Once a candidate chooses a campus, he/she exercises the option and is bound by it, the bench said.
Refusing a student’s plea seeking transfer to another campus, the Supreme Court has observed that solely because a vacancy occurs at the other campus, no right accrues in favour of a candidate who had already given the option and once a candidate chooses a campus, he/she exercises the option and is bound by it.
Three Judge Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra observed that language problem and non-proximity to home are not grounds to seek transfer to another campus after admission.
Anna Juhi John, a student at the Lucknow campus of English and Foreign Languages University, had submitted a representation seeking a transfer to the Hyderabad campus, as certain seats fell vacant there. The university rejected her request and she approached the high court. Though the single bench allowed her plea, the division bench set aside the judgment, which made her approach the apex court.
The reasons stated in the representation seeking transfer were mainly with regard to language problem and non-proximity to home. The university contended that if the said grounds are taken into consideration by the university, the entire policy formulated by the university will be in serious jeopardy.
The court accepted this contention by the university and said that the university, can, only on real exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, allow transfer like a student suffering from malignancy.
“We do not intend to say, in absolute terms, that the University under no circumstances can exercise the authority. The circumstances have to be exceptional and indubitably subject to judicial scrutiny. The University cannot act in an arbitrary and 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,” the bench said.
Read the Judgment here.