Shilpa Chawla vs University Of Delhi & Ors.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1068 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:-

"(a) Quash the letter dated 27.5.1999 rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking Inter-university migration and to issue a mandamus or any direction in the nature of mandamus against the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 directing them to grant No Objection Certification/Migration from Govt. Dental College (Mumbai) to Respondent No. 4 College, to the petitioner."

2. The petitioner wrote All India Entrance Examination 1998 for admission to B.D.S. Course conducted by C.B.S.E. She was successful and became qualified to get admission in any Govt. Medical College having B.D.S. Course. Her preference was Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Having regard to her rank in the list of successful candidates she could not get a seat in Maulana Azad Medical College and, therefore, she was allotted a seat in B.D.S. Course in Government Dental College, Mumbai. She jointed the Government Dental College, Mumbai and finished her first year course. On 9.4.1999 the petitioner applied to the Asstt. Registrar, (Medical), University of Delhi for migration from Government Dental Collage, Mumbai to Maulana Azad Medical Collage, New Delhi. The letter reads as under :-

"Subject: Migration from Mumbai to Delhi.

I am studying in Government Dental College, Mumbai to pursue BDS Course. I got admission in the year 1998. I request for transfer of my Collage from Mumbai to Delhi (Maulana Azad Medical College) during 2nd year of course i.e. in the academic year 1999-2000. I had to go to Mumbai since it was my childhood dream to be a Doctor. I had been a consistent good student throughout my schooling and I topped the Xth Class in my School.

My parents are old and have been left all alone as my brother is also studying in Pune. I have been living in Delhi since my birth and I am finding it difficult to adjust with climate/atmosphere of Mumbai. Moreover my stay in Mumbai is also causing financial hardship to my parents. My parents are also not keeping good health and my mother is emotionally too much attached to me which is causing her great health problem.

I request that keeping in view the facts explained above, I may be transferred from Mumbai to Delhi (Maulana Azad Medical College).

Thanking you,"

4. On 27.5.1999 the Asst. Registrar (Medical), University of Delhi wrote to the petitioner expressing regret in the following terms:-

"With reference to your letter dated 9.4. 99 regarding Inter-University Migration, I regret to inform you that migration to BDS Courses in this University have been stopped from January, 1991 onwards and thus your request for migration cannot be acceded to."

5. The petitioner had approached this Court on 21.9.1999 with the relief as mentioned above.

6. The respondent University has taken a stand that there is a complete bar for students studying in Medical Course from applying for migration as per Ordinance 'O' of the University and, therefore, the petitioner cannot ask for migration.

7. The learned senior counsel Mr. Keshav Dayal submitted that for the purpose of improving the career a student can apply for migration. The petitioner is a student who is doing well in studies and having regard to the health conditions of the parents the petitioner had to ask for migration to Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. The Petitioner's brother is studying in Pune and consequently the parents had left high and dry in Delhi and, therefore, the petitioner can be helpful to the parents and can improve her knowledge also if she is able to permit to continue her Course in Delhi by concentrating her on studies. The learned senior counsel submitted that the stand taken by the university that there is no provision in the Ordinance for migration is not correct. At the time when the petitioner filed the writ petition she was not aware of the provision in the Ordinance imposing a ban. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel Clause 3 of Ordinance IV of Delhi University is challenged in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in paragraph 3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the principles laid down in Rajiv Goyal & Ors. Vs. University of Delhi & Ors., \ and the principles laid down in Aman Ichhpuniani Vs. The Vice Chancellor Delhi University & Ors., 1998 I AD 65 and Ashish Manghani Vs. Principal, Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce & Ors., 1997 D.L.T. 623 have been ignored by the University. The learned senior counsel submitted that the Regulation framed by the Dental Council would permit migration, Dentist Act, 1948 which is a complete code by itself u/s. 20 empower the Dental Council to frame Regulation and Section 29(g) which speaks of regulation with reference to admission to Course which would take in the question of migration also, and when that is so, the University relying Ordinance Clause 3 cannot deny the right of the petitioner to seek migration. The learned senior counsel submitted that the Delhi University cannot act in derogation of the regulations framed by the Dental Council under the Dentist Act, 1948. The learned senior counsel submitted that having regard to the conditions in the family of the petitioner and the petitioner being a very bright student should not be deprived of her rights to come to Delhi to pursue her course. The learned senior counsel submitted that the stand taken by the respondent University is quite unreasonable and there is absolutely no rationale in the stand by the University.

8. The learned counsel for the University Mr. A. Mariaputham submitted that the University after due deliberations on the point taking into account the past experience had completely imposed a ban on any student seeking migration and that is incorporated in Clause 3 in Ordinance IV. The provisions in Clause 2 of the Ordinance deals with a different situation and the petitioner cannot rely upon it. This Court had considered the scope of the Ordinance and had upheld its validity and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to challenge the validity of Clause 3 of ordinance IV. The reliance placed by the learned senior counsel on the orders passed by this Court in C.W.P. 4558/94 dated 24.11.1994 and dated 13.3.1995 are not relevant in view of the amendment of Clause 3 in Ordinance IV with effect from 1995. The learned counsel Mr. Mariaputham submitted that in C.W.P. 2318/92 dated 30.3.1992 and judgment of this Court in LPA. 274/96 dated 13.1.1997 make the position very clear and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Mr. Mariaputham, the learned counsel for the University also submitted that the petitioner herself had admitted that she was not selected for being admitted into Maulana Azad Medical College and she was admitted into Government Dental College, Mumbai when she was declared successful in the entrance examination held in 1998. When that is so, she cannot seek admission in Maulana Azad Medical College indirectly by seeking migration. The learned counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioner had secured 76% in the first year examination held by Government Dental College, Mumbai and the circumstances of the family of the petitioner warrant a request by the petitioner for migration to Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi and the parents of the petitioner are resident of Delhi would not entitle the petitioner to get migration.

9. In the light of the decision of this Court in LPA. 274/96 dated 13.1.1997 it is not necessary to deal with any other aspect of the matter.

Dealing with the challenge of Clause 3 of Ordinance IV, the Division Bench held:-

"The amended Clause 3 of the Ordinance IV is, therefore, within the jurisdiction and powers of the University and is not, for the detailed reasons given in the Report of the Committee of the Delhi University arbitrary."

10. When the power of the University is upheld by a Division Bench of this Court, it is not open to the petitioner to contend contra. While making such an attempt to get over the position, the learned senior counsel submitted that the position with reference to regulation framed by the Dental Council under Dentist Act, 1948 and provisions of Sections 20(g) were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and, therefore, the decision of the Division Bench cannot be said to be binding on the petitioner.

11. The provisions of Ordinance IV are as under :-

"Ord. IV. Migration

I. (1) A student who has not completed his course of study or having completed his course of study has not appeared at the examination for which he was reading in any other Indian University or in any College under the control of a Board of Intermediate Education shall not be admitted to the University except on production of the following documents:

(a) leaving certificate from the Principal of the College or from the Registrar of the University he is leaving;

(b) certified copies of the report of attendance against his name in the register of students of the University or the College concerned.

(2) Admission of a student to the University in the second academic year of study for a degree examination may only be allowed on the ground that the parent or guardian of the student is residing in or has migrated to Delhi.

(3) In all cases of migration a certificate is required from the Principal of the College to which admission is sought by a student to the effect that he has attended a sufficient number of lectures in the subjects offered by him at this University in the College or the University from which he migrates, so as to enable him to complete the course of study prescribed by the University.

2. 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. Migration of a student to the University in a Course of Study to the Degree Examination under the Faculty of Technology and Faculty of Medical Sciences shall not be permitted."

12. Clause 3 of the Ordinance was amended w.e.f. 17.8.1995. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with a different situation. Any student pursuing a course other than Technology and Medical Sciences would come within Clauses 1 and 2. It is, therefore, the residence or migration to Delhi of the parents would not be relevant.

13. In the light of the provisions of Clause 3 of Ordinance IV the petitioner cannot claim migration. In this view, it is not necessary to deal with the other submissions made by the learned senior counsel Mr. Keshav Dayal relying upon the regulation framed by the Dental Council.

14. The reliance placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the orders passed by this Court on 2.11.1994 and 13.3.1995 cannot be said to be apposite in the light of the decision of the Division Bench, referred to above.

15. The reliance by the learned senior counsel on the decision of this Court in 1997 (65) DLT 623 for the proposition that the discretion by the authority concerned cannot be exercised arbitrarily and it must be supported on cogent grounds is also not relevant for the present discussion.

16. In the light of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.