Neethu Krishna vs The Principal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1603 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.228 OF 2020(C)


PETITIONER:

               NEETHU KRISHNA,
               AGED 19 YEARS
               D/O. BALAKRISHNAN, ERANJOLI HOUSE,
               MAYANAD P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
               SMT.PREETHI. P.V.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE
               MARIKUNNU P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673 012.

      2        THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
               REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
               PAREEKSHA BHAVAN ROAD, MALAPPURAM - 673 635.

               R2 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY



               SRI. B.HAREESH KUMAR - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.228 OF 2020                 2


                                                                      CR
                              JUDGMENT

Very often claims for transfer of students

from Self Financing Professional Colleges to

various Government Colleges are impelled

before this Court. These claims are, most of

the time, very vexing because the University

- to which the institutions are affiliated as

also the Government adopts a stand in

negation of such claims, primarily for the

reason that the students who seek such

transfer are those who have secured lesser

ranks in the entrance/qualifying

examinations; and it is contended that, by

giving them this benefit, they would obtain

an deserving advantage over those candidates

who have secured their seats in the

Government Colleges on the strength of higher

merit.

2. The facts presented in this case is

no different.

3. The petitioner is stated to be a

student studying in a Self Financing Law

College by name 'Bhavan's Advanced Legal

Studies and Research', at Ramanattukara,

Calicut, which is affiliated to the

University of Calicut and seeks that she be

transferred to the Government Law College,

Kozhikode. She admits that she is now

pursuing the 5th Semester of 5 year LLB Course

and justifies her request explaining that

while the college where she is presently

studying is 15 km away from her house, the

Government Law College is only 2½ km away.

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the

respondents be directed to accommodate her in

one of the seats in the Government Law

College, asserting that vacancies are

available even now.

             4.     The          learned              Senior           Counsel

       Sri.T.Sethumadhavan,                 instructed          by     Smt.P.V

       Preethi,         appearing                on        behalf     of     the

petitioner, complemented the above assertions

of hers by saying that there are no

prohibitory Rules either in the College or in

the Department of Higher Education which

incapacitates transfer of a student from a

Self Financing College to a Government

College; and therefore, prayed that this

Court allow the request of his client, at

least as a special case, particularly

because, there are vacancies left unfilled in

the 1st respondent College even now.

5. The learned Senior Counsel then

explained that his client has been

constrained to approach this Court because

she is finding it difficult to travel more

than 30-35 kms everyday from her home to the

present College and back; while she would be

put to great advantage if she is accommodated

at the Government Law College, which is very

near to her residence.

             6.    In         opposition         to         the      afore

       submissions        of     the    learned       Senior      Counsel,


       Sri.P.C.Sasidharan,             learned standing Counsel

       appearing         for       University            of       Calicut,

submitted that a statement has been filed on

record, wherein the recommendations of the

Dean of Faculty of law has been incorporated.

He submitted that after assessing the

petitioner's and similar claims, the Dean of

Faculty has concluded that such transfers

cannot be allowed for the following reasons:-

"(i) There is a difference in the fee structure of Govt. Law Colleges and Self financing Law Colleges even in the case of merit seats. The Govt. has fixed two different rates of fees for merit seat in a Govt. law College and self financing Law College.

(ii) The two streams self financing and aided colleges are entirety different; one is Govt. aided subsidized education and the other in self supporting education where the financial burden has to be borne by the beneficiary.

(iii) Usually candidates with high merit may get allotment to Govt. Law Colleges and candidate with low merit may get allotment in the self financing Law Colleges.

(iv) There is no rule or provision for a transfer from Govt. law Colleges to Self Financing Law Colleges.

(v) In the meeting convened by Additional Chief Secretary (Principal Secretary, Higher Education) in 2014, also attended by Dean representing Calicut University, the issue of transfer from Self Financing Law colleges to Govt. Law Colleges was discussed in detail. The meeting conclusively decided that no such request for a transfer from self financing Law College to Govt. Law College be entertained."

7. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, therefore, prayed

that this writ petition be dismissed.

8. Sri.B.Harishkumar, learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the

1st respondent - Government Law College,

affirmed that there are vacancies in the said

College but said that unless the University

permits, transfer of the petitioner cannot be

allowed. He added that the petitioner's rank

in the five year LLB Entrance Examination,

conducted in the year 2018, was 563; while

the rank of the last student who obtained

admission in the Government Law College,

Kozhikode was 294. He submitted that

obviously, therefore, the petitioner falls

well below the standards, as far as her rank

in the Entrance Examination is concerned and

that there is yet another reason why

transfer may not be feasible, namely, because

one of the optional subjects in the College

where the petitioner is presently pursuing

her legal education is "Penology and

Criminology", which is not being offered by

the Government Law College.

9. Sri.B.Harishkumar concluded his

submissions by saying that it is also the

stand of the 1st respondent that if lower

ranked students are able to get admission in

Government Law Colleges in this manner, it

would be in negation of the purpose of the

Entrance Examination system, which is

intended to provide education to the most

meritorious candidates. He thus prayed that

this writ petition be dismissed.

10. The rival submissions made on behalf

of the parties, which are recorded afore,

show why the claim for transfer from one

educational institution to another by a

student would appear to be innocuous at first

glance, but attains vexing character soon

thereafter.

11. Normally, when a student requires a

transfer from one educational institution to

a comparable institution, such request may

find itself to be justified; but when such

requests are made for transfer from Self

Financing Institutions to a Government

institution, issues relating to comparative

merit are bound to spring up.

12. In the case at hand, it is virtually

admitted that the petitioner's rank is much

below that of the last student who obtained

admission to the Government Law College

Kozhikode. Luculently, therefore, if the

petitioner is allowed to get a transfer to

the said College even as a special case, she

would steal a march over many others who are

ranked above her but who have been able to

obtain admission only in a Self Financing

College.

13. Be that as it may, even assuming that

this Court could have considered the transfer

on sympathetic and equitable considerations,

it becomes difficult in this case because the

optional subjects offered by the two Colleges

are different and their fee structure also

varies drastically.

14. It would hence require no further

expatiation that it is not justified or

prudent for this Court to grant the reliefs

sought for by the petitioner; and resultantly

this writ petition cannot be ordered as has

been prayed for by her.

15. Perhaps discerning my mind as afore,

the learned Senior Counsel Shri.Sethumadhavan

prayed that at least liberty be reserved to

his client to approach the University and

seek permission for transfer and pleaded that

such an opportunity be not shut out from her,

especially on account of the fact that she

has to travel long distances to and from her

present College.

In the conspectus of the above, I close

this writ petition without issuing any orders

as has been prayed for by the petitioner;

however, leaving her liberty to approach the

University appropriately, but making it clear

that the University will be at liberty to

take any decision that it may deem fit,

without construing that any affirmative

directions or declarations have been made by

this Court in her favour.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/21.1.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARK STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 26.5.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION DATED 26.5.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA SHEET ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 27.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.12.2019.