Delhi High Court
Rajni Agarwal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 September, 2013
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 706/2013
RAJNI AGARWAL ..... Appellant
Through Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC for R-1.
% Date of Decision: 24th September, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM Appl. 15044/2013 (exemption) in LPA 706/2013
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
LPA 706/2013
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 08th July, 2013 whereby the appellant's writ petition
being WP(C) No. 1626/2012 seeking inter-discipline transfer from Accessory
Designing Department to Textile Designing Department, has been dismissed.
The relevant portion of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"23............It is the petitioner who made an application
seeking inter-discipline transfer. Petitioner was made aware that
inter-discipline transfer is not permitted. Petitioner was also
informed the consequences in case her request is declined
which is evident from the undertaking. The undertaking
would show that petitioner was fully aware of the consequences.
Petitioner having taken the calculated risk cannot seek refuge
under the principles of promissory estoppel as the same are not
applicable to the facts of the present case. The submission that
the respondents were in unequal bargaining power can also not
be appreciated as it is the petitioner who wanted inter-
discipline transfer and was willing to take a chance and not that
the respondent forced the petitioner to attend classes in the third
semester and the fourth semester. For the reasons stated above the
present petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner would be permitted to
complete her course irrespective of the fact whether the span
period has come to end or not. Needless to state, the said relief is
granted to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case."
2. Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
principle of promissory estoppel is attracted to the facts of the present case and
the respondent-Institute cannot after a passage of one year relegate the
appellant to textile designing course.
3. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that
as the respondents did not decide the appellant's application for inter-discipline
transfer within a reasonable time, the appellant had lost more than an academic
year due to no fault of hers.
4. He contends that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that it is very
difficult for the appellant to continue with Accessory Designing Department as
she is suffering from Asthma and skin allergy.
5. He lastly contends that the appellant was forced to execute the
undertaking dated 06th September, 2010 relied upon by learned Single Judge.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the
opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel is not attracted to the facts of
the present case as the respondent-Institute had made no representation to the
appellant that her inter-discipline transfer application would be allowed. In
fact, from the appellant's own undertaking dated 06th September, 2010, it is
apparent that the respondent-Institute had made it clear that its policy does not
permit mid course change in discipline and in the eventuality its future policy
did not permit any change of discipline, the appellant shall have to revert back
to her parent department and she would then have no claim on the basis of
temporary inter-discipline transfer. The appellant's own undertaking dated 06th
September, 2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"It has been explained to me and I fully understand the NIFT
Policy that does not permit mid course change in discipline.
Based on this clear understanding, I have carefully considered
the matter and I would still like to try for change of the
discipline. But in the eventuality that NIFT Policy, as may be
formulated hereafter still does not permit any change of
discipline, I shall revert back to my parent department and shall
have no claim on the basis of this temporary inter discipline
transfer to department of my choice. Finally, I have been
explained and fully understood that after one semester if I
return to my original department, I would be losing one
complete year because I would need to complete the 3rd
Semester in my parent department.
I hereby undertake that I have read and understood the contents
of the undertaking and I am aware of its implications."
7. Further, the appellant's contention that she was forced to execute the
aforesaid undertaking is a baseless and vague averment, which is also contrary
to Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which prohibit exclusion of
oral evidence where the document had been reduced in writing.
8. The appellant has not placed on record any document to show that she
was suffering from any ailment leave alone Asthma or skin allergy.
9. This Court is also of the view that delay in deciding the appellant's
application would not vest any right in the appellant to seek inter-discipline
transfer. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge the issue of inter-
discipline transfer is a policy issue which the Court should leave to the decision
of experts in the field of academics.
10. Consequently, the present appeal being bereft of merits is dismissed in
limine, but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
NG
