LexANNA JUHI JOHN AND ANR. versus ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNNERSITIES, HYDERABAD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 893 ANNA JUHI JOHN AND ANR. v. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNNERSITIES, HYDERABAD AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 899 of 2017) MARCH02,2017 [DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.] A B Education/Educational Institutions - University having multiple campuses - Transfer of student from one campus to another C - If permissible - Appellant cleared entrance test conducted by respondent no. I, which runs three satellite and constituent campuses at Hyderabad, Lucknow and Shillong - Each campus has its own merit list- In view of the marks of the appellant, she was compelled to join Lucknow campus - While she was pursuing her studies at Lucknow campus, certain seats fell vacant at Hyderabad campus - D Appellant submitted representations to the University seeking transfer to Hyderabad campus, which went unanswered - She flied writ petition - Single judge allowed the petition and held transfer to Hyderabad campus permissible - However, Division bench held that in the absence of any provision permitting transfer of a student E from one campus to another, the declination by the University could not be treated as fallacious - On appeal, held: On perusal of the Rules of Transfer as enshrined in the "Online Admission 2015- 2016 ", document namely "Confirmation Letter" and instructions issued by the University. it is clear that transfer from one campus to another campus is impermissible - The intent of the instructions is F absolutely clear, it postulates that a student is allowed to make choice for campus and once the choice and allocation attain finality, no flexibility is conceived of - However, University can exercise its authority to allow transfer, but circumstances have to be exceptional and indubitably subject to judicial scrutiny. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is discernible from the Rules of Transfer in online Admission 2015-16, document namely "Confirmation Letter" and the instructions issued by the University that a 893 H < 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A candidate has two options and he/she has to pay two separate fees. Assuming a candidate fills the form for a campus at Hyderabad and another at Lucknow and though he/she is more meritorious to go to Hyderabad Campus, he/she can choose the Lucknow campus; and after he chooses the campus at Lucknow, B he/she cannot seek transfer to go back to Hyderabad. It is because there has to be defin!teness, certainty and a determinative allocation of seats by the University. The various clauses under different headings are to be read in an apposite manner. The intent of the instructions is absolutely clear. It lays the postulate that a student is allowed to make the choice and once the choice C and allocation attain finality, no flexibility is conceived of. That is the norm of admission of the University. It has been clearly spelt out and hence, there is no room for allowing any kind of interpretation to make a distinction between th'e stage of admission and stage after admission that can permit transfer. [Para 16](899-E-H] D. E F G 2. In High Court, Single Judge, as is evincible, has made a distinction between the stage of admission and a stage of transfer but it does not flow from any of the clauses. On the contrary, as is perceptible, permission of transfer is absolutely prohibited. Once a candidate chooses a campus, he/she exercises the option and is bound by it. Solely because a vacancy occurs at the other campus, no right accrues in favour of a candidate who had already given the option. There may be cases where the University, on real exceptional and extraordinary circumstances,· may ~How transfer like a student suffering from malignancy, but it crnnot be done taking into consideration the grounds that have been canvassed by the appellant. The University under some circumstances can exercise the authority. The circumstances have to be exceptional and indubitably subject to judicial scrutiny. The University cannot act in an arbitrary arid fanciful manner. It would not depend upon the whims and caprice of the University. It has. to be based on cogent, germane and sound reasons which can withstand the strict judicial scrutiny. [Para 17][900-A-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 899 of 2017. H From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2016 in Writ Appeal ANNA JUHI JOHN v. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES 895 UNIVERS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.