ORDER : C. Hari Shankar, J. 1. All these matters involve a common issue. 2. The petitioners in these cases are students who completed their first and second semester of various courses from other Universities and applied for migration to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Respondent No. 1 in all these petitions and referred to, hereinafter, as the "the University") 3. While their applications were pending approval with the University, the students were permitted, by colleges affiliated to the University, such as the Vivekananda College, to undergo classes with them. Pursuant thereto, these students, have, in these cases, attended their third semester classes in the colleges affiliated to the University and are at the threshold of having to write their third semester examinations. 4. At this stage, they were issued communications, sometime in November, 2018, by the University, refusing their requests for migration. 5. It is in these circumstances that the students have approached this Court, challenging the decision of the University, rejecting their applications for migration. 6. Given the number of cases involved, and the fact that the examination is scheduled to be held in three days, hence, with the intervening days being Saturday and Sunday, it is not possible to pass individual orders in these cases, or deal with the individual facts of each case. In any event, the question of law in all these matters is common, and, today, I am concerned only with the issue of grant of interim relief. 7. The interim relief, sought by the students in all these cases, is permission to write their third semester examinations, in view of the fact that they have, as already noted hereinabove, attended their third semester classes in colleges affiliated to the University. 8. Protracted arguments were advanced, with the petitioner- students being represented by learned Senior counsel, Mr. Rakesh Munjal, and Mr. R.K. Saini, as well as by the University and the colleges, with the University being represented by learned Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Maninder Acharya and learned Senior counsel Mr. Mukul Talwar, and the college being represented by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior counsel. They have been heard at length yesterday. 9. The submissions advanced at the Bar, to a great extent, dealt with the merits of the main controversy in the writ petitions'. 10. Maninder Acharya and learned Senior counsel Mr. Mukul Talwar, and the college being represented by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned Senior counsel. They have been heard at length yesterday. 9. The submissions advanced at the Bar, to a great extent, dealt with the merits of the main controversy in the writ petitions'. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to highlight the perceived unfairness in the decision of the University, at the nth hour, rejected their applications for migrations, whereas learned counsel for the University sought to submit that the rejection of the students' requests for migration was on valid grounds, and that the colleges, which had permitted them to undergo third semester classes, without their requests for migration having been allowed by the University, acted with manifest arbitrariness. Ms. Acharya also attempted to point out that, in all these cases the students were young adults, in many case attending LL.B classes, and were expected, therefore, to be aware of the law. If, therefore, they attended classes with the college, even before their requests for migration were allowed by the University, they did so, at their own peril. She further submits that the requests for migration were not bonafide, but only an attempt at obtaining, through a back door, admission into colleges affiliated with the University, where the students could not secure such admission on merit. Ms. Acharya also sought to highlight certain aspects which, according to her, indicated that the entire migratory exercise was orchestrated, and lacking in bonafides. 11. I had made it clear, during the course of hearing, that I was not intending, at this stage, to inter into the merits of the students' requests for migration, or of the decision of the University to reject the said requests. 12. The record clearly indicates that the issue is not easily answered one way or the other, and that a holistic and comprehensive exercise of appreciating all the facts would be necessary, before the actual dispute, at the core of the controversy, could be resorted. Even so, it is not advisable to keep this issue pending, involving, as it does, the career, fate and future of the students. 13. Notices also stand issued in these writ petitions, and counter affidavits have been filed both by the University and the colleges; in the case of University, two counter affidavits one "short" and another "detailed" stand filed. 14. 13. Notices also stand issued in these writ petitions, and counter affidavits have been filed both by the University and the colleges; in the case of University, two counter affidavits one "short" and another "detailed" stand filed. 14. These writ petitions are, therefore, set down for hearing and disposal on 15th December, 2018, which is a Saturday. This is for the simple reason that, given the volume of material could be examined, and the impassioned nature of arguments, advanced by all parties, it would be impractical to hear these matters on a normal working day. The consent of all learned counsel, for this arrangement, was already taken yesterday, and learned counsel have very fairly agreed to accommodate the court in this regard. 15. Without addressing, therefore, the merits of the main controversy regarding entitlement of the petitioners to migration, I proceed only to examine the prayer for interim relief, i.e. for the students to be permitted to write their third semester examinations, to be conducted by the University on 26th November, 2018. 16. It is trite and well settled that the three criteria, governing grant of interim relief are the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and the issue of whether the loss that would ensue, were such relief not to be granted, would be irreparable or not. 17. A prima facie case, meriting grant of the prayer, of the petitioners, for being permitted to write the third semester examination, in my opinion, undoubtedly exists. The petitioners have attended the third semester classes, and the colleges which permitted them to do so are, undoubtedly, affiliated to the University, though, today, the University may seek to dissociate itself from the said acts of the college. It is also sought to be submitted, by the learned ASG that action for disaffiliating the colleges for their misdeeds, was also under contemplation. 18. That, however, is, in my view, quite another matter. A student, who seeks admission in a college affiliated to a University, does not really distinguish between the college and the University. He seeks admission in the college as a college affiliated to the University, whose degree, or other qualifications, the student desires to acquire. 18. That, however, is, in my view, quite another matter. A student, who seeks admission in a college affiliated to a University, does not really distinguish between the college and the University. He seeks admission in the college as a college affiliated to the University, whose degree, or other qualifications, the student desires to acquire. Having been permitted, by the college, which was - and continues to be - affiliated to the University, to attend classes in its precincts, the students, in my view, certainly have a prima facie case for being permitted to write the examinations. 19. Adverting, next, to the second and third criteria governing grant of interim relief, i.e. the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the learned ASG sought to submit that, even if the students were not to be allowed to undertake the examinations to be held on 26th November, 2018, the University, was, nevertheless, willing to hold a separate examination, for them, were they to succeed in their writ petitions. 20. This, in my view, is easier said than done, though the offer is, undoubtedly, very fair. 21. It is, in my view, impracticable to permit a situation where one group of students attend the examinations to be held on 26th November, 2018, and the petitioner "migratees" are subjected to another examination, to be held later. Besides obvious operational handicaps, which may arise in implementing such an arrangement, an issue that would invariably arise, in such a case, would be whether the students have been equally placed, or not. It is not inconceivable that a fresh spate of litigation may germinate, were such an arrangement to be permitted. That apart, it is an inherently avoidable situation, to subject students, undertaking an examination, to two different sets of question papers, which is something which should be resorted to only in the most extreme of situations. 22. I do not think that the present case is one which calls for such a measure. 23. This is for the simple reason that the grant of permission, to the students, who have admittedly already undergone classes with colleges affiliated to the University, to give their third semester examinations, does not, in my view, prejudice the University in any manner. 24. I have repeatedly sought, of the learned ASG, an answer to the query as to how such an arrangement would be prejudicial to the University. 24. I have repeatedly sought, of the learned ASG, an answer to the query as to how such an arrangement would be prejudicial to the University. With greatest respect, I have not received a satisfactory response to the query and what the learned ASG sought to impress, time and again, was that allowing students to give the examinations would dilute the standards of education in the University, which, she submitted, were required to be maintained, especially given the enviable reputation that the University enjoys in the estimation of the general public. 25. I am unable to agree. 26. The petitioners are all students, as I have already stated repeatedly above, who have undertaken their third semester studies with colleges affiliated with the University. Allowing them to give their third semester examinations does not, in my view, result in irreparable loss to the University, or dilute its standard of education in any manner, especially as the said arrangement is only being made as a one-time measure subject, to the outcome of the writ petitions which would be heard on 15th December, 2018. 27. If interim reliefs, were, on the other hand, not be granted, the students would lose the chance of sitting in the third semester examinations, to be held on 26th November, 2018. It is little succor, then, to allow them to sit in a separate examination. The court cannot afford to lose sight of the reality that these students, who are at the threshold of their careers, subjected to all the pressures and uncertainties which plague students these days, at such a stage. It is but obvious that if the students are not allowed to give their third semesters examinations, on 26th November, 2018, having studied therefore, they would be thoroughly demoralized. Allowing them to do so, on the other hand, would enable them to put up their optimum performances in the examinations, and would also result, as already noted hereinabove, in no serious prejudice to the University itself. 28. Keeping all the issues on merits, regarding the entitlement, of the students, to migrate to the University, and the justification of the decision of the University to reject the said requests alike, I deem it appropriate to permit the students, at this interim stage, to give their third semester examinations, to be held on 26th November, 2018. 29. 28. Keeping all the issues on merits, regarding the entitlement, of the students, to migrate to the University, and the justification of the decision of the University to reject the said requests alike, I deem it appropriate to permit the students, at this interim stage, to give their third semester examinations, to be held on 26th November, 2018. 29. This shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, which are themselves set down for hearing on 15th December, 2018. 30. I may note here, that Ms. Acharya has sought to state that, in the case of some students, there were glaring discrepancies, such as multiple answer sheets for the same qualifying examinations, etc. She was, however, not able to localize such cases; they appear, however, to be few and far between. 31. Mr. Rakesh Munjal, learned Senior counsel, submitted that such a situation did exist in the case of the fifth petitioner, whom he was representing, namely, Gautam Krishnan, and he submitted, therefore, that he had instructions to withdraw the writ petition qua the said petitioner, who, accordingly, stands deleted from the array of parties therein. 32. Apart from the said instance, as the present order merely allows the students to give the examinations, I do not think it is necessary to proceed to deal with the case student by student and examine all the documents at this stage. 33. For the above reasons, the interim prayer, of the petitioners-students, to be allowed to give their third semester examinations, to be conducted by the University on 26th November, 2018, is allowed. 34. This arrangement is being made solely keeping in mind the interests of the students, who have already attended the third semester classes. This arrangement will not result in creation of any equities, either for or against the students, whose entitlement to migration would be decided, entirely independent of, and uninfluenced by, the order being passed today. 35. The University is, accordingly, directed to process the eases of the petitioners, and complete all formalities, including issuance, to them, of the requisite admit cards, etc., so as to enable them to participate in the examinations to be held on 26th November, 2018, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 36. These applications stand-allowed to the above extent. 37. The operative portion of this order has been pronounced in court. 36. These applications stand-allowed to the above extent. 37. The operative portion of this order has been pronounced in court. As today is Friday, and it may not be possible to have a certified copy of this order ready before the examinations are held, the parties are, directed to act on the order, as pronounced in the open court in their presence.