Whether transfer of student from Self Financing Law College to Government Law College is justified?

2021 ICO 127 High Court of Kerala Decided on 15-01-2021 Justice Devan Ramachandran Neethu Krishna Vs. Principal Government Law College,Anr

Case Numbers : W.P.(C). No.228 of 2020

Equivalents : 2021 (2) KHC 70 :: 2021 (2) KLT 128 :: ILR 2021 (2) Ker. 85

For Petitioner: T Sethumadhavan (Sr. Adv.), Preethi P V (Adv.)

For Respondent : P C Sasidharan (SC), B Hareesh Kumar (Sr. GP)

Headnotes

A. Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 - Whether the transfer of student from Self Financing Law College to Government Law College is justified? Held; It is not justified or prudent for the HighCourt to grant the reliefs sought for. ( Paras 11, 12, 13 & 14 )

UDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran,J.

1. Very often claims for transfer of students from Self Financing Professional Colleges to various Government Colleges are impelled before this Court. These claims are, most of the time, very vexing because the University - to which the institutions are affiliated as also the Government adopts a stand in negation of such claims, primarily for the reason that the students who seek such transfer are those who have secured lesser ranks in the entrance/qualifying examinations; and it is contended that, by giving them this benefit, they would obtain an deserving advantage over those candidates who have secured their seats in the Government Colleges on the strength of higher merit.

2. The facts presented in this case is no different.

3. The petitioner is stated to be a student studying in a Self Financing Law College by name 'Bhavan's Advanced Legal Studies and Research', at Ramanattukara, Calicut, which is affiliated to the University of Calicut and seeks that she be transferred to the Government Law College, Kozhikode. She admits that she is now pursuing the 5th Semester of 5 year LLB Course and justifies her request explaining that while the college where she is presently studying is 15 km away from her house, the Government Law College is only 21⁄2 km away. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to accommodate her in one of the seats in the Government Law College, asserting that vacancies are available even now.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, instructed by Smt.P.V Preethi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, complemented the above assertions of hers by saying that there are no prohibitory Rules either in the College or in the Department of Higher Education which incapacitates transfer of a student from a Self Financing College to a Government College; and therefore, prayed that this Court allow the request of his client, at least as a special case, particularly because, there are vacancies left unfilled in the 1st respondent College even now.

5. The learned Senior Counsel then explained that his client has been constrained to approach this Court because she is finding it difficult to travel more than 30-35 kms everyday from her home to the present College and back; while she would be put to great advantage if she is accommodated at the Government Law College, which is very near to her residence.

6. In opposition to the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing Counsel appearing for University of Calicut, submitted that a statement has been filed on record, wherein the recommendations of the Dean of Faculty of law has been incorporated. He submitted that after assessing the petitioner's and similar claims, the Dean of Faculty has concluded that such transfers cannot be allowed for the following reasons:-

“(i) There is a difference in the fee structure of Govt. Law Colleges and Self financing Law Colleges even in the case of merit seats. The Govt. has fixed two different rates of fees for merit seat in a Govt. law College and self financing Law College.

(ii) The two streams self financing and aided colleges are entirety different; one is Govt. aided subsidized education and the other in self supporting education where the financial burden has to be borne by the beneficiary.

(iii) Usually candidates with high merit may get allotment to Govt. Law Colleges and candidate with low merit may get allotment in the self financing Law Colleges.

(iv) There is no rule or provision for a transfer from Govt. law Colleges to Self Financing Law Colleges.

(v) In the meeting convened by Additional Chief Secretary (Principal Secretary, Higher Education) in 2014, also attended by Dean representing Calicut University, the issue of transfer from Self Financing Law colleges to Govt. Law Colleges was discussed in detail. The meeting conclusively decided that no such request for a transfer from self financing Law College to Govt. Law College be entertained.”

7. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

8. Sri.B.Harishkumar, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 1 st respondent - Government Law College, affirmed that there are vacancies in the said College but said that unless the University permits, transfer of the petitioner cannot be allowed. He added that the petitioner's rank in the five year LLB Entrance Examination, conducted in the year 2018, was 563; while the rank of the last student who obtained admission in the Government Law College, Kozhikode was 294. He submitted that obviously, therefore, the petitioner falls well below the standards, as far as her rank in the Entrance Examination is concerned and that there is yet another reason why transfer may not be feasible, namely, because one of the optional subjects in the College where the petitioner is presently pursuing her legal education is “Penology and Criminology”, which is not being offered by the Government Law College.

9. Sri.B.Harishkumar concluded his submissions by saying that it is also the stand of the 1st respondent that if lower ranked students are able to get admission in Government Law Colleges in this manner, it would be in negation of the purpose of the Entrance Examination system, which is intended to provide education to the most meritorious candidates. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

10. The rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, which are recorded afore, show why the claim for transfer from one educational institution to another by a student would appear to be innocuous at first glance, but attains vexing character soon thereafter.

11. Normally, when a student requires a transfer from one educational institution to a comparable institution, such request may find itself to be justified; but when such requests are made for transfer from Self Financing Institutions to a Government institution, issues relating to comparative merit are bound to spring up.

12. In the case at hand, it is virtually admitted that the petitioner's rank is much below that of the last student who obtained admission to the Government Law College Kozhikode. Luculently, therefore, if the petitioner is allowed to get a transfer to the said College even as a special case, she would steal a march over many others who are ranked above her but who have been able to obtain admission only in a Self Financing College.

13. Be that as it may, even assuming that this Court could have considered the transfer on sympathetic and equitable considerations, it becomes difficult in this case because the optional subjects offered by the two Colleges are different and their fee structure also varies drastically.

14. It would hence require no further expatiation that it is not justified or prudent for this Court to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner; and resultantly this writ petition cannot be ordered as has been prayed for by her.

15. Perhaps discerning my mind as afore, the learned Senior Counsel Shri.Sethumadhavan prayed that at least liberty be reserved to his client to approach the University and seek permission for transfer and pleaded that such an opportunity be not shut out from her, especially on account of the fact that she has to travel long distances to and from her present College.

In the conspectus of the above, I close this writ petition without issuing any orders as has been prayed for by the petitioner;however, leaving her liberty to approach the University appropriately, but making it clear that the University will be at liberty to take any decision that it may deem fit, without construing that any affirmative directions or declarations have been made by this Court in her favour.