The Delhi High Court dismissed the plea filed by a judge who requested a transfer from a two-year LLM program to the three-year course provided by Delhi University. The judge sought this change to accommodate her professional role as a judicial officer while continuing her studies, but the court declined the petition.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that while the three-year LL.M. course at the university is designed for employed individuals, it doesn't explicitly allow students who secure employment midway through a two-year course to switch and leverage the three-year course to continue their studies alongside their job.

The court noted that the primary intent behind introducing the three-year LL.M. course indicates its specific focus on aiding working professionals. Justice Kaurav rejected the petition filed by Judge Chhaya Tyagi, who commenced her tenure in the Delhi Judicial Services on September 13, 2019, subsequent to completing the first year of the two-year LL.M. course at Delhi University.

She requested the university to permit her attendance in evening classes and to take the LL.M. second-year examination. As an alternative, she asked for a transfer to the three-year course. However, the court dismissed her plea, noting that the judge had previously submitted an undertaking to the university in accordance with the Information Bulletin's requirement. The bulletin stipulated that students enrolling in the two-year LL.M. course must submit an affidavit confirming they are not employed or involved in any gainful work.

“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.

The court emphasized that once an individual has engaged in the admission process following the terms and conditions outlined in the prospectus, they cannot subsequently contest or dispute the contents of that 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.

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

Click here to Read the Judgement/Orders