There is no fundamental right to education in an institution of one’s personal choice or preference, the Delhi High Court has held..Hence, migration from one college to the other is not a matter of right, it has stated..“Law, unquestionably, recognises a fundamental right to education. There is, however, equally unquestionably, no fundamental right to have oneself educated in an institution of one’s personal choice or preference, irrespective of merit. Migration, from one college to the other, is not a matter of right.”.However, 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 order records..The judgement was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar in a petition preferred by one Dhruv Kumar Sharma, a third semester of the BA LL.B student at Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology, (FIMT) Delhi. Sharma was seeking a direction to the Institute to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to enable him to migrate to one of the other institutes affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU)..The Petitioner sought admission in the Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), also affiliated to the GGSIPU, because he and his family members had “planned to shift their residence from South Delhi to North Delhi”..He, therefore, approached FIMT for the issuance of a NOC for migration. However, FIMT refused to oblige and directed the Petitioner to await issuance of notice by the GGSIPU, for intra-University migration. Pursuant to this notice, all the requisite formalities were completed by the Petitioner..After the Petitioner received no response from FIMT, he moved the High Court under its writ jurisdiction..During the pendency of the petition, VIPS allotted the seat, which it had kept vacant for the petitioner, to another candidate..Therefore, the Petitioner prayed for additional directions to Amity Law School, Noida to provide the necessary NOC for giving admission to the Petitioner as they had two vacant seats at that time. Stating that the application of Petitioner seeking the impleadment of Amity Law School was “completely damning”, Justice Shankar observed,.“I am unable to comprehend how the petitioner could maintain the present writ petition, to seek grant of NOC, from FIMT, in order to enable him to join Amity Law School. 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.“.In light of the seat at VIPS being no longer available and with the petitioner seeking admission to Amity Law School, Noida, the Court noted that the “distance” argument could no longer survive..It also rejected the Petitioner’s argument that since Noida had better “metro connectivity” than FIMT, his plea should be allowed..“For the petitioner, present in Court, who is a young man, in good health, the mere existence of “Metro connectivity” can hardly be a ground, in my opinion, for him to base a claim, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for migration…. “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.“.Since there were no compelling circumstances in the present petition, the Court opined that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed..“The only ground, on which the claim was sought to be founded, in the writ petition, was that the petitioner was intending to shift, with his family, to Pitampura, in the near future. That eventuality has not arisen till date, and the petitioner continues to reside, with his family, in Basant Nagar. The sole justification, cited in the writ petition, therefore, stands belied, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed even on this single ground.”.The Court thus decreed,.“The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.”.The Petitioner was represented by Advocates Girish Kumar Sharma and Sushma Sharma. GGSIPU was represented by Advocates Jasbir Bidhuri and Arun Sanwal. FIMT was represented by Advocates Ankit Jain and Siddharth Nath. Amity Law School, Noida was represented by Binisa Mohanty and Amitesh Kumar..Read the Judgement:
There is no fundamental right to education in an institution of one’s personal choice or preference, the Delhi High Court has held..Hence, migration from one college to the other is not a matter of right, it has stated..“Law, unquestionably, recognises a fundamental right to education. There is, however, equally unquestionably, no fundamental right to have oneself educated in an institution of one’s personal choice or preference, irrespective of merit. Migration, from one college to the other, is not a matter of right.”.However, 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 order records..The judgement was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar in a petition preferred by one Dhruv Kumar Sharma, a third semester of the BA LL.B student at Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology, (FIMT) Delhi. Sharma was seeking a direction to the Institute to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to enable him to migrate to one of the other institutes affiliated to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU)..The Petitioner sought admission in the Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), also affiliated to the GGSIPU, because he and his family members had “planned to shift their residence from South Delhi to North Delhi”..He, therefore, approached FIMT for the issuance of a NOC for migration. However, FIMT refused to oblige and directed the Petitioner to await issuance of notice by the GGSIPU, for intra-University migration. Pursuant to this notice, all the requisite formalities were completed by the Petitioner..After the Petitioner received no response from FIMT, he moved the High Court under its writ jurisdiction..During the pendency of the petition, VIPS allotted the seat, which it had kept vacant for the petitioner, to another candidate..Therefore, the Petitioner prayed for additional directions to Amity Law School, Noida to provide the necessary NOC for giving admission to the Petitioner as they had two vacant seats at that time. Stating that the application of Petitioner seeking the impleadment of Amity Law School was “completely damning”, Justice Shankar observed,.“I am unable to comprehend how the petitioner could maintain the present writ petition, to seek grant of NOC, from FIMT, in order to enable him to join Amity Law School. 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.“.In light of the seat at VIPS being no longer available and with the petitioner seeking admission to Amity Law School, Noida, the Court noted that the “distance” argument could no longer survive..It also rejected the Petitioner’s argument that since Noida had better “metro connectivity” than FIMT, his plea should be allowed..“For the petitioner, present in Court, who is a young man, in good health, the mere existence of “Metro connectivity” can hardly be a ground, in my opinion, for him to base a claim, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for migration…. “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.“.Since there were no compelling circumstances in the present petition, the Court opined that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed..“The only ground, on which the claim was sought to be founded, in the writ petition, was that the petitioner was intending to shift, with his family, to Pitampura, in the near future. That eventuality has not arisen till date, and the petitioner continues to reside, with his family, in Basant Nagar. The sole justification, cited in the writ petition, therefore, stands belied, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed even on this single ground.”.The Court thus decreed,.“The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.”.The Petitioner was represented by Advocates Girish Kumar Sharma and Sushma Sharma. GGSIPU was represented by Advocates Jasbir Bidhuri and Arun Sanwal. FIMT was represented by Advocates Ankit Jain and Siddharth Nath. Amity Law School, Noida was represented by Binisa Mohanty and Amitesh Kumar..Read the Judgement:
