ANNA JUHI JOHN AND ANR.versusENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES UNNERSITIES, HYDERABAD AND ANR.

                         [2017] 3 S.C.R. 893


                  ANNA JUHI JOHN AND ANR.                               A
                                  v.
            ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
           UNNERSITIES, HYDERABAD AND ANR.
                (Civil Appeal No. 899 of 2017)
                                                                        B
                          MARCH02,2017
         [DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
           MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
        Education/Educational Institutions - University having
multiple campuses - Transfer of student from one campus to another C
- If permissible - Appellant cleared entrance test conducted by
respondent no. I, which runs three satellite and constituent campuses
at Hyderabad, Lucknow and Shillong - Each campus has its own
merit list- In view of the marks of the appellant, she was compelled
to join Lucknow campus - While she was pursuing her studies at
Lucknow campus, certain seats fell vacant at Hyderabad campus - D
Appellant submitted representations to the University seeking
transfer to Hyderabad campus, which went unanswered - She flied
writ petition - Single judge allowed the petition and held transfer
to Hyderabad campus permissible - However, Division bench held
 that in the absence of any provision permitting transfer of a student E
from one campus to another, the declination by the University could
not be treated as fallacious - On appeal, held: On perusal of the
Rules of Transfer as enshrined in the "Online Admission 2015-
2016 ", document namely "Confirmation Letter" and instructions
 issued by the University. it is clear that transfer from one campus to
another campus is impermissible - The intent of the instructions is F
 absolutely clear, it postulates that a student is allowed to make choice
for campus and once the choice and allocation attain finality, no
flexibility is conceived of - However, University can exercise its
 authority to allow transfer, but circumstances have to be exceptional
 and indubitably subject to judicial scrutiny.                            G
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. It is discernible from the Rules of Transfer in
online Admission 2015-16, document namely "Confirmation
Letter" and the instructions issued by the University that a
                                                                         H
                                 893
    894             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2017] 3 S.C.R.



    A candidate has two options and he/she has to pay two separate
      fees. Assuming a candidate fills the form for a campus at
      Hyderabad and another at Lucknow and though he/she is more
      meritorious to go to Hyderabad Campus, he/she can choose the
      Lucknow campus; and after he chooses the campus at Lucknow,
      he/she cannot seek transfer to go back to Hyderabad. It is because
    B
      there has to be defin!teness, certainty and a determinative
      allocation of seats by the University. The various clauses under
      different headings are to be read in an apposite manner. The
      intent of the instructions is absolutely clear. It lays the postulate
      that a student is allowed to make the choice and once the choice
    C and allocation attain finality, no flexibility is conceived of. That is
      the norm of admission of the University. It has been clearly spelt
      out and hence, there is no room for allowing any kind of
      interpretation to make a distinction between th'e stage of
      admission and stage after admission that can permit transfer. [Para
      16](899-E-H]
    D.
              2. In High Court, Single Judge, as is evincible, has made a
       distinction between the stage of admission and a stage of transfer
       but it does not flow from any of the clauses. On the contrary, as
       is perceptible, permission of transfer is absolutely prohibited.
       Once a candidate chooses a campus, he/she exercises the option
     E and is bound by it. Solely because a vacancy occurs at the other
       campus, no right accrues in favour of a candidate who had already
       given the option. There may be cases where the University, on
       real exceptional and extraordinary circumstances,· may ~How
       transfer like a student suffering from malignancy, but it crnnot
     F be done taking into consideration the grounds that have been
       canvassed by the appellant. The University under some
       circumstances can exercise the authority. The circumstances
       have to be exceptional and indubitably subject to judicial scrutiny.
       The University cannot act in an arbitrary arid fanciful manner. It
       would not depend upon the whims and caprice of the University.
     G It has. to be based on cogent, germane and sound reasons which
       can withstand the strict judicial scrutiny. [Para 17][900-A-D]
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 899 of
<         2017.
     H            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.08.2016 in Writ Appeal
      ANNA JUHI JOHN v. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES                             895
                  UNIVERSITIES, HYDERABAD

     No. 723 of2016 atid_(Jrder dated 27.07.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No.          A
     63<' nf2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State
     ofT''·mgana and State of Andhra Pradesh.
           Vinay Navare, Satya Mitra, Ad vs. for the Appellants.
          Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Shohit Chaudhry, Ms. Prerna Mehta,
     Shashwat Dev, Advs. for the Respondents.                                      B•
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             DIPAK MISRA, J, 1. The appellant No.I appeared in All India
     Common Entrance Test, 2015 conducted by the respondent No.I, i.e.,
     English and Foreign Languages Universities, Hyderabad which runs three C .
     satellite and constituent campuses at Hyderabad, Lucknow and Shillong,
     for selecting candidates in the B.A. (Hons.) in English. In the entrance
     examination, the appellant No. I secured 68 marks and was placed at
     serial no.101 in the merit list as far as the Hyderabad Campus is
""   concerned and at serial no.3 m the merit list published for admission in
     Lucknow campus. It is beyond dispute that the appellant no. I belongs to .D
     general category and out of total 40 seats in the Hyderabad Campus, 26
     seats are meant for the general category. In view of the marks secured,
     the appellant being ineligible to get the admission in the Hyderabad
     Campus, was compelled to join at Lucknow Campus.
            2. While she was prosecuting her studies at the Lucknow Campus, · E
     certain seats fell vacant at Hyderabad
                                      SI
                                              Campus and that induced her to
     submit a representation to the I respondent on 3.8.2015 seeking transfer
     from Lucknow Campus to Hyderabad Campus. The authorities of the
     University maintained sphinx like silence and that constrained her to
     reiterate her representations seeking the same relief but all representation , F
     which was nothing but a sisyphean endevour. The non-response impelled
     her to knock at the doors of the writ court and for the said purpose she,
     through her father, sought legal aid from the Legal Services Authority
     for appointment of a counsel to file the writ petition. Apart from stressing
     on the inaction of the I " respondent, it was specificqUy asserted that
     one Tirna Chandra was extended the benefit of admission though she ·G
     had not applied and in any case, not eligible and, therefore, her admission
     was vitiated and the appellant deserved to be transferred to Hyderabad
     Campus.
            3. As the facts have been unfolded, the learned Single Judge,
                                                                                   H
896           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 3 S.C.R.


 A taking note of the specific allegation, the plight pronouncedly stated by
   the appellant through her father (as she was a minor and represented by
   her father in the writ petition), came to hold that there was no specific
   material placed before the Court as regards the admission of Tirna
   Chandra in Hyderabad Campus and hence, it was not possible to express
.B any opinion and come to a definite conclusion whether any irregularity
   had been committed while extending the benefit of admission to said
   Tirna Chandra; that the 'Important Instructions' notified by the University
   for the onl.ine admissions 2015-2016 though laid the postulate that no
   transfer was permissible, yet it was only restricted to a candidate who
   had chosen one campus at the time of admission but the said prohibition
 C would not apply when he/she seeks transfer to another campus after
   taking admission; that in the obtaining factual matrix, Instruction
   No.5, which is a part of 'Important Instructions' was not applicable to
   the case of the writ petitioner; that the syllabi of the two campuses are
   same and there is no change of the University; and that as the appellant
 D had been admitted to second year and eight vacancies at Hyderabad
    Campus having arisen, the transfer from one campus to another was
    permissible as that would not violate the norms of student-teacher ratio.
    Being of this view, the writ Court allowed the writ Vi,tition directing the
    respondent-University to transfer the petitioner therein from Lucknow
    Campus to Hyderabad Campus within a period of two weeks.
 E       4. The University, being dissatisfied with the directions issued by
   the Writ Court, preferred Writ Appeal No. 723 of 2016.·The Division
   Bench of the High Court took note of the fact that the University had
   prepared separate merit lists for each of the campus and hence, admission
   to Hyderabad Campus could only have been made on the basis of the
 F merit list drawn as regards the said campus and permitting a student
   lower in rank to be transferred from the Lucknow Campus to Hyderabad
   Campus that too after completion of one year would defeat the object
   of the' selection process which is founded on merit qua each campus.
         5. The appellate Bench of the High Court further emphasized on
 G the aspect that in the absence of any provision permitting transfer of a
   student from one campus to another, the declination by the University
   could not be treated as fallacious. Additionally, it has been held that
   merely because few seats are not filled up after admission for the
   academic session 2015-2016 which was closed on 29.7.2015, or fell
   vacant for some reason or other that by itself would not confer any right
 H
 ANNA JUHI JOHN v. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES                              897
    UNIVERSITIES, HYDERABAD [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

oh the writ petitioner to advance a claim for admission in the Hyderabad · A
campus under the guise of seeking transfer, for that would tantamount
to ignoring the claims of other 51 students who had secured higher marks
than her. On the basis of the aforesaid premises, the Division Bench
differed with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge and
consequently set aside the order passed by the Writ Court. Hence, the B
present appeal by special leave.
       6. We have heard Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel who has
been appointed as the Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and Ms. Kamini
Jais)Val, learned counsel for the respondent.
       7. It is submitted by Mr. Navare that the Division Bench of the        c
High Court, in exercise of the corrective jurisdiction in an intra-court
appeal should not have brushed aside the well reasoned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge who had made a subtle
distinction between the scheme prevalent at the time of admission and a
situation that compels a student to seek transfer. Learned counsel would
contend that there are circumstances when the University itself had           D
extended the benefit of transfer to other students and, therefore, non-
extension of the same in the case of the appellant, despite the enorn:i,ous
problems highlighted by her, smacks the act of the University          as·
discriminatory and arbitrary. He has also seriously commented on the
maladroit methods adopted by the University in admission to candidates        E
who had never appeared in the examination of the University and for
substantiating the said criticism, he has emphatically given the example
ofTirna Chandra.
       8. Ms. Kamini J aiswal, learned counsel for the University, in her
turn, would contend that there is a clear prohibition for change of campus F
and the concept of change of campus is not constricted to the stage of
admission, for the change can only take place after admission. Learned
counsel would urge that when the seats fall vacant, as a principle the
University does not allow any transfer and the appellant no.I cannot
take advantage of such afortuitous circumstance as that will be contrary
to the postulates in various instructions issued by the University from G
time to time. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that
the University on a singular occasion, when a student was prosecuting
her studies at Shillong and suffered from malignancy for which there
 was no treatment at the place of her study, had been allowed to be
 transferred. According to her, in the instant case, the assertion is with H
898            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A regard to language problem and non-proximity to home and, if the said
  grounds are taken into consideration by the University, the entire policy
  formulated by the University will be in serious jeopardy.
        9. To appreciate the contentions raised at the Bar, it is necessary
  to appreciate the "Online Admission 2015-2016". The Rules of transfer,
B as enshrined in the said document, lays down thus:-
               "Rules for transfer
               Admission instruction/Rule 5:
            Once selection of a campus is made, no requests for change of
 C          campus or transfer will be entertained before or after the admission
            for any reason whatsoever."
             10. On a perusal of the said instruction, it is limpid that once
      selection of a campus is made, no request for change can be entertained
      either before or after the admission for any reason whatsoever.
 D          11. In another document, namely, "Confirmation Letter'', under
      clause 11, it has been provided as under:-
            "Names of candidates occuronce in the Merit List. If the names
            of candidates belonging to OBC/SC/ST/PWD/WDP occur in the
            unreserved list, they will be given acbnission only in the 'Unreserved
 E          List' and cannot claim seats under the reservation quota. No
            transfer will be allowed from one campus to another campus of
            the University under any circumstances."
            12. The said clause, apart from dealing with the merit list and the
      unreserved list, also clearly lays down that no transfer will be allowed
 F    from one campus to another campus of the University under any
      circumstances. In the admission procedure that has been formulated by
      the University, clause 14 reiterates that no transfer will be allowed from
      one campus to another campus of the University under any
      circumstances.
 G           13. The instructions issued by the University do not stop there. It
      has taken pains to issue "Important Instructions" meant for the students.
      In clause 5, it has been provided thus:-
             "5. The drop down menu in the application form allows you to
             select the campus (Hyderabad, Lucknow, Shillong) for a
 H
 ANNA JUHI JOHN v. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES                                899
    UNIVERSITIES, HYDERABAD [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      programme. Once selection of a campus is made, no requests for            A
      change of camp.µs or transfer to another campus will be entertained
      before or after the admission for any reasons whatsoever."
      · 14. The aforesaid stipulations compel us to think that transfer from
one campus' to another campus is impermissible. True it is, at one point
of time, the University had granted permission for transfer of a student B
from Shillong to Hyderabad as the student was suffering from malignancy
but that cannot be regarded as a precedent. It has to be treated as an
exception. The grounPi; that have been highlighted by the appellant no. I
herein are that she has a language problem at Lucknow and denial of
proximity to home. We have been apprised in the course of hearing that C
the father of the a8f ellant is living at Dehradun and she has done her
Class 10th and 12 fromDehradun. We have stated those facts as they
have been highlighted before us but in the eventual analysis they really
do not weigh.
       15. Be it noted, as the policy of the University reveals, a candidate
,can submit applications for two campuses and the admission procedure           D
 is campus-wise. The same is evident from clause 3 of "Important
Instructions" which is to the following effect:-                            ,
       "3. No student shall be allowed to apply for more than two full
       time programmes in an academic year. This is to be done by filling
       two separate forms and paying fee separately as applicable."             E
        16. From the aforesaid, it is discernible that a candidate has two
options and he/she has to pay two separate fees. Assuming a candidate
fills the form for a campus at Hyderabad and another at Lucknow and
though he/she is more meritorious to go to Hyderabad Campus, he/she
can choose the Lucknow campus; and after he chooses the campus at F
Lucknow, he/she cannot seek transfer to go back to Hyderabad. It is
because there has to be definiteness, certainty and a determinative
allocation of seats by the University. The various clauses under different
headings are to be read in an apposite manner. The intent of the
instructions is absolutely clear. It lays the postulate that a student is G
allowed to make the choice and once the choice and allocation attain
finality, no flexibility is conceived of. That is the norm of admission of
the University.It has been clearly spelt out and hence, there is no room
for allowing any kind ofint~rpretation to make a distinction between the
stage of admission and stage after admission that can permit transfer.
                                                                           H
900            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 3 S.C.R.


A         17. Learned Single Judge, as is evincible, has made a distinction
  between the stage of admission and a stage of transfer but it does not
  flow from any of the clauses which we have reproduced hereinabove.
   On the contrary, as is perceptible, permission of transfer is absolutely
  prohibited. Once a candidate chooses a campus, he/she exercises the
   option and is bound by it. Solely because a vacancy occurs at the other
B
   campus, no right accrues in favour of a candidate who had already given
   the option. There may be cases where the University, on real exceptioµal
   and extraordinary circumstances, may allow transfer like a student
   suffering from malignancy, as has been brought to our notice, but it cannot
   be done taking into consideration the grounds that have been canvassed
C by the appellant. We have said so, as 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 sc'.utiny. The University cannot act in an arbitrary and
   fanciful manner. It would not depend upon the whims and caprice of the
D University. It has to be based on cogent, germane and sound reasons
  ·which can withstand the strict judicial scrutiny.
             18. As far as Tirna Chandra is concerned, the Division Bench has
      not expressed any opinion as there is no material brought on record. The
      learned counsel for the respondent would submit that she ha.s
      substantiated the admission in the counter affidavit. We refrain from
 E    adverting to the same for the simple reason that the said Tami Chandra
      has not been arrayed as a party in the writ petition. As allegations are
      made against her, she is a necessary party. In the absence of her
      being arrayed as a party to the writ petition, neither her ad~1ission nor
      anything relating to her can be adverted to or dwelt upon by the Writ
 F    Court.
             19. In view of the aforesaid premises, despite the best efforts
      made by Mr. Navare, we remain unimpressed and accordingly decline
      to interfere. Resultantly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, stands
      dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 G
      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeal 1ismissed.