Niharika Agarwal vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

The petitioner was doing B.A. LL.B. Course, which is a five years course, from Bishop Cotton Women�s Christian Law College, Banglore, Karnataka. She has completed her second semester from the above mentioned College in Karnataka and now seeks migration/admission in third semester in Law College, Arcadia Grant P.O. Chandanwari, Prem Nagar, Dehradun (from hereinafter referred to as the Institute). According to the petitioner, she has already been granted an unofficial permission to attend the classes in B.A. LL.B. third semester. All the same, formal permission can only be given by Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (from hereinafter referred to as the University). The Principal of the said Institute has already recommended to the Vice Chancellor of the University that the petitioner be permitted to join B.A. LL.B. classes in its third semester. This request has been denied by the Vice Chancellor of the University, vide its order dated 3.12.2011.

Since the order dated 3.12.2011 by which the request has been denied, does not spell out any reasons for rejecting the request of petitioner the said order is hereby set aside with the request to the Vice Chancellor of the University to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the law applicable in such cases. This is being done as this Court is concerned that the case of the petitioner may not be rejected on mere technicalities, and if the law permits such migration, permission may be granted for the reasons that what is at stake is the career of a student or atleast one precious year in the career of a student! Consequently the order dated 3.12.2011 is being set aside and the matter is send back for reconsideration to the Vice Chancellor of the University who shall reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in case the same is being rejected again it shall be done by way of a speaking order.

It goes without stating that any orders which shall be passed can only be passed in accordance and, as confined by law.

A repeated request was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the third semester of B.A. LL.B. course which is scheduled to commence on 16.1.2012. Since there is no relevant material before this Court, no such orders can be passed. Moreover, today is the last working day for this Court, before the Court closes for winter recesses. Further, this Court has already disposed of the writ petition with certain directions to the Vice Chancellor of the University. All the same, it is observed that the applicant/petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue her remedy before the Vice Chancellor of the University.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

Certified copy of the order to be given within 24 hours.