High Court Rejects Judge’s Plea Seeking Transfer From DU’s 2-Yr LLM Course To 3-Yrs Course Owing To Her Employment

The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition moved by a judge seeking her transfer from two-year LLM to the three-year course offered by the Delhi University in order to complete her ongoing studies on account of her employment as a judicial officer.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the three year LL.M. course offered by the varsity is specially designed for people who are employed but it does not stipulate that if any student attains employment in the middle of two year course, he or she can take the advantage of three year course to continue the studies alongwith the employment.

The court observed that from the objective behind bringing the three year LL.M. course, it can be inferred that it is exclusively meant for the purpose of facilitating the working professionals.

“Even assuming that the course structure is same for both the courses, as it has been contended by the petitioner, the same would not render any prudent equivalence which can be drawn between the said courses as there are other significant considerations which make them stand apart from each other,” the court said.

Justice Kaurav dismissed the petition moved by judge Chhaya Tyagi who joined the Delhi Judicial Services on September 13, 2019 after completing her first year in the two year LL.M. course of the Delhi University.

She sought directions on the varsity to allow her to attend evening classes and sit for LL.M. second year examination. In the alternative, she sought transfer to three year course.

Rejecting the plea, the court said that the judge had submitting an undertaking to the varsity as per the Information Bulletin’s stipulation that the student taking admission in two year LL.M. course shall submit an affidavit to the effect that he or she is not employed or engaged in any gainful work or employment.

“It is noteworthy that the aforesaid affidavit submitted by the petitioner at the time of admission, which has been placed on record, unequivocally states that the petitioner shall not engage in any trade, business, service or profession during the course of her LL.M.studies. Therefore, she is bound by the said statement as the principle of estoppel would apply against her. She cannot revert back from the said position,” the court said.

It added that once a candidate has participated in the admission process according to the terms and conditions of the prospectus, he or she cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the contents of the said prospectus.

“In the present case, the policy decision of the respondents neither suffers from any legal infirmity nor from any allegation of malafide. Admittedly, the petitioner is also not seeking any migration to different college and therefore, the decisions relating to migration do not come to rescue the case of the petitioner,” the court said.

Title: CHHAYA TYAGI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1163

Click Here To Read Order