NITASHA PAUL versus MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 23-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
N!TASHA PAUL 
v. 
MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY ROHTAK AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, CJ, SUHAS C. SEN AND 
K.S. PARIPOORNAN. JJ.] 
Education: 
C 
Dental Col/ege--Admission/migration-B.D.S. Second year cmm-e stu-
dent-Application for migration-Held, eligibility for migration to be decided 
on the basis of merit, domicile and several other factors-Though migration 
from one University to another cannot be claimed as a matter of right, 
University cannot decide question of migration arbitrarily and according to 
whims of the Vice-Chance/101-Vice Chancellor must abide by certain nonns 
D and those nonns must apply equally to every candidate. 
The appellant, a second year, B.D.S. student of K.L.E.S. Dental 
College and Hospital, Belgaum, Karnataka, applied for migration to the 
Government Dental College Rohtak for second year BDS Course 1993-94. 
E A sub-committee headed by the Dean of Dental College, Rohtak was set up 
to process the applications for migration. There were 8 vacancies, and 
since meanwhile the Vice-Chancellor of the University had allowed one 
candidate to be admitted, the sub-committee, on the basis of the guidelines 
laid down in 1991, recommended the names of seven students, including 
the name of the appellant at serial number 3. However the Vice-Chancellor, 
F 
ignoring the recommendations of the sub-committee, allowed migration of 
seven other candidates. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court. The Single Judge of the High Court directed the University to create 
an additional seat to admit the appellant. In the letters patent appeal filed 
by the University, the Division Bench of the High Court cancelled the 
G selection and directed the authorities to process the applications afresh. 
Aggrieved the appellant filed the appeal. 
It was contended for the respondents that migration was not a legal 
right; that the guidelines for migration of medical students recommended 
in 1991 by the Committee set up by the Vice Chancellor were not accepted 
H by the latter and therefore those guidelines did not have any binding effect; 
862 
• 
.J 
\· 
N. PAUL v. M.D. UNIVERSITY ROHTAK 
863 
and that academic merit alone could not be the basis for migration, A 
particularly when the appellant was not domiciled in Haryana . 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Though migration from one University to another 
cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the University cannot decide 
question of migration arbitrarily and according to the whims of the 
Vice-Chancellor or the Principal of the College concerned. [866-G] 
1.2. In the instant case, no satisfactory explanation has been given 
as to why the recommendations of the sub-committee set up for selection 
of candidates were totally ignored. Nor is there any explanation as to why 
the guidelines for migration of candidates framed by the committee set np 
for this purpose in the year 1991 were not accepted, and in the absence of 
such guidelines as to what were the binding norms for allowing migration 
B 
c 
of candidates, the Vice-Chancellor must abide by certain norms for.decid-
D 
ing the question of migration and the norms must apply equally to the case 
of every candidate. [867-F-G] 
1.3. Eligibility for migration has to be decided on the basis of merit 
as also domicile and several other factors. There is no reason to presume E 
that the sub-committee in deciding eligibility of the candidates had ignored 
the factor of domicile. The appellant had annexed a domicile certificate to 
the application for migration indicating therein her mother to be a per-
manent employee of Haryana State for the last several years. The report 
of the sub-committee was neither assailed before the High Court nor before 
this Court. The Vice-Chancellor is entitled to reject the report of the 
sub-committee on some valid grounds. Not having done that, the Vice-
Chancellor cannot arbitrarily reject the selection made by the sub-commit-
tee. [868-D-E] 
F 
2. Though the Vice-Chancellor made the selections capriciously, it G 
will not be fair at this stage to interfere with the course of study of the 
candidates migrated to the respondent College. Under these circumstan-
ces, the order of the Single Judge of the High Court is restored and the 
appellant should be allowed to join the Dental College at Rohtak. An extra 
seat may be provided for this purpose, if found necessary. [868-H, 869-A] H 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.