Delhi High Court
Shubham Garg & Ors vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... on 18 December, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12.12.2019
Date of decision: 18.12.2019
+ LPA 475/2019 and CM APPL. 32690/2019, 32692/2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHUBHAM GARG & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Garg, Mr.Himanshu Mehra and
Ms. Charu Tyagi, Advocates for R-2.
+ LPA 472/2019 and CM APPL. 32534/2019
KARTIK KAUSHIK .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1
LPA 475/2019 and connected matters Page 1 of 41
+ LPA 473/2019 and CM APPL. 32639-40/2019
VIVEK NAG & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ankur Garg, Mr.Himanshu Mehra and Ms. Charu
Tyagi, Advocates for R-2
+ LPA 474/2019 and CM APPL. 32681/2019
SAURABH PUJARI ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1
Mr.Saurabh Ajay Gupta and Ms. Syed Tabeer
Riyaz, Advocates for R-2
+ LPA 476/2019 and CM APPL. 32698-32701/2019
TEJAS GUPTA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms.Akansha Chaudhary and
Mr. Achin Mittal, Advocates
LPA 475/2019 and connected matters Page 2 of 41
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Ankur Garg, Mr.Himanshu Mehra and Ms. Charu
Tyagi, Advocates for R-2
+ LPA 480/2019 and CM APPL. 32918/2019
SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K.Saini, Mr. Ankit Singh and Ms.
Bhavana Jain, Advocates
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1
+ LPA 519/2019 and CM APPL. 36163/2019 & 36165-66/2019
ABRA SHAH & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Shalini Nair
and Ms. Himanshi, Advocates
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSTIY & ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Advocate with
Ms.Ekta Sikri, Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri and Ms. Pallavi,
Advocates for R-1
LPA 475/2019 and connected matters Page 3 of 41
+ LPA 742/2019
AYUSHI BATRA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Advocate.
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY &
ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate for R-1.
+ LPA 743/2019
RITIKA JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Siddharth Sharma and Ms. Shruti Arora,
Advocates
versus
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jasbir Bidhuri, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Garg and Ms. Charu Tyagi, Advocates
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants/students are aggrieved by a common judgment dated
29.05.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions
filed by them and holding that the impugned order/communication dated
02.11.2018, issued by the respondent No.1/Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University (in short, „GGSIPU), rejecting their request for change of shift
and change of branch/stream, did not warrant any interference.
2. For ease of reference, we propose to recapitulate the facts set out in
LPA 475/2019, which has been treated as the lead matter for purposes of
arguments.
FACTUAL BACKDROP
3. The appellants are students pursuing B.Tech programme in the
respondent No.2/Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology (in short,
„Institute‟) affiliated to the respondent No.1/GGSIPU. They are presently
studying in the fifth semester, which is a part of the academic year 2018-19.
Each academic year in the said course comprises of two semesters. Within
the B. Tech programme itself, there are several streams including Computer
Science and Engineering (CSE), Information Technology (IT), Electricals
and Electronics Engineering (EEE) and Mechanical and Automation
Engineering (MAE). A common syllabus is prescribed for the first year in
respect of all the B. Tech streams/branches. Respondent No.1/GGSIPU
permits migration only after the student successfully completes the 1st
academic year.
4. Some of the appellants/students were studying in the first shift that
runs from 7 AM to 1:30 PM and others, in the second shift, from 2 PM to
8:30 PM. On successfully completing their 1st academic year, which
comprises of the 1st and 2nd semesters, the appellants/students desired to
migrate from the branch and the shift they had initially opted for by
exercising their options in terms of a Notice dated 09.08.2018, issued by the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU, extracted below:-
"Guru Gobind Singh Indrprastha University
Sector 16 C, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078
ADMISSION BRANCH
IPU-7/Acad./Migration-2018/2018-19/4712 09/08/2018
NOTICE
SUBJECT: Migration (Change of Shift Mutual Migration,
Intra University, Inter University) of the students admitted in
1 st Semester in the Academic Session 2017-18
In pursuance of Provisions in Ordinance 7 (Migration of
Students) GGSIPU Act, No. 9 of 1998, Candidates seeking
Migration (Change of Shift, Mutual Migration, Intra
university, Inter University) in various programmes in Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha University are required to submit
the following:
1. Migration Application
2. No Objection Certificate (NOCs) from both the Institutes
3. Copy of Result of first year (both semesters)
4. Copy of Result of class 12th qualifying examination
documents as per the eligibility criteria.
The above documents may be submitted between 09th August
2018 to 17th August, 2018 (11 am to 3 pm) only on University
working days in Admissions Branch, Administrative Block,
GGSIPU Dwarka.
Candidates desirous of seeking Migration should also fulfil the
eligibility Criteria for programme applying for Migration as
laid down in the Admissions Brochure for the Academic
Session 2017-18.
As per Amended provision of Migration Ordinance 7: No
migration is permitted into the Medical Colleges of the Guru
Gobind Singh Indraprastha university from any
Institution/College.
Issuance of No objection certificate (NOCs) from the
institute does not imply cancellation of Admission from the
particular college. It only means consent for migration given
by the College. Submission of Migration application does not
imply that migration will be carried out.
Migration will be effective from 3rd Semester for the Academic
Session 2018-19.
Enclosed- Copy of Ordinance 7, GGSIPU Act 09 of 1998.
SD/-
(Pravin Chandra)
Incharge Admissions"
5. As the Notice dated 09.08.2018 reproduced above, refers to the
provisions of Ordinance 7 governing migration in the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU, it is considered necessary to reproduce the said Ordinance
below:-
"ORDINANCE 7: MIGRATION OF STUDENTS
In pursuance of the provisions of Section 27 of Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University Act 1998 (9 of 1998), the Board
of Management of the Guru Gobind Singh lndraprastha
University, hereby makes the revised Ordinance 7 relating to
Migration of students.
1.0 No Migration shall be allowed from other
University/Colleges to the University Schools of Studies,
University maintained colleges or affiliated institutions i.e.
no inter-university migration shall be allowed in normal
circumstances. It can be allowed in special circumstances by
the Vice-Chancellor, on the recommendations of Sub-
Committee, comprising of three members of Academic
Council, constituted by the Vice-Chancellor subject to the
condition that the applicant student/candidate must have
cleared each paper of both the semester of 1st Year/or all the
paper of the 1st year as it applies for a particular
programme. It must be ensured that there should not be any
gap between the 1st Year and the 2nd Year of a particular
programme meaning thereby that the pursuance of the
programme remains continuous.
However, under no circumstances a student/candidate who
has compartment in any one paper of the 1st year or either of
the 1st or 2nd semester of the 1st year shall be permitted for
migration.
2.0 Migration (inter-se) from the University Schools of
Studies, maintained institutions or affiliated institutions shall,
however be considered as under:
a) No migration shall be allowed during 1st year of
studies except on extreme compassionate grounds, with
the prior approval of Academic Council.
b) Migration from University School of Studies to
University maintained institution or affiliated institutions
and vice-versa or from one institution to another
institution in the same programme/discipline in the 2nd
year/3rd semester can be considered in respect of the
following cases:
(i)(a) Mutual migration of the student(s) in the same
programme/discipline may be allowed when „No
Objection‟ is conveyed by both the
Deans/Directors/Principals, concerned of the University
School of Studies/respective institutions, as applicable.
Such migration shall be allowed with the approval of the
Registrar of the University.
(b) In case applicants seeking migration from affiliated
institutions to University School of Studies are more than
the vacancies available, migration will be allowed on the
basis of merit.
(ii) Under genuine circumstances migration of the
students from the University School of Studies to another
institution and vice-versa or from one institution to
another institution in the programme/discipline may be
allowed provided that the „No Objection Certificate‟ is
issued by the University School of Studies/institution
where he or she is studying in the previous semester and
also vacancy exists in the institution/University School of
Studies where he or she is seeking migration. Such
migration shall be allowed only with the prior approval
of Vice-Chancellor.
(iii) In case of migration of the student from one affiliated
institution to another institution, the fee structure shall
remain unchanged. However, in case of migration from
affiliated institutions to University Schools of Studies, the
candidate is required to pay the fee as prescribed in the
University Schools of Studies for the same
programme/discipline.
3.0 Under exceptional circumstances or in order to take care
of unforeseen situations, the Academic Council may consider
any relaxation in this Ordinance for reasons to be recorded in
writing.
The above ordinance has come into force with effect from the
date of the approval by the Board of Management."
FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION
6. Since the Notice dated 09.08.2018 required a student to obtain a No
Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned Institute if he/she desired a
shift/migration from one Institute to the other, the appellants/students herein,
who desired not only a change in the shift, but also a change in the branch
within the same Institute, i.e., from the morning shift to the afternoon shift
or vice versa, applied to the respondent No.2/Institute for a NOC, which was
duly accorded and was submitted by them before the cut off date for
migration, that was initially notified by the University as 19.08.2018 and
later on, revised to 21.08.2018. Thereafter, the appellants/students kept on
waiting for a clearance from the respondent No.1/GGSIPU and on not
receiving a response till the middle of October, 2018, some of them
approached the court by filing a writ petition [W.P.(C) 11722/2018].
7. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 30.10.2018, wherein the statement of the counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1/GGSIPU was recorded to the effect that
the pending representations of the petitioners therein for change of
shift/branch would be known to them within two days. This was followed
by an order dated 02.11.2018, passed by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU inter
alia rejecting the request of the appellants/students for change of shift and
change of branch, that came to be impugned by them in the second round of
litigation.
SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION
8. The reasons for the respondent No.1/GGSIPU to have rejected the
request of the appellants/petitioners for change of shift and branch have been
summarized in para 14 of the impugned judgment, reproduced hereinbelow:-
"14. Following thereupon, the impugned order came to be
passed, by the GGSIPU, on 2nd November, 2018, rejecting the
request of the petitioner on the following grounds:
(i) NOC was required to be submitted from "both the
Institutions", in case of migration, whereas, in the
present case, the NOC had been submitted only from one
institution.
(ii) Upgradation/change of branch/stream, within an
institution was allowed only by the Upgradation
policy/regulations applicable to the GGSIPU for the
B.Tech. program, which already stood completed, for the
2018-2019 academic session.
(iii) The duly constituted Sub-Committee of the Academic
Council of the GGSIPU considered, and examined, the
issue of change of shift, under the provision of migration
of students as per Ordinance 7 of the GGSIPU, in its
meeting held on 3rd October, 2018, and, after due
deliberation, recommended that "... no shift stage, in any
program, be allowed to be considered as under the
Migration Process...", as Ordinance 7 allowed migration
only across institutions. This recommendation, of the
Sub-Committee of the Academic Council was approved
by the Vice-Chancellor of the GGSIPU. Accordingly, no
request for shift change in an institution would be
considered by the GGSIPU. All requests for change of
shift in the same institution/college, for the 2018-2019
Academic Session had therefore, been rejected, by the
GGSIPU, not being covered under Ordinance 7, which
related to migration of students.
The impugned communication also draws attention to the
caveat, contained in the notice dated 9th August, 2018, read
with letter dated 19th August, 2018, whereby applications for
migration were invited, in which it was clearly stated that
issuance of NOC, from the Institute did not imply cancellation
of admission from the particular college, but only implied that
consent of migration had been given by the College, and that
the submission of an application for migration application did
not imply that migration would be carried out. In any event, it
was noted, interests of students were not affected, as they were
already studying in the same institution."
9. Following were the grounds taken by the appellants/students before
the learned Single Judge to assail the communication dated 02.11.2018:-
(a) That there was no question of obtaining two sets of NOCs from two
Institutions since the students were seeking change of shift within the
same Institute, from morning shift to evening shift or vice versa.
(b) That the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had permitted respondent
No.2/Institute to conduct the B. Tech course in two shifts, morning
shift and evening shift, for which it had been allocated two different
Institute Codes. The morning shift was allocated Code No.148 and
the evening shift was allocated Code No.964. It was therefore
impermissible for the respondent No.1/GGSIPU to contend that the
NOC was only of one Institute.
(c) In view of the Notice dated 09.08.2018 that had invited applications
for change of shift, both Intra-University and Inter-University,
respondent No.1/GGSIPU was estopped from asserting that change of
shift/branch was impermissible under Ordinance 7 or that Ordinance 7
applies only to migration, across different institutions.
(d) That even in the earlier years, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had been
acceding to requests made by students for change of shift and branch
and there was no justification for changing its position in the
academic year 2018-19.
(e) That having entertained requests for change of shift and branch in the
immediately preceding year, if the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had
decided not to entertain such applications in the academic year 2018-
19, then the said decision ought to have been made public at the
earliest and having failed to do so, the students had a legitimate
expectation that they would be entitled to apply for change of shift
and branch, in terms of the Notice dated 09.08.2019.
(f) That change of shift and branch could not be treated as an
„upgradation‟ as sought to be urged on behalf of the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU.
(g) Lastly, reliance was placed on the recommendations made by the Sub-
Committee of the Academic Council in its meeting held on
03.10.2018, wherein it was observed that since applications for
migration had been invited by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU a long
time back and the academic session had commenced in August, 2018,
if any a student had obtained a NOC from the respective Institute after
submission of request for migration, "the issuance of NOCs by the
institute may be considered as on genuine circumstances for academic
session 2018-19".
10. The writ petitions of the appellants/students were opposed by the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU on the following grounds:-
(i) That change of branch would amount to upgradation/change of
discipline within an institution and under the upgradation policy of the
University, the marks obtained by a student i.e., Semester Grade Point
Average (SGPA) in the 1st semester of the B. Tech Programme would be
taken into consideration.
(ii) That none of the appellants possess the requisite SGPA for
upgradation to the CSE Branch and under the guise of change of shift, they
were indirectly attempting to obtain such upgradation through the writ
petition.
(iii) That vide Notice dated 10.5.2018, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had
invited applications for upgradation/change of branch in the B.Tech.
Programme from students who would be promoted to the 3 rd semester in the
academic year 2018-19 and the said notice specifically stated that
upgradation/change of branch would be done strictly on the basis of the
SGPA obtained by the student in the 1st semester of the said programme,
subject to availability of vacancies.
(iv) That Ordinance 7 did not allow change of shift within the same
institute and required issuance of NOCs from both the institutions, where
migration was sought clearly implying that migration could only be between
two institutes.
(v) That the very first recommendation of the Sub-Committee of the
Academic Council pursuant to the meeting conducted on 3.10.2018, had
clarified that no shift change was possible under the migration policy of
GGSIPU.
(vi) That the fact that GGSIPU had been allowing change of shift in the
past by treating it as a migration, could not be treated as an estoppel against
the University, since there can be no estoppel against the statute and nor
would the principles of legitimate expectation come into play.
FINDING RETURNED IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
11. Upon hearing arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties, the learned Single Judge held in para 41 as below:-
"41. I am in entire agreement with the submission, of
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that, in the
face of this Notice, it is not open to the GGSIPU to
contend that change of shift was not permissible, or
even that it did not amount to migration. It is not
necessary, for this purpose, to advert to Ordinance 7, or
enter into any interpretive exercise thereof. Once the
Notice, issued by the GGSIPU, invited applications for
change of shift, which was parenthesized, with mutual
migration and inter-University and intra-University
migrations, as another category of "migration", the
applying students could hardly be expected to be required
to refer to Ordinance 7, to ascertain whether, in fact,
change of shift was "migration", or not. Indeed, the
issue of whether change of shift did, or did not, amount
to "migration", is really tangential to the issue at hand.
Ordinance 7, therefore, does not really impact the issue
at hand. The GGSIPU is clearly bound by the
representation held out, by it, to the students by the
Notice dated 9th August, 2018 (supra) and is, therefore,
estopped from seeking to contend that "change of shift"
did not amount to migration. Even if Ordinance 7,
which dealt with "migration", were to be interpreted as
not bringing, within its fold, change of shift, the Notice,
dated 9th August, 2018 (supra), indisputably invited
applications from students desiring a change of shift.
Once, pursuant, and in response, to the said Notice,
students applied for change of shift, it was, clearly, not
open to the GGSIPU to reject the application on the
ground that "change of shift" did not amount to
"migration", as conceptualized in Ordinance 7, or that
any change, which was sought, had to be within the same
shift." (emphasis added)
12. As can be seen from the above, the learned Single Judge was of the
opinion that in the light of the Notice dated 9.8.2018, issued by the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU that categorically invited applications from
candidates "seeking Migration (Change of Shift, Mutual Migration, Inter
university, Inter University) in various programmes", it was not
permissible for GGSIPU to argue that change of shift was not permissible or
that change of shift would tantamount to migration. The Court held that in
the face of the aforesaid notice, Ordinance 7 would not have any bearing as
the students had applied for change of shift on the strength of the said notice.
It was further held that even the recommendations made by the members of
the Sub-Committee of the Academic Council were to the effect that since
applications for migrations had already been invited by the University a long
time ago and the academic session had already commenced from August,
2018, if any student had obtained NOCs for migration from their respective
Institute, then the said NOCs must be taken into consideration on genuine
circumstances for the academic year 2018-19.
REASONS FOR DECLINING RELIEF TO THE APPELLANTS IN
THE WRIT PETITION:
13. So far so good. Now comes the twist in the tale. After rejecting the
stand taken by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU and holding that it was not
open for it to turn down the applications of the students who wanted a
change in the shift alone, the learned Single Judge went on to hold that the
Notice dated 9.8.2018 did not refer to any change of branch and that the
University had issued a separate Notice dated 10.5.2018, inviting
applications for change in branch which had categorically stated that a
request for change of branch would amount to upgradation and further, that
such a change in branch/upgradation was permissible only within the same
shift. Taking note of the fact that the writ petitioners had not challenged the
Notice dated 10.5.2018, which disallowed applications for change of branch
across shifts, the impugned judgment records that if the appellants‟ requests
for change of branch and shift were to be allowed, it would result in granting
them admission to the CSE stream, without their having qualified for such
admission on merits. We may extract below the observations made in paras
54 and 55 of the impugned judgment:-
"54. My attention has not been invited, by any of the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, to any
Rule, Regulation, or executive instruction, permitting
students in the GGSIPU to seek change of branch across
shifts, or, for that matter, to seek change of branch
without securing the requisite SGPA. Nor does the writ
petition refer to any such Rule, Regulation, or executive
instruction. At the cost of repetition, it merits reiteration
that the Notice, dated 9th August, 2018 supra, too, does
not do so. The sole crutch on which the petitioner seeks
to balance her case is, therefore, the fact that, in the
previous two academic sessions, i.e. 2017-2018 and
2016-2017, requests for change of branch, along with
change of shift, had been entertained and allowed.
55. There is no gainsaying the fact that such requests
had, in fact, been entertained and allowed in the previous
two academic years, and, the respondents, too, do not
dispute this factual position. The petitioner cannot,
however, seek parity, for the 2018-2019 academic
session, in view of the Notice, dated 10th May, 2018
supra issued by the GGSIPU, which clearly noted that
change of branch/upgradation was permissible only in
the same shift, and would be decided on the basis of the
SGPA scored by the applicant in the first semester. The
petitioner has not sought to contend that any such
notice, clarifying the position, had been issued in the
earlier academic years 2016-2017 or 2017-2018. The
position obtaining in the 2018-2019 academic session
was, by virtue of the issuance of the said Notice dated 10 th
May, 2018, read with the fact that the Notice dated 9th
August, 2018, too, did not invite applications for change
of branch, drastically different. No leverage can,
therefore, be sought to be drawn, by the petitioner, from
the allowing, by the GGSIPU, of applications for change
of shift and branch, in the earlier academic years 2016-
2017 and 2017-2018. The reliance, by the petitioner, on
the said fact cannot, therefore, come to her aid."
(emphasis added)
14. The learned Single Judge thus concluded that "there is no provision,
in any instrument, whether statutory or in the form of any of the notices
issued by the GGSIPU, to support the petitioner's case that it was entitled to
apply for change of shift along with change of branch, for the 2018-2019
academic session". At the same time, conscious of the fact that
implementation of the impugned judgment would result in the
appellants/students losing an entire academic year, the learned Single Judge
clarified that the same would not be an impediment for the University to
adopt an empathetic approach qua the students and permit them to continue
in the class they were presently studying, if it was so deemed appropriate. It
is a different matter that the respondent No.1/GGSIPU declined to go that
way.
PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION MADE IN THE LPA'S:
15. When the present appeals except for LPA 742/2017 and 743/2019
which were filed later, were listed for admission on 22.7.2019, we had
observed thus:-
"1. The appellants are aggrieved by a common judgment
dated 29.05.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge
whereby, their writ petitions for seeking change of shift
and branch, have been dismissed primarily on the ground
that the appellants could not seek parity for the academic
sessions 2018-2019, in view of the Notice dated
11.05.2018 issued by the respondent no.1/GGSIPU,
wherein it was clearly stated that change of
branch/upgradation was permissible only in the same
shift.
2. Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Dayan Krishnan,
Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants submit that in
the earlier years, notices similar to the notices dated
10.05.2018 and 09.08.2018 were issued and yet the
respondents had permitted a change of shift and branch
and therefore, it is impermissible for them to urge that
though the contents of the said notices are no different
from those issued in the previous academic years, the
same ought to be given a different interpretation.
Secondly, it is submitted that on a reading of the Minutes
of Meeting dated 03.10.2018 of the Sub-Committee of the
Academic Council constituted to deliberate on change of
shift for migration cases, it is apparent that the
respondent no. 1/GGISPU had been acceding to the
requests of the students for intra-university migration and
migration within the same institution along with change
of shift, in the past years.
3. Limited to the aforesaid two grounds, issue notice to
the respondents in all petitions."
16. In response to the issues flagged by learned counsel for the
appellants/students, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU was permitted to file a
brief affidavit which they did on 13.8.2019. It has been averred in the said
affidavit that the appellants/students cannot be permitted to take refuge of
the alleged past practice of permitting students to change their shift and
branch and any departure from the practice followed in the previous years
cannot bind the University and nor can the students seek parity on the basis
of such past practice. To re-enforce the aforesaid submission, reliance was
placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sneh Prabha
versus State U.P. & Anr. reported as (1996) 7 SCC 426 and it was
submitted that if State does commit a mistake, it cannot be forced to
perpetuate the same mistake.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
17. The gravamen of the arguments addressed by Mr. Dayan Krishnan
and Mr. Anil Sapra, learned Sr. Advocates appearing for the
appellants/students was that over the past years, the University had been
routinely allowing requests of students pursuing B.Tech Programme for
"change of shift and branch" and treating them as Intra-University
migration, pursuant to similar notices issued in the earlier academic years as
for e.g., the academic sessions, 2015-16 and 2016-17, under Ordinance 7
which the appellants have now been able to lay their hands on, after
pronouncement of the impugned judgment. Copies of the said notices have
been placed on record. It was argued that had this position been brought to
the notice of the learned Single Judge by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU as it
was well aware of the correct position, then the appellants/students would
have been successful in the writ petitions because the court has already
decided the issue of change of shift in their favour but has disallowed
change of shift coupled with change of branch only on the ground that the
appellants could not demonstrate that notices similar to the Notice dated
10.5.2018 for the academic session 2018-19, had been issued by the
University in the previous academic years 2016-17 or 2017-18. It was urged
that now that notices issued by the University in the previous two years have
been filed, they go to substantiate the stand taken by the appellants/students
that the respondent No.1/GGSIPU has been permitting students to apply for
change of shift alongwith change of branch in the earlier academic years and
for the very same reason, the appellants/students ought to have been treated
on the same footing.
18. It was also urged before us that when Ordinance 7 was introduced,
there was no concept of running two shifts in the same Institute and the two
shifts system was introduced much later. Ever since then, the University has
been treating the morning shifts and the evening shifts within the same
Institute as distinct to the point that separate Codes have been assigned for
the morning shift and the evening shift. As a result, over the years,
respondent No.1/GGSIPU has been permitting change of shift and change of
branch within the same Institute by treating it as an „Intra-University'
migration and the said word used in para 1 of the Notice dated 09.8.2018,
must be understood to mean an Institute with a particular code and if the
same Institute has been assigned two separate codes, then the morning shift
and the evening shift shall have to be treated as distinct Institutes, thereby
permitting students change of shift and branch, within the same Institute.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants/students have laid much emphasis
on the fact that on the basis of the past practice adopted by the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU, the understanding given to the appellants/students was that
Intra-University change of shift and branch were both permitted and acting
on the above understanding, they had applied for a change of shift and
branch. Moreover, as per past practice, respondent No.2/Institute had also
been issuing NOC‟s on the very same understanding. It was further
submitted that as the 3rd semester in the second academic year commences
from the first week of August every year, the authorities ensure that all the
formalities regarding change of shift and change of branch are wrapped up
within the first week of that very month but in the year 2018, the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU let the matter hang till the end of October, 2018. In the
meantime, on submitting NOC‟s issued by the respondent No.2/Institute to
the University and pending clearance at that end, the appellants/students
were permitted to join the new shift and branch which they did. This was
with the tacit approval of the respondent No.1/GGSIPU. In all this duration,
not only the appellants/students, but even the respondent No.2/Institute kept
on corresponding with the respondent No.1/GGSIPU asking for permission,
but they drew a blank. Running against time and realising that the 3rd
Semester would soon be over, the appellants/students were left with no
option but to knock at the door of the court for relief in the middle of
October, 2018. Prodded on by the court, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU
finally issued a letter dated 02.11.2018, stating inter alia that no request for
„change of shift‟ within the same Institutions/college in the academic session
2018-19, would be considered under the procedure of migration of students,
as prescribed under Ordinance 7. But by then, the 3rd semester was almost
over and the examinations were to commence from the last week of
November, 2018 thus leaving the appellants/students in a lurch.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.2/INSTITUTE
20. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2/Institute supported the stand taken by the
appellants/students and submitted that on its part, the Institute had been
vigorously pursuing the matter and had written several letters informing the
University that it had forwarded requests received from a number of students
for migration in the academic session 2018-19, that had commenced on
01.8.2019 and they were still awaiting a confirmation. He contended that
once the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had allowed the appellants/students to
change their position and the students as also the Institute had acted on the
previous representations held out by the University, the doctrine of estoppel
would come into play and that this was clearly a case of estoppel by
conduct. Learned counsel also referred to the noting file of the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU to urge that even the University understood shifts to mean
"distinct institutions for the purposes of migration".
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.1/GGSIPU
21. Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU vehemently contested the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants/students and the respondent No.2/Institute and
sought to explain that an error had crept in the Notice dated 09.8.2018
issued by the University inasmuch as it had referred to "Intra University
migration" which is contrary to the stipulation contained in Ordinance 7.
Much emphasis was laid by him on the penultimate para of the Notice dated
09.8.2018, to urge that it had been made clear that simply because the
appellants/students had been issued NOC‟s by the respondent No.2/Institute,
will not imply that migration will automatically be permitted by the
University. He contended that the record of the respondent No.2/Institute
itself demonstrates that the appellants/students had not changed their
position as sought to be argued and they were continuing to attend classes in
the concerned streams where they had been originally admitted which fact
could be borne out from a tabulated statement dispatched by the respondent
No.2/Institute to the respondent No.1/GGSIPU for issuance of attendance
cards to enable the students to sit in the 3rd Semester end term examinations
that were to be conducted in November/December, 2018.
22. To buttress his argument that the doctrine of promissory estoppel
cannot come to the aid of the appellants/students if the same is against the
statute, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GGSIPU relied on the
decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Guru Gobind
Singh Indraprastha University versus Ram Narayan Tiwari & Anr., reported
as 2018 SCC OnLine 12786. The decision in the case of Gursharan Singh
and Others versus New Delhi Municipal Committee and Others reported as
(1996) 2 SCC 459 was cited to contend that negative equality cannot be
claimed by the appellants/students as that would amount to perpetuating an
illegal procedure, not sanctioned by law.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
23. It can be seen from the aforesaid narrative that by now, the dust has
settled on the issue of change of shift since the impugned judgment has
upheld the plea taken by the appellants/students that the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU cannot be permitted to cite Ordinance 7 to contend that
change of shift was impermissible as it had itself issued a Notice dated
9.8.2018, inviting applications from students for change of shift coupled
with mutual migrations, both intra-University and inter-University, by
treating it as a "migration". The said decision has not been challenged by the
University by filing independent appeals or cross-appeals. However, a feeble
attempt was made in the course of arguments to cite Order XLI, Rule 22 of
the CPC and urge that the University is aggrieved by and entitled to raise a
grievance against the findings returned in the impugned judgment on the
effect of Ordinance 7, though the conclusion arrived at is not being
challenged. We are however, not persuaded by the said submission and
concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the
University is bound by the representation held out by it to the students vide
Notice dated 09.8.2018 and it is estopped from contending that "change of
the shift" did not amount to migration.
24. This leaves the aspect of change of branch. The only reason that had
weighed with the learned Single Judge for declining the relief of change of
branch/discipline coupled with the change of shift to the appellants/students
was failure on their part to produce any Rule, Regulation or Executive
Instruction, which could demonstrate that the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had
been permitting students to seek a change of branch, across shifts or to seek
change of branch without securing the prescribed SGPA (Semester Grade
Point Average). Observing that the Notice dated 9.8.2018, issued by the
University also does not make a mention of change of branch/discipline and
that the earlier Notice dated 10.5.2018, issued by the University had clearly
stated that change of branch/upgradation was permissible only in the same
shift and would be decided on the basis of the SGPA scored by a student in
the 1st semester, the learned Single Judge has declined relief to the
appellants/students.
A. PAST PRACTICE CONSISTENTLY ADOPTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/GGSIPU W.E.F. 2006-07
25. It is only at the appellate stage that the appellants have been able to
lay their hands on two Notices, one dated 5.4.2016, relevant for the
academic session 2016-17 and the other dated 5.7.2017, relevant for the
academic session 2017-18, which are similar to the Notice dated 10.5.2018,
issued by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU for the academic session 2018-19.
It transpired during the course of arguments advanced by counsel for the
parties that though notices on similar lines were consistently issued by the
University in the previous academic sessions, as was issued on 10.5.2018 for
the academic session 2018-19, that stated inter alia that upgradation/change
of branch of the students in the Engineering Programme within the same
College/Institute on the basis of their performance in the 1 st semester shall
be based on the SGPA scored by them, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had
been permitting change of shift alongwith change of branch/discipline in
routine, within the same Institute from the academic session 2006-07
onwards.
26. The only explanation sought to be offered by the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU for changing course in the academic session 2018-19 is that
the University realised that it had fallen in an error in interpreting Ordinance
7 over all these years and under a mistaken notion, had been permitting
change of shift and change of branch to students within the same Institution,
notwithstanding the fact that they had failed to secure the requisite SGPA. In
view of the fact that the respondent No.1/GGSIPU itself remained under an
impression that change of shift coupled with change of branch within the
same Institute was permissible and the University had been acting on the
said understanding for a decade and a half, till as recently as the previous
academic session 2017-18, we are of the opinion that the appellants/students
cannot be faulted for applying for NOCs to the respondent No.2/Institute
and seeking change of branch alongwith change of shift for the academic
year 2018-19 on an understanding that the same would be allowed as a
matter of course. Relying on the said representation held out by the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU, not only did the appellants/students submit
NOCs to the University, based on the said NOCs issued in their favour by
the respondent No.2/Institute, the latter had also permitted them to attend the
3rd semester classes in the changed shifts/branches/disciplines. In the above
backdrop, the appellants/students are justified in invoking the doctrine of
estoppel by conduct against the respondent No.1/GGSIPU. We are afraid
that in the given facts, none of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU and referred to above, would be applicable.
B. LACK OF PROMPTITUDE DEMONSTRATED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/GGSIPU
27. There is yet another factor that weighs in favour of the
appellants/students and against the respondent No.1/GGSIPU which is,
failure on its part to act with promptitude in the instant case. As noticed
above, in terms of the Notice dated 9.8.2018, issued by the University,
students desirous of seeking migration, were required to submit their
applications on or before 21.8.2018, which they did after obtaining requisite
NOCs from the respondent No.2/Institute, so no delay is attributable to
them. Thereafter, expecting that permissions will come from the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU in due course, as was the case in the past years, the
respondent No.2/Institute permitted the appellants/students to attend the 3rd
semester classes in the changed shift and changed branch/discipline. In all
this duration, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU remained mute and did not take
a decision on the requests received by it for migration. This lull continued
till the middle of October, 2018, when the anxiety of the appellants/students
mounted on failing to hear either ways from the University. Conscious of the
fact that the date of commencement of the 3rd semester end term
examinations was just round the corner, the aggrieved students filed a writ
petition complaining that the University had failed to take any action. On
31.10.2018, on an assurance given by the counsel for the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU to the court that the fate of the appellants/students would be
known to them within two days, the petition was disposed of and only then
did the respondent No.1/GGSIPU pass an order on 02.11.2018, rejecting the
applications of the appellants/students for change of shift/change of branch.
28. In view of the past practice adopted by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU
that gave a clear impression to the student community that it was permitting
intra-University change of shift and change of branch/discipline and based
thereon, the appellants/students having altered their position by submitting
applications for change of shift/stream alongwith the requisite NOCs from
the respondent No.2/Institute and further, having regard to the fact that the
respondent No.2/Institute had permitted the appellants/students a change in
the shift and branch on an expectation that, as was the case in the previous
academic sessions, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU would permit migration
even in the academic session 2018-19, we are of the opinion that it would
be extremely iniquitous to revert the appellants/students to their original
position at this belated stage. This is all the more so when the entire delay in
communicating a decision lies squarely at the door of the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU.
29. In our opinion, the past conduct of the respondent No.1/GGSIPU was
itself sufficient for the appellants/students and the respondent No.2/Institute
to have reasonably inferred that as in the previous academic sessions, this
time too, the University will give its approval for a change of shift and
change of stream in the academic session 2018-19. Acting on the faith of
such a representation/conduct on the part of the respondent No.1/GGSIPU
and having altered their position, the University is estopped from arguing
that the applications for change of shift/branch submitted by the
appellants/students had been rightly rejected. The gross apathy of the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU spread over three months, coupled with the
decision of the respondent No.2/Institute to allow the appellants/students to
attend the 3rd semester classes and mark their attendance in the changed shift
and branches, cannot be brushed away simply on the strength of a disclaimer
appended by the University at the foot of the Notice dated 9.8.2019 to the
effect that issuance of "NOCs" from the institute did not imply cancellation
of admission from the particular college or that "Submission of Migration
application does not imply that migration will be carried out".
30. A famous proverb dating back to the 17th Century that states "actions
speak louder than words", applies with full force to the facts of the present
case. In one breath, the respondent No.1/GGSIPU had been issuing Notices
in the previous academic sessions disallowing applications for change of
branch across shifts without the requisite SPGA scores and in the other
breath, it has been unfailingly permitting both, change of shift and change of
branch/discipline to students in the 2nd academic year, notwithstanding the
SGPA scored by them in the 1st semester. In the face of this practice
consistently adopted by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU over a decade and a
half, it cannot be heard to state that the doctrine of estoppel by conduct
cannot be invoked against it by the appellants/students.
31. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission made by
Mr. Mukul Talwar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU that the University is entitled to take a plea of
estoppel against statute. The instant case is not one where estoppel is being
invoked by the appellants/students against the statute, rather, it is one where
they are entitled to invoke the doctrine of estoppel on the basis of the past
conduct of the respondent No.1/GGSIPU. By its sheer inaction and dead
silence maintained over a prolonged period, the University is estopped from
contending at such a belated stage that it is empowered to decline approval
to the migration applications submitted by the appellants/students at the
eleventh hour. [Refer: University of Delhi versus Ashok Chopra, AIR 1968
Delhi 131, B.L. Sreedhar versus K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355,
Pratima Chaudhary versus Kalpna Mukherjee & Anr. (2014) 4 SCC 196 and
Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. versus State of Kerala and Ors, (2016) 6 SCC
766].
32. To test the other submission made by learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU that the appellants/students were actually
continuing to study in the originally allocated shift/branch and the
documents filed by them in support of the said plea, have been doctored to
show otherwise, since we noticed from the records that during the pendency
of the writ petitions, orders had been passed from time to time permitting the
appellants/students to sit in the changed streams for the 3 rd semester and 4th
semester end term examinations, subject of course to the outcome of the said
petitions and without creating any equities in their favour and further, on
finding that they had sat in the said examinations, vide order dated
16.09.2019, we had directed the respondent No.1/GGSIPU to produce the
results of the appellants for the 3rd and 4th semesters in a sealed cover. On
the next date, i.e., on 17.09.2019, the sealed cover handed over in court was
opened and on perusing the tabulated statement prepared by the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU upon collating their results, it turned out that in respect of 30
appellants, whose results were collated, out of a total of 12 subjects in each
of the two semesters, only 6 had got compartments in 1-3 subjects. This puts
paid to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU that the appellants/students were continuing to attend classes
in the concerned streams where they had been originally admitted. Had that
been so, the results would have shown otherwise.
C. REVELATION FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS
MAINTAINED BY THE UNIVERSITY
33. Coming to the last aspect that has persuaded us to allow the present
appeals, we find from a perusal of the impugned letter of rejection dated
02.11.2018, issued by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU that it refers to a duly
constituted Sub-Committee of the Academic Council of the University
which had examined the issue of shift change under the provisions of
migration of students. Relying on the recommendations made by the said
Sub-Committee to the effect that "no shift change in any programme be
allowed to be considered as under the migration process" since Ordinance 7
allows migration across institutions only, which was duly approved by the
Vice Chancellor, the University had turned down the migration applications
submitted by the students. In the course of arguments, directions were
issued to the counsel for the respondent No.1/GGSIPU to produce the
relevant noting file and the records pertaining to the first report of the
Migration Committee constituted by the University after issuance of the
Notice dated 09.08.2018 so as to examine the steps taken by the University
right upto 02.11.2018, when the rejection order was passed.
34. In compliance with the said directions, a photocopy of the relevant
extract of the noting file was produced by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU, accompanied by a typed version of the hand
written notes, which throws light on the manner in which the issue was
approached by the University. A perusal of the noting file reveals that
sometime in the beginning of September, 2018, a note was put up on the
subject of "Migration of Students for the Academic Session 2018-19",
which referred to the provisions of Ordinance 7 and mentioned three
circumstances in which migrations are to be considered under the said
Ordinance. One of the three situations highlighted in the said note was in
respect of migration of students within the University schools and/or its
affiliated institutions. A proposal was made that in the first instance,
"change of shift/change of branch/intra-University migration may be
processed on the request received from the students".
35. The aforesaid note was put up to the Joint Registrar (Admissions),
who wrote on 07.09.2018 that "the case of migration within the University
school/affiliate institutes is to be as per the proviso mentioned in Ordinance
7". The Registrar recommended that the case of migration within the
University school/affiliate institutes may be taken up first. The said view
was endorsed by the Pro-Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor of the
University and resultantly, as was the practice adopted in the previous
academic years, a Migration Committee was constituted under Ordinance 7,
which submitted its recommendations on 14.09.2018 to the following
effect:-
"1. The Committee was appraised for the Procedure for inviting
applications for migrations for Academic Session 2018-19 in the
terms of Ordinance 7, GGSIPU Act. The Committee perused all
the noting and approval on the file related to Process of
Migration.
2. Applications have been received, with a request for
Migration for Change of Shift, Change of Branch Intra
University and Inter University to any affiliated
colleges/University School of Studies of the Univeristy in
Programme B. Tech.
3. The Committee recommends that Migration from within
the University/Affiliated Colleges that is Intra Migration to
University School of Studies be given to all the Applicants
applying to the University from the Affiliated on the basis of
CGPA secured by the candidates in their 1st Year of Examination
and as per the no. of seats available in University Schools of
Studies.
4. Migration has been carried out in a order, which is
mentioned as below:
i. Change of shift/Change of Branch Migration
within the College.
ii. Intra University Migration.
5. Inter University Migration as per approved in the relevant
file i.e,. from other Universities will be carried out later on.
6. As brought into the Notice of Committee that the
Academic Session for 2018-19 has already commenced w.e.f.
01.08.2018 and recommendation for Migrations are being
carried out now, it is also recommended that the students
allowed for Migration, their Internal Examination may be held
after some time in the general interest of the Students.
7. The detail of the students along with the name of the
parent college/institute where the student is studying and the
college/institute where the student is seeking migration are
mentioned below. The Committee has examined the cases and
recommends as below:" (emphasis added)
36. As can be seen from the aforesaid recommendations, following the
same practice as was being adopted by the earlier Migration Committees
constituted on an annual basis by the University, the Migration Committee
for the year 2018-19 had also recommended approval of change of shift and
change of branch as migration within the college besides Intra-University
migration. This position is also borne out from a perusal of the list of
students annexed with the Report of the Migration Committee that shows
that change of shift and change of branch within the same Institute had been
duly recommended. Instead of acting on the Report of the Migration
Committee in entirety, the University implemented the recommendation for
migration from Affiliated colleges to University schools while keeping the
rest of the recommendations in abeyance, which included recommendations
approving change of shift and change of branch within the same Institute by
treating the same as intra-University migration.
37. The aforesaid recommendations dated 14.9.2018 were placed on the
file by the Convener, i.e., Incharge (Admissions) for the approval of the
Vice Chancellor on 18.9.2018. On 24.9.2018, the Registrar appended a note
as follows:-
"- As per clause 2.0 (b)(i)(b), migration to university school
is purely on merit basis. The same may be allowed.
(Ordinance 7; Migration of students)
- Under clause 2.0(b)(ii), migration may be considered
under genuine circumstances. Therefore, before any
decision is taken on their application, their genuineness may
be brought on file. Their circumstances may show some light
on their genuineness.
- Further it is noticed that shift changes from Ist to IInd or
vice-versa is also being treated as migration whereas it is
very close to upgradation which is done on basis of merit.
Therefore, this matter may be re-examined whether such
cases fall in category of migration. Ordinance talks about
two NOCs in case of migration whereas in such cases there
is only are institute and therefore only one NOC."
38. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid note was recorded by a Registrar,
who was appointed in the University on 13.07.2017 and he was the one, who
had for the first time expressed some reservations on whether change of
shift/change of branch from morning to evening shift or vice-versa within
the same Institute can be treated as Intra University migration. In this
background, the Pro-Vice Chancellor, marked the file to the Incharge
(Admissions), who recorded the following note on 25.09.2018:-
1. The file has been put up following the current procedure
of the migration as followed till date.
2. For migration, shifts are considered as distinct
institutions.
3. The file may be approved for this year/academic session.
The recommendation of the duly constituted committee
may be taken as final for migration this year/academic
session in all cases of migration. Moreover Academic
session has already started.
4. The issues raised by the Registrar may be considered by a
sub-committee of the Academic Council as it may lead to
recommendations that lead to changes in the process of
upgradation for B.Tech/etc and in migration of students
ordinance." (emphasis added)
39. Inspite of the aforesaid observations made by the Incharge
(Admissions) that shifts are considered as distinct institutions for migration
and the recommendations of the Migration Committee may be accepted for
this year, more so since the academic session had already commenced, the
Pro-Vice Chancellor opined that the file be placed before the Vice-
Chancellor for approval and for constituting an Academic Council Sub-
Committee. The said note was approved on 25.9.2018 and a Sub-Committee
of the Academic Council was constituted. The said Sub-Committee held a
meeting on 03.10.2018 and made the following recommendations:-
"The minutes of the meeting of the AC sub-committee is
placed on file. The meeting was held on 3/10/2018. The sub-
committee recommends the following:
1. For the academic session 2018-19, no shift change in
any programme be allowed to be considered as under the
Migration process.
2. As the applications for migrations have already been
invited by University long time back and also academic
session has began from August 2018, if any student has
obtained NOC(s) from their respective Institute after
submission of request for migration, the issuance of NOCs
by the institute may be considered as on genuine
circumstances for academic session 2018-19.
3. The Up-gradation Regulation may be amended for
consideration in the next academic session 2019-20 and
onwards and to include/allow shift changes in the same
institution also after comprehensive review and to be
applicable to all programmes of studies.
4. The Migration Ordinance may be made more
comprehensive or a suitable Regulation be framed for
providing detailed procedure to be followed for migration as
per provisions in the said Ordinance." (emphasis added)
40. As can be seen from the tone and tenor of the recommendations made
by the Sub-Committee on 03.10.2018, it was of the view that for the
academic year 2018-19, no shift change in any programme be allowed to be
treated as a Migration process. At the same time, the Sub-Committee was
cognizant of the fact that the University had already invited applications
from students for migration a long time ago and the academic session had
also begun in August, 2018. In the said circumstances, the Sub-Committee
opined in para 2 that if the students had obtained NOC‟s from their
respective institute, the said NOC‟s may be considered by the University on
genuine circumstances for the academic session 2018-19.
41. When the aforesaid Report of the Sub-Committee was placed back
before the Migration Committee, it resolved on 08.10.2018, that no shift
change in any programme shall be allowed as under the migration process in
the academic session 2018-19, without recommending the relaxation
suggested by the Sub-Committee in para 2 of its Report. The said
recommendations were approved by the Vice Chancellor on 10.10.2018, but
no decision was communicated to the appellants/students or the respondent
No.2/Institute till 02.11.2018.
42. What emerges from a reading of the noting file of the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU is that in its Report dated 14.09.2018, the Migration
Committee had recommended change of shift and change of branch for
intra-University migration. The said decision appears to be in consonance
with the decision taken by the University uninterruptedly in the previous
academic years and duly implemented. However, this time, the Registrar of
the University had some reservations about the decision taken by the
Migration Committee in the light of Ordinance 7 that referred to two NOCs
in case of migration, whereas the applications submitted by the students for
migration were supported with only one NOC, issued by one Institute and he
desired that the matter be re-examined.
43. In response to the aforesaid note, the Incharge (Admissions) clarified
that for purposes of migration, shifts are considered as distinct institutions.
Thus there is no manner of doubt that the understanding of the high officials
of the University was that if two shifts were being run in one Institute, i.e.,
morning shift and evening shift, then each of the two shifts would be treated
as a distinct institution. Even the subsequently constituted Sub-Committee
had recommended in its meeting held on 03.10.2018, that since applications
for migration had already been invited from students a long time ago and the
academic session had commenced in August, 2018, wherever students had
obtained NOCs from their Institute, the said NOCs may be treated on
genuine circumstances for the relevant year.
44. The version of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/GGSIPU
is that the second para of the Report submitted by the Sub-Committee on
03.10.2018, must be understood to mean that no change in branch had been
permitted Intra-University. We are however not persuaded by the said
submission for the reason that in para 1 of the Report dated 03.10.2018
submitted by the Sub-Committee, it had clearly stated that no shift change in
any programme should be treated as a part of the Migration process.
However, in para 2, looking at the ground situation, where the University
had already invited applications for migration and on the basis of NOC's
received from Institutions, students had submitted applications quite a while
ago and further, noting that a large part of the academic session was already
over, the Sub-Committee took a balanced view and recommended that in
genuine circumstances, the said applications may be entertained in the
academic session 2018-19.
45. Although the recommendations of the Sub-Committee were accepted
in toto by the Vice-Chancellor on 05.10.2018, the Migration Committee in
the meeting held on 08.10.2018, only took into consideration the
recommendation made in para 1 of the Report dated 03.10.2018 without
factoring in para 2 and went on to resolve that "there shall not be shift
change as approved by the competent authority for the academic session
2018-19". This decision was contrary to the spirit of the recommendations
of the Sub-Committee dated 03.10.2018. After receiving the
recommendations of the Migration Committee on 08.10.2018, the
respondent No.1/GGSIPU continued to maintain silence right upto
02.11.2018, leaving the appellants/students between a rock and a hard place.
By the time the said decision was conveyed by the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU on 02.11.2018, much water had flown under the bridge
inasmuch as the end term examinations for the 3rd semester were scheduled
to commence at the end of November, 2018 and in all that duration, the
appellants/students were regularly attending classes in the changed shifts
and changed branches/disciplines, to the knowledge of the University.
46. Thus, it is clear from the Report of both, the Migration Committee
and the Sub-Committee, dated 14.9.2018 and 03.10.2018 respectively, that
genuine circumstances could be taken into account for permitting intra-
University migration across branches within the same Institute. However,
the respondent No.1/GGSIPU turned a deaf ear to the said recommendations
and completely ignored the fact that in this back and forth, a large part of the
3rd semester was already over, during which period, the appellants/students
had been permitted by the respondent No.2/Institute to attend the classes on
the basis of NOCs issued by it for change of shift and change of branch, in
anticipation of necessary approvals from the University, as were received in
the past years. In our view, the above facts and circumstances are sufficient
ground to quash the order dated 02.11.2018, issued by the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU, declining to recommend the applications for migration
submitted by the appellants/students for Intra-University change of shift and
change of branch/discipline.
CONCLUSION:
47. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the
appellants/students are entitled not only to a change of shift, they are also
entitled to a change of branch/discipline. As a result, the impugned judgment
insofar as the cases of the appellants/students for change of
branch/discipline alongwith change of shift has been rejected, is set aside.
The migration applications submitted by the appellants/students on the basis
of the Notice dated 09.08.2018, issued by the respondent No.1/GGSIPU are
deemed to be allowed. As noticed above, during the pendency of the writ
petitions, on the basis of interim orders, the appellants/students were
permitted to sit for the 3rd and 4th semesters end term examinations. Further,
during the pendency of the present appeals, on applications moved by the
appellants/students, this court had permitted them to sit for the 5th semester
end term examinations. It is directed that the appellants/students shall be
treated as having appeared regularly in the said examinations and their
results for the 3rd, 4th and 5th semesters shall be declared by the respondent
No.1/GGSIPU. Depending on how they have performed in the aforesaid
examinations, appropriate steps shall be taken to promote the
appellants/students to the 6th semester, subject of course to the extant rules
and regulations of the University, as may be applicable.
48. The appeals are allowed on the above terms alongwith the pending
applications, with no orders as to costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
(ASHA MENON)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 18, 2019
rkb/na/ap
