New Delhi: Recently, the Delhi High Court held that migration from one college to another is not a right and therefore, the fundamental right to education cannot be availed for an institution on preferential basis.
While passing the order, the Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar, stating court records observed, in cases where a student faces serious difficulties or inconvenience in continuing in the institution, "the Court has, no doubt, been magnanimous and has entertained requests for migration“.
The matter pertains to a petition filed by the third year BA LL.B student, Dhruv Kumar Sharma of Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology, (FIMT) Delhi, affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU). The university has its affiliation to various other institutes as well. Through the plea, Sharma sought direction to his present Institute to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to facilitate his migration to Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS). However, the petitioner was directed to wait until the GGSIPU issued the notice.
Previously, the petitioner had approached the institute seeking a NOC to complete the process of his migration to VIPS. However, the institute refused to grant the certificate to Sharma as the FIMT was waiting to receive the said NOC from the university for intra college migration.
Despite having complied with all requisite formalities, since there was yet no response from FIMT, the student resorted to approaching the High Court under the fundamental right to education. During the pendency of the plea, on account of delay in submission of requisite documents, the VIPS allotted the seat to another candidate.
Pursuantly, through the petition, the student sought the Court’s redressal into receiving the NOC and thereby impleading Amity Law School, Noida to grant him admission on account of two vacant seats available at the time. Ridiculed by the prayers of the petitioner, Justice Shankar observed,
"The only case made out by the petitioner, in the writ petition, was that, as his family was planning, at some unspecified time in the future, to shift to North Delhi, he wished to migrate to VIPS which, undisputedly, is located in North Delhi. Once the chance of migrating to VIPS no longer survived, the very ethos of the writ petition perished.“
Considering non-availability of a seat at VIPS and thereafter, seeking admission to Amity Law School, completely disregards the issue of changing institutes based on distance and connectivity.
The Court also dismissed the contention by the petitioner on grounds of lack of connectivity stating,
“Metro connectivity”, today, extends practically through the length and breadth of the National Capital Region and, if this were to be accepted as a ground to seek migration, this Court would have to start allowing migrations in all cases.“
In the opinion of the Court, the petition lacked sufficient circumstances supporting the prayers made by the petitioner and therefore, the petition stood liable for dismissal. It was observed that the only valid indication of the plea was the probable shifting of the family in the near further. However, the same had not arisen till date thereby, making the sole justification of the plea stand belied, leading to dismissal.