Delhi High Court
Apurva vs University Of Delhi & Anr. on 12 March, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th March, 2012
+ LPA 198/2012
% APURVA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal & Ms. S.
Bari, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 25.01.2012 of
the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.7437/2011 preferred by
the appellant. The said writ petition was filed in October, 2011 seeking
mandamus to the respondent No.2 Bhagini Nivedita College to issue
Certificate enabling migration of the appellant to B.Com. (P), Second Year
in Vivekananda College in the academic Session 2011-12.
2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Aman Ichhpuniani Vs.
The Vice Chancellor, Delhi University 71 (1998) DLT 202 (DB) and
holding that the appellant has no vested right to claim migration from one
college to another; that the appellant has from time to time been citing
different reasons for seeking migration; that no merit was found in the
reasons so cited by the appellant; that the respondent No.2 College had
taken a policy decision not to allow migration on the ground of distance;
that the said policy decision had been followed consistently and the
appellant had not been able to point out any discrimination, arbitrariness or
capriciousness. The learned Single Judge further observed that the last
date for migration for the academic year 2011-12 was till 30.11.2011 and
the academic year 2011-12 was at its fag-end and for this reason also, the
request of the appellant could not be acceded to.
3. We may at the outset notice that the appellant has preferred and got
listed this appeal after waiting for nearly one and a half months.
Considering the nature of the relief claimed, such delay in preferring the
appeal, even though the same may be within the prescribed period of
limitation, itself deprives the appellant from the relief claimed.
4. The respondent No.2 College had taken the policy decision not to
allow migration on the ground of distance finding that a large number of its
students (as many as 26 in the last academic year) were seeking migration
and as a result of which the said College was unable to improve its
academic standards and its faculty was getting demoralized.
5. We may notice that this Court in Chetan Goel Vs. University of
Delhi 2005 VIII AD (Delhi) 316 holding that if students belonging to a
College which is constantly improving its academic achievements, are
allowed to migrate to other colleges, the same has a demoralizing effect on
the faculty which must be viewed seriously. Similarly in Jatin Behl Vs.
University of Delhi 99 (2002) DLT 546 it was held that a student who has
not been able to secure admission in a College due to less marks than the
cut-off prescribed by that College, cannot be permitted to secure the same
by seeking admission by way of migration. The Division Bench of this
Court in Aman Ichhpuniani (supra) laid down the guiding principle of
balancing the conflicting interests of the student and the institution. In the
present case though the appellant undoubtedly has to travel for long for
travelling to the respondent No.2 College and the distance from her
residence to the Vivekananda College to which she sought migration is
comparatively much less but it cannot be lost sight of that the appellant
took admission in the respondent No.2 College knowing fully well the said
distance. When we weigh the reason given by the appellant for migration
against the reason given by the respondent No.2 College for disallowing
migration, we find that the new colleges as the respondent No.2 would
never be able to come up if their best do not remain with them.
6. Moreover as aforesaid, the second year of the three years course and
in which migration is permissible is nearly over.
7. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the
same.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MARCH 12, 2012
'gsr'
