her, with her parents, at Rohini, the petitioner shifted to her cousin’s house at Bihari Colony, Shahdara. Though the petitioner could have, by dint of her merit, secured admission in other prestigious colleges, she took admission, in the Respondent No 2 - College (in that case) as it was close to her place of residence at Rohini. This Court also took notice of the fact that the distance between Shahdara and the Hansraj College (to which the petitioner desired to migrate) was much less then the distance between Shahdara and the Respondent No 2 - College. In Aarushi Jerath v. University of Delhi, (2010) 119 DRJ 390 , the ground cited was that the petitioner was actively involved in dramatics, and that the Hindu College, to which she desired to migrate, had a well-organised and popular dramatic society, unlike the college in which she was studying at that time. She also relied on the fact that the Hindu College was more “prestigious”, and had better future job prospects for her, than the college in which she was studying at the time. In Himani Sharma v. University of Delhi, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3547, the petitioner cited health grounds, stating that she was frequently falling sick and was not, therefore, in a position to commute every day, 60 to 70 km, to and from the college in which she was studying while the said college were situated at a distance of 30 km from her residence, the college, to which she desired to migrate, was situated at a distance of 12 km. In each of these cases, therefore, there was a compelling circumstance, cited by the student concerned, to support her, or his, claim for migration, which impressed this Court to grant relief.
