Delhi HC Denies Migration Request to Student Owing to Delay in Application

Delhi HC Denies Migration Request to Student Owing to Delay in Application

30.12.2021 | Education News | EduLegaL  | www.edulegal.org | mail@edulegal.in
The Delhi High Court in Himanshu vs University of Delhi & others– W.P.(C) 2789/2021- dismissing the petition denied migration request of petitioner-student for delay in filing application and also held that migration was not a vested right to be claimed in such a circumstance. 
A single bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held: 

that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Upon an analysis of the rules pertaining to migration [set out in paragraph 2 above], it is evident that Rules 1 and 2 deal with inter-university migration by which a student is admitted to the University afresh. As the petitioner was already a student of the University in the SOL, Rules 1 and 2 do not apply to him. Rules 3 and 4, on the other hand, deal with intercollege migration within the University. For the present purposes, the significant features of Rules 3 and 4 are as follows:-  

1. 1. Migration is permitted in the third semester. 
   2. The migration is subject to availability of seats and consent of Principals of both the colleges.
   3. The last date for migration is 31st August [extended in the year in question to 30.09.2020].
   4. The application for migration must first be made to the student’s present college and can be considered by the transferee college only after it is forwarded by thePrincipalof the present college. 

The petitioner filed the writ seeking directions for the respondent allowing the petitioner to migrate to a different college under the respondent university. The petitioner was admitted to the school of open learning (SOL) under the respondent university where he was pursuing his B.A. Degree and now intends to change and migrate to a different college under the same university. Further, the petitioner placed the prospectus of SOL before the court with the relevant rule regarding inter-college or university migration. According, to the prospectus the last date of migration was 31st August. However, the date was extended to 30.09.2020 last year because of pandemic. The petitioner stated that he applied for the migration on 19.11.2020 through an application to the Dean of the college requesting him to extend the last date of migration on the ground that the petitioner’s first and second semester results were declared belatedly, and the petitioner was, therefore, unable to apply within the stipulated last date. 
The counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had delayed the filing for the migration. Further, the counsel stated that petitioner had failed to specify the college name to which he wanted to migrate and the role of the university commences after the college in which the petitioner is studying and the college to which he wishes to shift accepts or consents for migration. The counsel placed emphasis on the judgement pronounced by a division bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Ichhpuniani vs. The Vice Chancellor Delhi University ((1998) 71 DLT 202 (DB)) and in Apurva vs. University of Delhi and Another, W.P.(C) 7437/2011, where it was held: 

If the prayer for migration be a bald prayer it may not be allowed merely for asking. On the contrary if there are valid reasons assigned providing reasonable justification for such demand, the principal on being satisfied of the availability of just grounds for migration, is duty bound to forward the application. Else the exercise of discretionary power would stand vitiated for unreasonableness or arbitrariness. 

The court however found that the petitioner did not comply with all rules which are necessary to initiate the process of migration and hence, no relief could be provided. Moreover, the petitioner was the verge of completing his degree and there was no need of migration. The court upheld the judgement given in the case of Apurva vs University of Delhi and Another, stated:

it is clear that migration is not a vested right of any student and can be granted only upon valid reasons being shown. In the application dated 19.11.2020, no such reason is shown. The writ petition is also entirely bereft of reasons in this regard. 
Having regard to the aforesaid factors and also to the fact that the petitioner has now completed five of the six semesters of his B.A. degree, there is no ground to grant the relief sought in this petition.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition finding no merits.
Rasmita Behera | Research Intern | EduLegaL
Swapna Iyer | Legal Editor | EduLegaL