Judgment :- The petitioner, who is an Engineer Student now studying in Vth Semester, Mechanical Engineering in S,R.M. Engineering College, Kattankulathur on "Free seat" basis on merit quota has filed this writ petition praying this Court to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., the State of Tamil Nadu by the Secretary, Education Department and the Registrar, Anna University to accommodate him in the second respondent University, to join in the II B.E., Industrial Engineering course for the academic year 1994-95. He has also filed W.M.P. No. 24582 of 1994 in the said writ petition for an interim direction directing the second respondent to reserve a seat, and keep it vacant for the petitioner in the II B.E. Industrial Engineering Course for the academic year 1994-95 with the second respondent, Anna University pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit and proper. 2. The said writ petition was admitted and rule Nisi was issued on 15-9-1994. In the direction petition, notice was ordered returnable by three weeks on the same day. After service of notice on the respondents and number of adjournments, the said writ miscellaneous petition came up for orders and the Advocate appearing for all the parties asked me to dispose of the main writ petition itself and addressed their arguments. 3. The necessary facts for the disposal of this writ petition as could be gathered from the affidavit of the petitioner are these: The petitioner was allotted a seat at Sapthagiri College of Engineering, Harur, Dharmapuri District and then on his request, he was allotted a seat in S.R.M. Engineering College, Kattankulathur as a 1st year B.E. Student, Mechanical branch, in the year 1993-94. The said college is recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Government of India and affiliated to the Madras University. He has successfully completed his 1st year B.E. course in 1993-94 by passing in 1st class with distinction. 4. The said college is recognised by the All India Council for Technical Education, Government of India and affiliated to the Madras University. He has successfully completed his 1st year B.E. course in 1993-94 by passing in 1st class with distinction. 4. The petitioner submitted his application to the Director of Technical Education through his College on 1-6-1994 to the Anna University for his transfer from S.R.M. Engineering College to the Anna University opting the II year B.E. in Industrial Engineering Course, which is the special course conducted only by the Anna University, Madras throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. His college as well' as the third respondent i.e. the Director of Technical Education have given their consent for transfer. However, the petitioner was not called for counseling even though he possessed necessary qualification and merit. The grievance of the petitioner is that students who had obtained lesser marks than him had been selected for the II B.E., Industrial Engineering Course without pre- scribing any norms and 19 students from Anna University and from other Colleges have been admitted by the second respondent by way of transfer for the year 1994-95 out of which two students have left and those two seats have not been filled up and they are vacant and the petitioner could be allotted one seat out of that and the second respondent failed and neglected to follow the norms prescribed by the Government. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has grossly violated the norms prescribed by the Government and virtually it will amount to colourable exercise of the power and without jurisdiction. After number of 'presentation by the petitioner, he was informed orally by the University office that there is a resolution to the effect that a student studying in a self- financed college, though the allotment was made on 'merit' basis' by 'free seat basis' is not eligible for being accommodated in the second respondent University. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the second respondent is opposed to the principles of natural justice and gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and it amounts to colourable exercise of power within the mischief of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he has filed the above writ petition for his redressal. 5. Hence, he has filed the above writ petition for his redressal. 5. After service of notice, the second respondent through the Registrar filed counter-affidavit in which it is stated that Anna University is a creature of Anna University Act (Act 30) of 1978 and, there- fore, it is an autonomous institution with its own curriculum, syllabus and standard etc. Section 5(h) of the Act gives power to recognise an institution and under Section 6(2)(a) of the Act, the University is not obliged to admit to any course of study any person who does not possess the prescribed academic qualification or standard. According to the said affidavit, the said University has not recognised the S.R.M. Engineering College and no migration is allowed from self-financing College to any Government College or Government aided College and all candidates admitted to anyone of the Colleges coming under the control of the Director of Technical Education can be transferred only to another similar college. Anna University has the absolute right to either admit a candidate seeking migration during the middle of the course or refuse the same and no one can seek migration to the said University as of right. In the additional counter-affidavit, the Registrar has further sworn that the University is governed by the provisions of the Act, statutes, Regulation and norms framed under the Act and hence, it is not governed by any practice, procedure or rules framed by the 1st or 3rd respondent in respect of governing Government aided and self financing colleges. In the said University, the branches are allotted at the time of admission in the 1 st year itself unlike in other colleges. As far as 2 vacancies are concerned, the additional counter-affidavit says that those vacancies could not be filled up since the classes for third semester commenced on 1-8- 1994 itself. Further, the petitioner cannot be migrated to the second respondent as no self- financing Engineering College has been recognised by the said University under Section 5(h) of the Act for the purpose of migration. Admittedly, branches are allotted in the second respondent in the 1st year itself unlike in other colleges and the third semester to which the petitioner seeks admission by migration is already over and no migration can be permitted midstream especially when the course is a technical course. 6. Admittedly, branches are allotted in the second respondent in the 1st year itself unlike in other colleges and the third semester to which the petitioner seeks admission by migration is already over and no migration can be permitted midstream especially when the course is a technical course. 6. To the said additional counter affidavit the petitioner filed a reply affidavit wherein he has stated that all the rules and regulations of the Madras University are followed by his college, the curriculum and syllabus of the S.R.M. Engineering College are the same as Government College of Engineering, Salem. Even though the curriculum and syllabus followed in Annamalai University are not the same in Anna University, some students have been taken from Annamalai University in the same (sic) and even students have been accommodated in the 5th semester from other Universities. He has further sworn that whenever any student is taken from another University or from any other Government College, the respondent University used to evaluate the subjects already studied by the student with that of the syllabus followed in Anna University and accordingly, programme is charted to equalise the difference by directing the students to earn the credit. 7. The second respondent filed further additional counter wherein the Registrar has stated that apart from the petitioner, 14 candidates from Government and Government aided colleges and Annamalai University had sought admission to B.E. Industrial Engineering (pre semester) during 1994-95 out of which 8 students who have secured more number of marks than the petitioner have been selected. He has also pointed out that under the rules of the said University, one should have 75% attendance in each semester to be eligible to take the semester examination He has given reasons why the 2 vacancies could not be filled up. He has pointed out that migration of students in the 5th semester could not be done by in exceptional case and that too only if the candidate has studied the same branch to which he seeks migration to this institution. In fact, so far no candidate seeking admission to a different branches than what he had studied in 1st and 2nd semester have been allowed to migrate to the 5th semester. Since the petitioner has not studied Industrial Engineering in 1st, 2nd and 3rd semester, the question of his migration to 5th semester does not arise. 8. In fact, so far no candidate seeking admission to a different branches than what he had studied in 1st and 2nd semester have been allowed to migrate to the 5th semester. Since the petitioner has not studied Industrial Engineering in 1st, 2nd and 3rd semester, the question of his migration to 5th semester does not arise. 8. Finally, the Dean for Entrance examination and admission in the Anna University has filed supplemental counter-affidavit wherein he has stated among other things that on 15-7-1992 the syndicate has passed a resolution not to permit any transfer / migration of any student of any college other than Government and Government aided colleges. Even in the previous years students from self- financing colleges were not considered for migration. He has further stated that 5 applicants from Government / Government aided institutions who had applied for migration could not be considered since the vacancies arose during the middle of the III semester and since any migration at that stage would result in the candidates loosing attendance and falling below the minimum required percentage of attendance prescribed under the rules of the University. He submitted that the rule regarding migration cannot be relaxed in the case of the petitioner alone as suggested by the Court. He further submitted that even though the petitioner has prayed for migration to III semester now he wants migration to 5th semester which cannot be granted since the students in IV semester B.E. (Industrial Engineering) have already been assessed and expressed that petitioner will face major academic convulsions to cope up with already covered syllabus, especially when he seeks migration to a different course which may lead to the failure of the candidates in many subjects. Under these circumstances, he has stated that in no case the rule can be relaxed in favour of the petitioner and that too overlooking the claims of the candidates from Government/Government aided institution who have already applied for migration and who are above the petitioner in merit but could not be permitted to migrate since the vacancies arose in the middle of the III Semester for the reasons set out in the counter-affidavit. On all these grounds, the second respondent submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed as devoid of merits. 9. Heard the arguments of learned Advocates on both sides and perused and relevant records. Mr. K. Alagiriswamy, Senior Advocate appearing for Mr. On all these grounds, the second respondent submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed as devoid of merits. 9. Heard the arguments of learned Advocates on both sides and perused and relevant records. Mr. K. Alagiriswamy, Senior Advocate appearing for Mr. W.C. Sridhar on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the resolution passed by the second respondent University to the effect that students studying in self financed colleges though the allotment is made by first respondent on "merit basis" under "free seat basis" are not eligible of being accommodated in the second respondent is opposed to the principles of natural justice and is a gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under .the Constitution of India and it amounts to colourable exercise of power within the mischief of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The next contention of the learned Senior counsel was that it was not open to the second respondent to select students as they like even though the petitioner has been given seat on merit and free seat basis and there cannot be any discrimination among the students studying either in the self-financed colleges or Government Colleges or Government aided colleges as long as the seats have been allotted on "Merit and free seat basis" as the same will amount to violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. He further' submitted that whenever any student is taken from another University or from any other Government College, the respondent University used to evaluate the subjects already studied by the student with that of the syllabus followed in Anna University and accordingly programme is charted out to equalise the differences by directing the student to earn the credit and the petitioner being a student from the college affiliated to Madras University should be given' that benefit. The petitioner has been selected on the basis of the merit-cum-free seat basis in the common entrance examination conducted by the third respondent and hence action of the second respondent in refusing to migrate him to its University is arbitrary. 10. Learned Senior counsel invited my attention to Regulation Nos. 10(a), 12, 15(a) 19 and 27 of the Anna University Regulation 1992 dealing with summer term programmes, Maximum Duration of the Programme, attendance, substitute examination and cause repetition. 10. Learned Senior counsel invited my attention to Regulation Nos. 10(a), 12, 15(a) 19 and 27 of the Anna University Regulation 1992 dealing with summer term programmes, Maximum Duration of the Programme, attendance, substitute examination and cause repetition. Placing reliance on the decision of Unnikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1994 AIR(SC) 2178 (sic) learned counsel submitted that there is no distinction between self financing colleges and Government/Government aided colleges as long as the candidate has been selected on the basis of "merit basis" and "free seat basis" out of a common entrance examination. He pointed out that the action of the second respondent is arbitrary as the said University has taken students who have lesser marks than the students who have been left out. There is no criterion for election. He has also pointed out that the second respondent has taken students from Annamalai University which is not a Government college and hence there is no justification to refuse migration of the petitioner from the recognised private college. Finally, he submitted that the University has not absolute right to allow migration. 11. On the other hand, Mr. M.P. Subbayya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Rao and Reddy on behalf of the second respondent repelling all the contentions of the petitioner's advocate submitted that there is no provision either under the Anna University Act or Statutes, Ordinance or Regulation framed thereunder providing for migration to Anna University from other Universities, Institution or Colleges. He further submitted that the petitioner who could not get direct entry into the Anna University or merits now seeks to get into indirectly by way of migration. He pointed out that students who have secured higher marks than the petitioner alone have been taken. 12. His next submission was that the petitioner has already completed his 4th semester and now he wants migration to 5th semester which cannot be possible in view of his prayer in the writ petition to joint in the II B.E. Industrial Engineering Course for the academic year 1994-95. He invited my attention to the fact that unlike in other Universities and Colleges in the State, Anna University allots branches in the 1st year itself. He invited my attention to the fact that unlike in other Universities and Colleges in the State, Anna University allots branches in the 1st year itself. As far as two vacancies which arose during the middle of 3 semester the answer of the learned counsel was that it could not have been given to anybody due to attendance problem and also on the ground that there is no provision either under the Act or statutes, ordinance or regulations conferring a right in the candidate seeking migration to count the attendance out in by them in the other University / Institution towards attendance in Anna University. 13. Learned Advocate Mr. Subbayya has contended that for the issue of Mandamus, the petitioner must establish that there is a statutory obligation on the University to permit migration and that there is statutory right conferred on the petitioner to seek migration. His further contention was that Anna University is a creature of a statute and is an autonomous institution with its own curriculum, syllabus and Section 5(b) of the Act has conferred the University with then power to recognise an institution of higher learning for such purposes as the University may determine and to withdraw such recognition. Under Section 6(2)(a) the Universities is not obliged to admit to any course of study any person who does not possess the prescribed academic qualification or standard. He coloured his argument by submitting that even assuming without conceding that the petitioner has a legal right to seek migration to Anna University there are five other applicants seeking migration who are above the petitioner in merit. 14. The learned counsel placed reliance on number of decisions in support of his contentions of which I will refer to few of them which are very relevant for the purpose of the present case. (1)Cal. Gas Co. 14. The learned counsel placed reliance on number of decisions in support of his contentions of which I will refer to few of them which are very relevant for the purpose of the present case. (1)Cal. Gas Co. (Prop) Ltd. v. State of W.B. in which the Supreme Court has stated as follows: "The Article in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply there -under, but it is implicit in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief asked for must be one to enforce a legal right." * (ii) In Shivendra Bahadur v. Nalanda College in paragraph 5 at page 1211 the Supreme Court has observed as follows: "A great deal of controversy was raised before us as to whether the Statutes framed by the University under Section 20 of the University of Bihar Act have or have not the force of law and whether a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution can issue against the Governing Body of the College i.e., whether the appellant has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents. In order that mandamus may issue to compel the respondents to do something it must be shown that the statutes impose a legal duty and the appellant has a legal right under the Statutes to enforce its performance." * (iii) In the Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisher- men Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipani Singh in Paragraph 15 at page 152 the Supreme Court observed as follows: "Re: Contention 3: This contention is also well founded and must prevail. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of Mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The Chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunal and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. The Chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunal and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows therefore, that in order that Mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance." * (iv) In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anupam Gupta the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 at page 938 observed as follows: "Considering from this point of view to maintain excellence the course have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also works an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view, we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained." * (v) Shrish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- Learned counsel were unable to show that a right of migration/ transfer of a student from one medical college to another inheres to a student dehors the conditions subject to which the migration/transfer is permitted. It is also not disputed that in case a recognised medical college chooses not to take any student by migration/ transfer from another medical college, it cannot be compelled to do so. It follows that unless a recognised medical college offers to admit by migration/ transfer some students from another medical college, no student can claim as of right admission by migration/ transfer to that medical college. The limited question, therefore, is whether a recognised medical college when it decides to admit by migration/ transfer some students after passing the first MBBS examination from another medical college it can restrict its choice only to students who were admitted to, and have passed the first MBBS examination from a recognised medical colleges. The limited question, therefore, is whether a recognised medical college when it decides to admit by migration/ transfer some students after passing the first MBBS examination from another medical college it can restrict its choice only to students who were admitted to, and have passed the first MBBS examination from a recognised medical colleges. Undoubtedly, it is one of the recommendations on Graduate Council of India which is being acted upon by recognised medical colleges while taking students by migration/transfer. 7. The recommendations on Graduate Medical Education are by an expert body of the Medical Council of India which is entrusted with certain statutory functions relating to medical education by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Medical Council of India having chosen to accept these recommendations, such a condition of eligibility for migration/ transfer from one Medical College to another adopted by the recognised medical colleges cannot be termed unreasonable or arbitrary. The qualitative difference between the non-recognised medical colleges generally as compared to the medical colleges recognised by the Medical Council of India, the recognition being based on certain objective standards relating to medical education, and the competitive merit forming the basis for admission to a recognised medical college justify as reasonable such a restriction for grant of permission for migration/transfer from one medical college to another. One of the purposes served by such a restriction is to permit this inter college movement of students, after passing the first MBBS Examination only between students of recognised medical colleges and to prevent indirect entry into recognised medical colleges of students who had failed initially to secure entry into a recognised medical college. Movement of students between recognised medical colleges only is quite often to facilitates the students thereof in certain circumstances without conferring on them any additional benefit after the initial entry to a medical college duly recognised. Viewed in this manner, such a condition of eligibility for migration/ transfer to a recognised medical college permitting only students of recognised medical colleges is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. There being no inherent right in a student admitted to a non-recognised medical college to claim such migration/ transfer, this restriction for migration/transfer imposed by the recognised medical colleges on the basis of the re- commendations adopted by the Medical Council of India, there is no foundation for the claim for such migration/transfer made by the students of non-recognised medical colleges. " (vi) In Ashish Kumar v. Secretary, Medical Health and Education, Lucknow (FB;) reads thus: The issue that confronts us, at the very threshold is whether there enures, in a student of a Medical College, an inherent right to seek admission to another Medical College by migration/transfer. Put as broadly as this, it cannot but admit of only one answer, namely, in the negative, there being no 'statutory provision, rule or even any legal principle to support a claim to any such right. Such was also the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Shirish Govind Prabhudesai v. State of Maharashtra where it was held that there is no right to migration/ transfer of students from one Medical College to another dehors the conditions subject to which migration/ transfer is permitted. The Court went on further to say (para 6). "It is also not disputed that in case a recognised medical college chooses not to take any student by migration/ transfer from another medical college, it cannot be compelled to do so. It follows that unless a recognised medical college offers to admit by migration/transfer some students from another medical college no student can claim as of right admission by migration/ transfer to that medical college." * xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 28. The inevitable conclusion that emerges is that no student has an inherent right to obtain admission by migration/transfer to another Medical College. Such admission, as the Supreme Court in Prabhu Desai's case (supra) put it, being "subject to which (conditions) Migration/transfer is permitted." (vii) An unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 517 of 1993 (Sumitha Srinivasan v. The Registrar, Anna University, Madras) paragraph 5 reads thus: "The question for consideration is as to whether at the close of the first semester, the appellant could have been admitted. .It may be relevant to notice that it is a technical course leading to B. Tech. in Industrial Bie-Technology. .It may be relevant to notice that it is a technical course leading to B. Tech. in Industrial Bie-Technology. More or less, under the similar circumstances, when the High Court issued a direction to admit a studerit to a medical course, the Supreme Court interfered with such a direction and held in Anupam Gupta's case as follows: "Considering from this point of view to maintain excellence the courses have to be, commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so the students would have full course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also works an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained. Similarly, the Subodh Nautiyal v. State of U.P. the Supreme Court held 'that even though the course had started in Sept., the course being a technical course, to admit a student 4 months after the commencement of the course, would not at all be correct. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the learned single Judge is not justified in refusing to grant the relief." * (viii) An unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1409 of 1994 dated 23-12-1994 (G. Rajesh v. The State of Tamil Nadu) observed as follows: "We have already pointed out that Anna University is established under the Act. It is governed by the provisions of the Act relating to Syndicate Academic Council, the course to be conducted, admissions of the course and also the eligibility for admission to each course. Section 6 of the Act relates to admission to the University. It is governed by the provisions of the Act relating to Syndicate Academic Council, the course to be conducted, admissions of the course and also the eligibility for admission to each course. Section 6 of the Act relates to admission to the University. Sub-section (I) states that the University shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and the statutes, be open to all persons, sub-section (2) specifically states that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall require the university, (a).to admit to any course of study any person who do not possess the prescribed academic qualification or standard; (b) to retain on the rolls of the University any student whose academic record is below the minimum standard required for the award of a degree, diploma or other academic distinction; or (c) to admit any person or retain any student whose conduct is prejudicial to the interest of the University by .the rights and privileges of other students and teachers." * 15. After hearing the rival, submissions, perusing the relevant documents and going through the decisions referred above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot succeed in the writ petition for the following reasons. First of all, as per the ratio of the decisions cited supra unless the petitioner establishes that there is a fundamental or statutory right conferred on him to seek migration and also there is a statutory obligation on the University to permit migration the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus. The petitioner has no legal right in the matter of transfer and the University has no legal or statutory obligation to permit migration. Further, there is no provision either under the Anna University Act or statutes, ordinances or regulations framed thereunder, providing for migration to Anna University from other Universities, Institutions or colleges. # Anna University is a creature of a statute and is an autonomous Institute with its own curriculum, syllabus and standard etc. # Section 5(h) of the Anna University Act has conferred the University with the power to recognise an institution of higher learning for such purpose as the university may determine and to withdraw such recognition. Under Section 6(2)(a) the University is not obliged to admit to any course of study any person who does not possess the prescribed academic qualification or standard. 16. Under Section 6(2)(a) the University is not obliged to admit to any course of study any person who does not possess the prescribed academic qualification or standard. 16. Even though the petitioner has sought for migration to 3rd semester B.E. (Industrial Engineering) now he has completed 4 semesters and he has to be migrated to 5th semester. Even the 5th semester has started in the first week of August. Under these circumstances, it may not be even in the interest of the petitioner to migrate him to 5th semester that too to a new branch of subject. He is given mechanical Engineering and is studying the said branch and he wants to join Industrial Engineering. According to the learned Advocate for the University, unlike in other colleges in the 1st year itself branches are allotted in Anna University. Even though there are two vacancies Court cannot compel the second respondent to take the petitioner in the middle of the semester as held by the decision referred above. There will be problem of attendance as the students have to attend minimum working days. The V semester has already started. This is a technical course and to permit the petitioner to migrate to V semester to a new branch would not be in the interest of petitioner. 17. There is a resolution passed by the Syndicate dated 25-2-1995, which reads as follows: "100.11.3. Considered the existing provision regarding the migration of students from other Engineering Colleges to this University. Resolved to adopt the following policy, in supersession of the policy already evolved in Res. No. 87.217 and modified in Res. No. 83.11.2. regarding the migration of student from other Engineering College to this University. 1. Migration of students may be permitted only in the case of students studying in Government/ Government aided Institution in the State of Tamil Nadu, provided the student has secured admission from a merit list taking into account the marks of the qualifying and the marks of entrance examination. 2. Students who have secured admission in the Government Aided Engineering Colleges under Management Quota/ Founders Quota should not be permitted to migrate to this University. 3. Migration may be permitted only at the end of 1st year of study subject to the availability of vacancies and their satisfactory performance in the first year." * 18. 2. Students who have secured admission in the Government Aided Engineering Colleges under Management Quota/ Founders Quota should not be permitted to migrate to this University. 3. Migration may be permitted only at the end of 1st year of study subject to the availability of vacancies and their satisfactory performance in the first year." * 18. However, the objection of the learned Advocate for the second respondent that the present request of the petitioners that he should be permitted to join V semester cannot be granted in view of his prayer in the writ petition wherein he has asked for migration to II B.E. has to be over ruled on the ground that the Court can give permission to mould the relief at any time and such a relief could be granted. No other ground is urged before me. 19. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.