31st August, but in the year 2020, by a notification, it was extended to 30.09.2020. The petitioner requested the Dean, Students’ Welfare and the Dean of the Colleges of the University, to extend the last date for the process of migration on the ground that the petitioner’s first and second semester results were declared belatedly, and the petitioner was, therefore, unable to apply within the mandated last date. The writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the University to accede to this request.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner summitted that the petitioner was unable to apply before the last date of 30.09.2020 in view of the fact that his first and second semester results had not yet been released.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the university submitted that the application of the petitioner was altogether incompetent, not just due to the delay in making of the application, but also because the petitioner has not specified any particular college to which migration is sought, nor made an application to the principal of his present college. He submitted that the role of the University commences only after the principals of the two colleges have consented to the migration. He further submitted that the petitioner had not given any reason in support of his application for migration. It was submitted that the petitioner is now at the fag-end of his course, of which only one semester remains.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Court after analysis of the rules pertaining to migration, found that Rules 3 and 4 deal with intercollege migration within the University. The significant features of Rules 3 and 4 are that Migration is permitted in the third semester and the migration is subject to availability of seats and consent of Principals of both the colleges. Also, the last date for migration is 31st August.
Court found that the application under Rule 3(a) does not require the petitioner’s marksheets to be submitted. The petitioner had, in fact, commenced his third semester prior to making the application, and also prior to the first and second semester results having been declared. Court stated that the delay in making the application cannot be explained by the delay in declaration of the first and second semester results. The petitioner has not shown any attempt to make the application at an earlier point of time.
Court also observed that the petitioner has also not placed any documents on record to show that he complied with Rule 4. Significantly, the petitioner’s application does not identify the college to which he seeks migration. Court stated that Rule 4 clearly contemplates consent of the principals of both colleges prior to the University making any alteration in its enrolment entries. The petitioner did not seek such consent from the Principal of the SOL, nor did he request the Principal of the SOL to forward his request to the principal of any other college.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “various judgments of the SC make it clear that migration is not a vested right of any student and can be granted only upon valid reasons being shown. In the application, no such reason is shown. The writ petition is also entirely bereft of reasons in this regard. Having regard to the aforesaid factors and also to the fact that the petitioner has now completed five of the six semesters of his B.A. degree, there is no ground to grant the relief sought in this petition.”
HC dismissed the writ petition.
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Case Title: Himanshu v. University Of Delhi & Ors.
Case Details: W.P.(C) 2789/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
