W.P.(C)/15383/2006 of NOORPREET KAUR Vs INSTITUTE OF HOME ECONOMICS UN on 7 December 2006

Conclusion

1. Whether reporters of Incal papers may beallowed to see the judgment?allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reportedin the Digest?in the Digest?

AI\IIL KUIIIIAR, J.

Rule.

l. The learned Counsel for the parties stated that no other affidavits were to be filed in support of respective contentions of the

wP(c) 1s383 of 2006

Page I of25

,a

parties. The writ petition has ttrerefore, been taken for final disposalwith their consent.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the decision ofrespondent no. 2, Director, Institute of Home Economics, in allocatingApparel and Textile Design as the elective paper to the petitionerinstead of ["Developmental ]Journalism" as claimed by her and forissuance of direction to the respondents to assign her ['Developmental]Journalism' as the elective paper.

3. Respondent no. I is a college affiliated to the University of Delhiand respondent No. 2 is the Director of the respondent no. l.

4. Brief facts to appreciate the disputes are that the petitioner tookadmission to the respondent no. l, Institute of Home Economics, inthe year 2OO4 and is a third year student of B.Sc. Home Science(Pass) Course. According to the prospectus of said course, a studentof third year can choose an elective paper of his choice. The petitionerasserted that an assurance was also given by the respondents that wP(C) 15i8i of 2006

.+

a'i

the petitioner would. be at liberty to choose the elective [paper of ][her]choice. In the second year of the course, the [petitioner was given ][a]form to mark her preference of the elective paper for the third [year.]The petitioner was asked to give her second, ttrird and fourthpreferences also. It was represented to her that other preferences havebeen taken so that if a stud.ent does not like his/her [preference, ][the]subject of second, third or fourth preference may be allotted. [The]petitioner opted for ['Development ]Journalism' as her first preferenceand ['Apparel ]and Textile Design' as her fourth [preference.]

5. Petitioner contended that on L7.7.2006 new session of III [year]began and the petitioner got to know that contrary to the [first]preference given by her for 'Development Journalism' the petitionerwas assigned ['Apparel ]and Textile Design' as an elective subject. [The]petitioner contended that, therefore, she did not attend the regularclasses of ['Apparel ]and Textile Design' as she had opted [for]Development Journalism' as the elective subject.

+-

a

6. The petitioner, therefore, made several requests to therespondent no. 2 to allot her the subject ['Development ]Journalism'which was not assigned to her despite that being her first preference.The petitioner along with her fattrer further discussed the matter withother members of the teaching faculty, but the desired subject wasnot assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner along with her father metthe respondent no. 2 and requested him to change her elective paperfrom ['Apparel ]and Textile Design' to ['development ]journalism'however, the request has been turned down. The petitioner has alsocontended that other students namely, Ms Varnita Gill and Ms.Ritika, who had scored less mark than the petitioner, were given'Development Journalism' as an optional subject in third year and ithas been denied to the petitioner.

7. The petitioner has therefore impugned the action of respondentno. I on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative ofArticle L4 and 2L of the Constitution of India as the respondent no. 2has failed to appreciate that the prospectus specifically provided thata student can choose elective paper of his/her choice in tJle third year WP(C) 1s383 of 2006

+-

a

of the course. She also emphasized that the prospectus neithermentions the preparation of merit list nor restricts number of seatsavailable for the students in a particular subject. On respondents'failure to give her subject of her first preference [' ]DevelopmentJournalism', the petitioner has impugned their action and has filedthe present petition.

8. The respondents have contested the petition and filed thecounter affidavit of Dr. Kumud Khanna, Director, Institute of Homeeconomics, University of Delhi, refuting the averments made by thepetitioner. The respondents contended that the petitioner had novested right to be allotted any elective subject and that the same areallotted to the students as per standard practice and procedurefollowed by the Institute from year to year and the same depends onthe availability of seats and merit of the student .

9. The respondents further pointed out that petitioner did notclear ["pass" ]in II year as she got ER (Essential to reappear) in Paperno.22 (Housing Interiors and space design). Further for the allotmentwP(C) 1s383 of 2006Page 5 oJ25oJ25

Page 5 oJ25oJ25

.L

-'t

of elective paper in III year, first a list of all students who are clear"pass" is made and electives are allotted to those students accordingto their preferences based on merits and then merit list of the ERstudents is made and elective papers are allotted to them on the basisof number of vacancies available in each subject and ttre preference ofthe students on the basis of merit.

10. The respondents further contended that the students wererequired to fill the "option form" for B.Sc. Home Science, II year andsubmit the same in the office before proceeding for their summervacations in May 2OO5 and out of 134 students the petitioner was theonly one who did not fill the "option form" giving her marks for firstyear and marks of half yearly exarnination of second year. Accordingto the respond.ents she was even telephonically informed to come tooffice and fi.ll up the "Option Form". The respondents further assertedthat the academic body met in July 2006 to allot the subjectsaccording to the merit and since they were not aware of the marksobtained by the petitioner in first year examination and half yearlyexamination of second year, at the time of allocation of the electiveWP(C) 1s383 of 2006Page 6 of256 of25of25

,t

!

subject, the marks of the petitioner were taken from the office recordfor allocation of the elective subject to the petitioner as the classeswere to start from tJ'e 17ft July 2006. The advisory committeeprepared and placed on the notice board the list of students and theelective subject allotted to them on 15ft July 2006 and the petitionerwas given a subject which was available according to her merit. It wasfurther submitted by the respondents that for allotment of electivesubjects, a list was prepared by adding the aggregate marks of firstyear and half yearly examination of second year plus marks in thatparticular subject in first year plus half yearly marks in thatparticular subject in the second year. It was further asserted that inorder to allot elective subject ['Developmental ]Journalism' the firstand second year papers to be considered were paper number 15which is "Fundamentals of Communication and Extension" (I year)and paper number 25 "Media Systems"(Il year). There were total of121 clear (pass) +13 ER students who were finafly promoted to ttrirdyear and there were six sections from A to F and all the students wereequally divided into 6 sections each having 22 students. In the thirdyear for allotment of electives, first the students who were clear "pass"

-+,

")

were allotted electives according to their preference based on fneritand then the ER students merit list was made as per the aboveprocedure. Then on the basis of the vacancies available in eachsection ER students were allotted the electives according to theirpreference based on merit amongst them.

11. The respondents denied the contention of the petitioner that thestudents with lower marks were allotted the subject of ['Development]Journalism'. They submitted that both Varnita Gill and Ritika thoughwere ER students like the petitioner but both had higher marks thanthe petitioner. The respondents further submitted that options weretaken with the view that in case the ftrst preference cannot be grantedthen depending upon availability of seats, on merit the students canbe considered for the second and likewise the other lower options.Respondents have denied discrimination in any manner whatsoeverbeing meted to the petitioner.

12. Respondents further contended that the attendance record ofthe petitioner is also very poor. She has attended only 47.29o/o classesWP(C) ls38i of 2006Page 8 oJ25oJ25

._{.

in practical and main papers up to 30.9.2006 during sessioncommencing from the L7.7.2OO6. Further [petitioner's ]second-yearattendance in all theory papers was also less than 660/o and that thepetitioner received '0' marks towards attendance in the internalassessment in all the five subjects of second year. The allocation [of]internal assessment marks are made stricfly in accordance with therules laid down by the Executive Council of ttre University of Delhivide resolution number 05 dated 1.5.2003. The respondent's assertedthat the petitioner was assigned the elective subject, in accordarlcewith the policy based on practice and procedure. On the basis ofpolicy for allotment of elective subjects, ttre claim of the petitioner isnot tenable.

13. The petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating theaverments made in the petition and contended that in terms of theHandbook of Information/Prospectus a student who had obtained45o/o of the aggregate marks but has failed in one subject canreappear in that subject of second year along with third yearexamination and asserted that the distinction made between theWP(C) 1s383 of 2006Page 9 of259 of25of25

Page 9 of259 of25of25

+

.A

students who were clear pass and ttre students who had [ER ][is]wittrout any basis and that tJle Handbook of Information does notprovide for a such distinction between ttre students who are clearpass and students who have ER. The petitioner asserted that shefilled up the option form clearly indicating her preference andsubmitted the same after the second year annual examination, andthat he had marked ["Development ]Journalism" as first preference and'Apparel and Textile Design" as 4ft preference. The petitioner furthercontended that the method of calculating the merit as mentioned bythe respondent is eroneous and has no basis and that the sameought to be based on the marks of the relevant subject only. Thepetitioner had also filed an additional affidavit submitting that thename.of Ms. Ritika and any averment made in the petition regardingher be tgeated as deleted and,she has been discriminated with Ms.Varnita Gitl only.

L4. The petitioner has placed. reliance on tZnOZlSSupreme CourtCases 586 K. Shekhar Versus V. Indramma and Others to contendthat generally speaking the Courts have been reluctant to interfere wP(C) 1s38i of 2006

+-

,t

with the running of educational institutions however in order to avoideven the semblance of arbitrariness or extraneous considerationscolouring the institution's action, tJle actions of educationalinstitutions should not be immune to judicial scrutiny. Reliance wasalso placed on AIR 1995 Delhi 268, Dr.Sanjeev Dhadhwal versus AllIndia Institute of Medical Sciences to contend that admissions shouldbe made on the basis of the conditions laid down in the prospectus.

15. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have perused thepetition, counter affidavit and the rejoinder and the documents filedwith them. The basic question which needs to be addressed is thatwhether the petitioner had the right to choose €ur elective subject ofher choice as per the prospectus ir:respective of merit and have therespondents erred in deciding the comparative merit of the students.

16. In the Ledcon Webster Dictionary, the meaning to the term'Prospectus'has been given as follows:

'A brief sketch describing the main features of someproposed enterprise, as the plan of a literary work, or theproposals of a new business; a descriptive outline of anestablished organisation, as a college."

-+

,A''

L7. The prospectus provides that the students will have ttre freedomto choose the elective paper in the final year. The relevant extract ofttre Handbook of information 2OO4-2O05 Institute of Home, Economics, Universlty of Delhi is as under:- ' ". ..In the third y€ff, the student choosesone elective paper of her choice along with papers from allthe areas of home science. This provides her with anopportunity to have one specialization in paper in thechosen field."

18. Though a candidate has a right to choose one elective paper,but.allotment of that elective subject will depend on some criteria, ifnumber of students are more than the seats available for a parlicularsubject. Reading the entire prospectus, it can not be inferred that astudent is entitled to get the elective subject of his/her choiceinespective of his/her merit and aptitude for a particular subject. Ifthe number of students are more than the number of seats for aparticular subject, the educational bodies are required to have somepolicy or criteria to allot the subject to the students. The prospectus of wP(C) 1si83 of 2006

Y

f

F

the respondents stipulates that besides the compulsory subjects, astudent will be entitled for one elective subject which will providehim/her an opportunity to have specialization. The prospectus did notstipulate the criteria to be applied for allotment of elective subject incase the number of students is more than the number of seatsavailable in elective subjects. This will not mean nor can be construedthat the policy or criteria applied by the respond.ents is contrary to ttrestipulation made in the prospectus. Had the respondents disclosedthe criteria or policy in the prospectus for allotment of electivesubjects in that case they could not evolve a different criteria or policyfor allotment of elective subjects nor could unilaterally change andapply rules not made known to candidates and would be bound andtotally circumscribed by what was indicated in the prospectus.However, since no guidelines/rules had been provided by therespondents in the prospectus for allocation of the elective subject,the plea of the petitioner tJ:at criteria or policy applied by therespondents is contrary to stipulation made in the prospectus, is nottenable and can not be accepted in the present facts andcircumstances of the case. The prospectus only specifies that thewP(c) 1s383 of 2006Page 13 of25of25

-t-

-t-

students can choose the elective paper in which they would like tospecialize. It nowhere provides for the criteria for allocating theelective papers which is, therefore, essentially governed by the rulesas framed by the academic body. There is no conflict between therules as framed by the academic council and the. prospectus fordetermining which stud.ent should be allotted which paper taking intoconsideration ttre merit/performance of the students in the previousyear exarnination. Had there been any conflict between the provisionas laid down in the prospectus and the rules than the petitionerswould have been justified in claiming allocation of elective paper asper the terms of ttre prospectus. But in the case in hand there is nosuch conflict.

19. Further if the criteria or policy for deciding the allotment ofelective subject has been made reasonably and there is noarbitrariness and has been applied uniformally then the courts arenot to interfere with the manner and method of making the policy orcriteria. In a catena of cases the Supreme Court has held that Courtcannot sit and adjudicate on the policies framed by the academic

=+-I

A-

bodies for improving the Academic standards. It is the prerogatve ofttre Academic bodies who have the necessaqr expertise in the field.Since ttre academic bodies have framed and applied the rules in abonafide manner to all the students equally and uniformly ttrere willbe no justification to lay down a different policy or criteria.

20. In Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher SecondaryEducation and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and othersMANU/SC/OO55/ 1984 the Supreme Court reiterated the'propositionttrat ttre Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policyevolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation makingbody. Paragraph 29 of this judgment is relevant and is reproduced asfollows:

j'Far from advancing public interest and fair play to theother candidates in general, any such interpretation ofthe legal position would be wholly defensive of the same.As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, theCourt should be extremely reluctant to substitute.itsown views as to what is wise, prudent and proper inrelation to academic matters in preference to thoseother candidates in general, any such interpretation ofthe legal position would be wholly defensive of the same.As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, theCourt should be extremely reluctant to substitute.itsown views as to what is wise, prudent and proper inrelation to academic matters in preference to thoseformulated by professional men possessing technicalexpertise and rich experience of actual day to dayworking of educational institutions and thedepartments controlling them. It witl be wholly wrongworking of educational institutions and thedepartments controlling them. It witl be wholly wrong WP(C) 1s383 of 2006

'f'

I

for the Court to make a pedantic and [purely ][idealistic]approach to the problems of this nature, isolated [from ][the]actual realities and grass root problems involved in theworking of the system and unmindful of theconsequences which would emanate if a [purely idealistic]view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to bepropounded. It is equally important that the Court shouldalso, as far as possible, avoid any decision [or]interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye{awwhich would bring about the result of rendering thesystem unworkable in practice. It is rrnfortunate that thisprinciple has not been adequately kept in mind by theHigh Court while deciding the instant case."

2L. The Apex Court also held that the Court should not sit over thewisdom of the policy and will not strike it down on the [ground ][that ][it]is not wise or prudent in the opinion of tJle Court. The Supreme Courtheld:

"The Court cannot sit in [judgment ]over the wisdomof the policy evolved by the Legislature and the sub-ordinate regulation making body. It may be a [wise]policy, which will fully effectuate the purpose of theenactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness andhence calling for revision and improvement. Butany drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a [rule]or regulaton will not render it ultra vires and theCourt cannot strike it down on the [ground ]that inits opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy but iseven a foolish one, and that it will not really serveto effectuate the purpose of ttre Act. The legislatureand its delegate are the sole repositories of the "4'

(.ry

power to decide what policy should be pr-rrsued inrelation to matters covered by the Act and there isno scope for any interference by the Courts unlessthe particular provision impugned before it can besaid to suffer from any legal infirmity in the senseof its being wholly beyond tJre scope of Page 2OI2the regulation-making power or it beinginconsistent with any of the provisions of theparent enactment or in violation of any of thelimitation imposed by the Constitution."

22. The respondents have allotted elective subjects on the basis ofperformance of ttre students in the first year annual examination andin half yearly second year examination. In ord.er to allot electivesubject ['Developmental ]Joirrnalism' the performance in first andsecond year papers were also considered which were paper number15 "Fundamentals of Communication and Extension" [(I ]year) andpaper ntrmber 25 ["Media ]Systems". This criteria or policy can not beconsidered irrational or arbitrary which has been applied uniformally.It is well setfled that in policy matters this Court has a very limitedscope of interference which has been held in Union of India v.International Trading Co,, MANU/SC/0392/2OO3, State of Punjab v.Ram Lubhaya, MANU/SC/O156/1998, Krishnan Kakkanth v.Government of Kerala MANU/SC/OO44/ L997, G.B. Mahajan v.wP(C) 1s383 of 2006Page 17 of25

'4'

Jatgaon Municipal Council MANU/SC/O284/ [1991 ][and ][Federation ][of]Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, MANU/SC/O27L / [2003.]In Union of India v. International Trading Co. [(supra) ]ttre SupremeCourt observed:

"The Courts as observed in G.P. Mahajan v.JalgaonMunicipal Council, MANU/SC/O2L9/ 1994 are kept out ofthe lush field of administration policy except where thepolicy is inconsistent with the express or impliedprovision of a statute which creates the power to whichthe policy relates, or where a decision made in [purported]exercise of power is such that a repository of the [power]acting reasonably and in good faith could not have madeit. But there has to be a word of caution. Somethingoverwhelming must appear before tJ'e Court willintervene. That is and ought to be a difficult onus for anappiicant to discharge. The Courts are not very [good ]atformulating or evaluating policy. Sometimes when theCourts have intervened on policy Page ?OLI [grounds ]theCourt's view of the range of policies open under thestatute or of what is unreasonable policy has not [got]pubtic acceptance. On the contrarlr, curial views of policyhave been subjected to stringent criticism.

23. In Tamil Nadu Education Dept., Ministerial and GeneralSubordinate Services Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.,MANU/S C / O48O / 1979 , the Supreme Court while examining the scopeof interference by the Courts in public policy held that the Court

'1

cannot strike down a circular/Government Order or a [policy ][merely]because there is a variation or contrad.iction. The Court [observed:]"Life is sometimes contradiction and even [inconsistency ][is not ][always]a virtue. What is important is to know whether mala fides [vitiates ][or]irrational and extraneous factors fouls". In that decision the [Court]had observed :

"Once, the principle is found to be rational, the [fact ][that ][a]few freak instances of hardship may arise on either sidecannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the [policy.]Every cause claims a martyr and however, unhappy we beto see the seniors of yesterdays becoming the [juniors ][of]today, this is an a-rea where, absent arbitrariness [and]irrationality, the Court has to adopt a hands-off policy."

24. In Netai Bag and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., MANU/SC / 0604 /2000, the Supreme Court observed:

"The Court cannot strike down a policy decisiontaken by the government merely because it feelsthat Anr. decision would have been fairer or wiseror more scientific or logical."

F-

25. In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration and Ors.MANU/SC/OL89/2001, it has been held that in exercise of theirpowers of judicial review, the Courts do not ordinarily interfere withpolicy decisions of the executive unless the policy"can be faulted onthe ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness orunfairness etc. If the policy cannot be touched on any of thesegrounds, the mere fact that it may affect the interests of a party doesnot justi$z invalidating the policy. In State of Himachal Pradesh andAnr. v. Padam Dev and Ors. MANU/SC/0329/2OO2, ttre SupremeCourt held that unless a policy decision is demonstrably capricious orarbitrary and not informed by any reason or discriminatory .orinfringing any statute or the Constitution it cannot be a subject ofjudicial interference under the provisions of Articles 32, 226 and L36of the Constitution. This Court cannot ordinarily interfere inadministrative matters, since the administrative authorities arespecialists in matters relating to the administration. The court doesnot have the orpertise in such matters, and ordinarily should leavesuch matters to the discretion of the administrative authorities. It is F{'-I

v

only in rare and exceptional cases, where the Wednesbury principleapplies, ttrat the Court should interfere.

26. No doubt in the present case the policy decision is that of aneducational institution and not of the Government, but in my opinionthere is no real difference between the policy decisions of theGovernment and the policy decisions of other bodies so far as theprinciple enunciated above is concerned. Consequently the policydecision of the educational institution in fixing the criteria or policyfor allocating the elective subject cannot be said to be so outrageousin defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensibleperson could have arrived at it. The educational institution has tosafeguard and uphold its reputation and at the same time it does notwant to ignore those students who are more meritorious than otherfor a particular elective subject. In my opinion ttre educationalinstitution has orpertise in the matter and the Court should not strikedown administrative decisions solely on the grounds as canvassed bythe petitioner.

-1I

f

27. It is well setfled that in academic/educational matters Courtsshould be reluctant to interfere as has been held in Rajendra PrasadMatlrur v. Karnataka University, MANU/SC/0107 /L986, J. P.Kulshreshtra v. Allahabad University, MANIJ/SC/0066/1980,University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, IVIANU/SC/O268/ 1963, etc. InTIVIA Pai Foundation and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.MANU/SC/O9O5/2O02 the Supreme Court observed vide para 55:-

"the essence of a private educational institution isthe autonomy that the institution must have in itsmandgement and administration. There,necessarily, has to be a difference in theadministration of private unaided institutions andthe Government-aided institutions. Whereas in thelatter case, the Government will have greater say inadministration, including admissions and fixing offees, in the case of private unaided institutions,maximum autonomy in the day-to-dayadministration has to be with the private unaidedinstitutions. Bureaucratic or governmentalinterference in the administraton of such €ulinstitution will underrnine its independence."

28. The respondent no.lisan educational institution which isaffiliated to the UniversityofDelhi and these principles shall beapplicable to this institution also.

-f

r

29. If the students are given complete liberty to choose the optionalsubject of ttreir choice, irrespective of their merit, then it might lead toan anomalous situation where all the students, irrespective of theirmarks, may choose for the same optional subject and in such asituation assigning all the students same subject may lead to anumber of problems including overcrowding in classrooms. Thereforegiving such a liberty to the students is not justifiable and restrictingthe number of seats in a particular elective subject can not be termedarbitrary or illegal or contrary to the prospectus or rules of therespondent no.1.

30. The case of Dr.Sanjeev Dhadhwal(supra) is distinguishable asin that case the practice adopted by the Institute in determining tJ:eeligibility criteria was contrary to the scheme.provided specifically inthe prospectus. In those circumstances the Court had held that theInstitute should have acted according to the contents of theProspectus and should not have adopted a practice contrary to thesame. In the case in hand there is no such ambiguity as thewP(C) 1s383 of 2006Page 23 of25of25

Page 23 of25of25

{r

f-

prospectus is silent on the mode of allotting the elective subjects tothe students and the eligibility is governed only by tJ'e rule as framedby the Academic Advisory Committee which has been uniformlyapplied without any kind of discrimination. Since there is no conflictand the rules have been uniformly applied, the criteria or policycannot be held as erroneous, illegal or arbitrary. No arbitrariness inthe acts of ttre respondents have been pointed out by the petitioner inorder to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. The respondents have evolved and applied thepolicy uniformly to all the students. In the Prospectus, informationthe students and the eligibility is governed only by tJ'e rule as framedby the Academic Advisory Committee which has been uniformlyapplied without any kind of discrimination. Since there is no conflictand the rules have been uniformly applied, the criteria or policycannot be held as erroneous, illegal or arbitrary. No arbitrariness inthe acts of ttre respondents have been pointed out by the petitioner inorder to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. The respondents have evolved and applied thepolicy uniformly to all the students. In the Prospectus, informationregarding admission is given only in brief. Once the rules of eligibitityare followed strictly and applied uniformly ft9r the petitioner cannotsucceed in impugning them. The contention of the petitioner that Ms.Varnita Gill was allocated the ['Developmental ]journalism' as theelective paper despite her scoring less marks than the petitioner iselective paper despite her scoring less marks than the petitioner isalso unsustainable as she had 970/1950 marks whereas tllepetitioner had 953/ 1950 marks.petitioner had 953/ 1950 marks.

l I

t"

31. The contention of the petitioner that the students were asked togive five preference of the elective subject which they wanted tochoose as elective paper so that if they wish they can change theiroption in case they find the first option difiicult is also untenable inthe facts and circumstance. The students will have such an optiononly according to their merit and if the seats are available. In any caseon this ground the petitioner is not entifled for elective subject'Development Journalism' as claimed by her considering her relativemerit. The petitioner has not been discriminated and has been'allocated elective subject as per her merit.

32. In the totality of facts and circumstances, there are no groundsto interfere with the decision of the respondents in allocating adifferent elective subject to the petitoner, then her first [option]'Development Journalism'. Consequenfly, the Rule is discharged andthe writ petition is dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear theirown costs.

?tn-.--..$--tDecember ANIL KUIT,IAR J./ ,2OOG LJ'sdp' \- \t: ['tr'tJ*]x \zr. \rr"- 6Cw''ro [+,4 ]['',*]wp(c).Isja3 of 2006 Page 25 of25ffin-oo7!\ n\\. \g